Begging the Question:

• A logical fallacy that is also known as Petitio Principii. In an argument containing this
fallacy, one assumes as a premise for his argument the very conclusion he intends to
prove.

• It is an argument going around in a circle, also called as the circular argument.

Example:
Person A: The vastness of space is forever a mystery.
Person B: Why is that?
Person A: Because it can never be known.

Argument from Ignorance:

 Fancy name: argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 A.K.A. appeal to ignorance
 (A fallacy) the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice
versa.

General Form:
Let P = proposition
P is T until proven F.
P is F until proven T.
Example:
“There must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren’t any.”
“There is no such thing as aliens because humanity hasn’t actually seen an authentic
one.”

Fallacy of False Cause

 This involves the inferring of a casual link between two events when no such casual
connection has been established.
o Non causa pro causa
 To mistake what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause.
o Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 To infer that one event is the cause of another.

Other forms of this fallacy are the following:

1. Joint Effect
 While both effects, one is mistakenly considered to have caused the other.

Example:
 You have a fever and this is causing you to break out into spots.
2. Complex Cause
 The cause identified is only part of the many causes.

Example:
One night, after the party, he met an accident due to the slippery condition of the
road.
3. Genuine but insignificant cause
 The cause specified may be valid but the cause insignificant compared to the
others.
Example:
Mr. Goco lost in the elections. My single vote for the other guy caused his
downfall.

We must always keep in mind the difference between cause and correction.

The Hasty Generalization

This fallacy involves the formation of a generalization on the basis of observations of a

sample that is unrepresentative or too small. The generalization is based on exceptional, or
specially selected, rather than typical, or randomly selected cases. The perpetrator is using
insufficient evident or an isolated example as the basis for a widely general conclusion.

Example:

My neighbor was a catholic. All he did was drink alcohol and force his wife to have
babies. Catholics are disgusting. They just want to have large families so they’ll become the
majority and take over the country.

Complex Question

This fallacy involves asking a question which in reality is a composite of several

questions, demanding a single answer, and then applying that answer to both the explicit
question and the unasked question contained within it.

This fallacy is also considered as a trick question.

Example:
 Interviewer: Are you still a heavy drinker?
Interviewee: No.
Interviewer: Aha! So, you were a heavy drinker.

This complex question would safely eliminate if the prior or the implied question is answered.