Fallacies A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises. An error in reasoning. It is a mistake in reasoning that creates an illusion. No single theory can account for all fallacies.

TYPES OF FALLACIES FORMAL FALLACIES – committed in the structure of an argument. INFORMAL FALLACIES – identifiable by looking at the contents of an argument.

INFORMAL FALLACIES are more common and we commit them daily. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE occur where the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. The connection between premises and conclusion is emotional. It is key to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.

FALLACY OF APPEAL TO FORCE ‘ARGUMENTUM AS BACULUM’ : Coercion; harm is intended in the conclusion (Similar to the carrot and stick method)

APPEAL TO PITY Use of emotions, sentiments, taking recourse to emotionalism an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity.

APPEAL TO PEOPLE Direct approach – ‘ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM’ : Bandwagon, appeal to numbers Direct approach – b) Indirect approach – while addressing a person you appeal to a larger group that person may be affiliated.

ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON ‘ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM’ - dismissive on the basis of arguer not argument. AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE – Character assassination. b) AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Begins with abuse but respondent discredits opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.

ACCIDENT FALLACY when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited (directly or implicitly)in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion.

MISSING THE POINT FALLACY ‘IGNORATIO ELENCHI’ – ignorance of truth. When the premise only supports a certain conclusion, but then another conclusion, vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. There is no immediate connection.

RED HERRING FALLACY – “led astray” when arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He/she then finishes by drawing a conclusion not related. They then claim to have won the argument.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE ‘ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM’ – When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about the thing. Issue involves things incapable of being proved or yet to be proved.

APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM – An authority who lacks competence in subject but employs status or office to seek credibility.

FALSE CAUSE when link between premise and conclusion depends on some imagined casual link between the two. The effect is made the cause.

when an analogy is not strong enough to support a conclusion. WEAK ANALOGY FALLACY when an analogy is not strong enough to support a conclusion.

FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY Arises from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or conclusion (or both). When the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase. EQUIVOCATION – when a word carries two different senses in an argument. Such arguments are either invalid or have a sound standing. b) AMPHIBOLY – occurs when arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. It can be a mistake in grammar, punctuation, careless arrangement of words. Some can do it consciously.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION When the conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. Because parts have an attribute, the whole is assumed to be similar.

FALLACY OF DIVISION Opposite of fallacy of composition. Taking attributes of a whole group and imposing them on an individual. Erroneous transference of an attribute of the whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members).

Argument by Prestigious Jargon Using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert. Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?

Argument by Gibberish: ‘Bafflement’ This is the extreme version of ‘argument by prestigious jargon’ Whilst an invented jargon helps the effect, even perfectly ordinary words can be used to baffle Gibberish may come from people who can’t find meaning in technical jargon, so they think they should copy style instead of meaning Similar to argument by poetic language

Argument by Slogan If its short, and connects to an argument, it must be an argument (but Slogans risk the Reductive Fallacy) It also helps Argument by Emotive Language (Appeal to the People) since Emotional appeals need to be punchy Using an old slogan is ‘cliche thinking’

Non Sequitur Fallacy Something that just does not follow eg: "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !" Extrapolation – drawing a conclusion based on a very limited piece of evidence

Inconsistency An argument fraught with internal contradictions eg: the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union is due to the failures of communism. But, the quite high infant mortality rate in the United States is not a failure of capitalism.

Argument by Generalization Drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases The cases may be unrepresentative because of Selective Observation For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible ? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese.“