Addis Ababa University

School of Commerce
Department of BAIS

Group Members: ID. No;

1. Aklile Solomon BEE/9706/14
2. Amanuel Benyam BEE/4135/14
3. Bethelhem Moges BEE/1801/14
4. Ahmed Abdulbar BEE/9292/14
5. Abriham Daniel BEE/0929/14
6. Yoseph Arega

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

COURSE CODE: PHIL101
GROUP 3: Fallacies of Weak Induction

SECTION : E1BAIS5
SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Biruk
SUBMISSION DATE: 11,NOV, 2022 G.C
 Table of Content

Introduction…………………………………………………I

Appeal to Unqualified Authority………………………………….. 1

Appeal to Ignorance………………………………………………..1

Hasty Generalization……………………………………………….3

False Cause…………………………………………………………4

Slippery Slope………………………………………………………5

Weak Analogy……………………………………………………....5

Conclusion……………………………………………………..II

Reference……………………………………………………..III

Introduction
This paper has everything you need to know about Fallacies of Weak Induction.
Fallacies of Weak Induction are Fallacies of weak induction employ premises which are not
irrelevant (as with fallacies of relevance), but which supply only weak inductive support for the
conclusion. The conclusion is at least partially supported by the premises, but the evidence is
insufficient to persuade a sane individual to accept the conclusion. However, the fallacies of
weak induction frequently contain emotional reasons for accepting the conclusion, just as the
fallacies of relevance.

There are 6 Types of Fallacies of Weak Induction which are:

 Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
 Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
 Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
 False Cause
 Slippery Slope
 Weak Analogy

There is are the definition for each of these types of Fallacies and they all have examples that
elaborate on these Fallacies even more.
 1.Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

An inductive argument using testimony from another person to support a claim is known as an
argument from authority. When the referenced authority or witness is unreliable, it is a case of
the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy. The authority or witness may not be reliable for a
number of reasons, including a lack of necessary knowledge, bias or prejudice, a desire to
deceive or spread "misinformation," or a lack of necessary perception or memory skills.

Examples: - “Mr. Turner, president of the Big Pine Lumber Company, has said that we should
chop down all the redwoods and sell the timber to stimulate the local economy. In view of Mr.
Turner's experience with the lumber business, it appears that we should indeed do this.”

- “Omar the Magnificent, who is this country's greatest astrologer, says that the AIDS epidemic
is caused by a perverse alignment of the planets, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
therefore, we can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a cure for

AIDS are a waste of time.”

2Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a mistake in informal logic
when ignorance stands in for "a lack of counter evidence." An argument commits an appeal to
ignorance when its premises claim that nothing has been proven to be true or false regarding a
certain topic and the conclusion subsequently states a firm opinion about it. The problem often
includes an unproven proposition. There are two significant exceptions to the appeal to
ignorance.
The first comes from the fact that if knowledgeable researchers look into a particular
phenomenon within their fields of expertise and find no evidence to support its existence, this
ineffective search alone constitutes strong evidence about the question. However, having
specialized training for the investigators is not always required.
It depends on the circumstances what sort of qualifications are required. Sometimes it's enough
to be able to see and report what you see. The second exclusion concerns how trials are
conducted. The defense attorney in a criminal trial may legitimately contend that his or her client
is innocent if the prosecutor is unable to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Examples: - “Despite all the talk, not a single report of a flying saucer has been confirmed.
Therefore, we may infer that flying saucers do not exist.”

- “Nobody has ever proved the existence of ghosts. Therefore, we have alternative but to
conclude that ghosts are mere figments of the imagination.”

3.Hasty Generalization

Hasty generalization sometimes called "converse accident" is a flawed form of argument from
inductive generalization. An argument that moves from knowledge of a specific sample to a
claim about the entire group is referred to as a generalization. It is claimed that because the
sample's participants share a particular trait, the group as a whole also possesses that trait.

Examples:

- “A reporter in the local newspaper exaggerated her story just to make it appear more exciting,
and a reporter on the evening news got his facts mixed up. Therefore, you can't trust anyone in
the news media these days.”

- “Consumer's Report may say this radio is the safest, but my brother Adam got a shock when he
used it-so I say it's the worst"
Whether a sample is representative of the population is the issue that arises when using sampling.
Biased samples are those that are not representative.

Factors That Determine Whether Sample is Biased or not:

1. Sample is randomly selected: Everyone in the population is equally likely to be chosen.

2. The size of the sample: The larger the sample, the more closely it replicates the
population.

3. Psychological factors.

4.False Cause

False Cause also known as questionable cause happens when an argument mistakenly attempts to
establish some state of affairs produces the effect of another state of affairs. The mistake made is
reasoning to a conclusion which depends on a supposed causal connection which does not
actually exist, is not known to exist, or probably does not exist. A commission of this fallacy
does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false, but only that adequate proof or sufficient
reason has not been given.

Examples:

- “Every time I take a shower, the telephone rings. Since I'm dying to talk to somebody right
now, I should jump in the shower.”

- "Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to
set."
 5. Slippery Slope

This fallacy is committed whenever someone conclude something based on assumption about a
chain-reaction that they think will occur-But the chain-reaction is actually very unlikely.

Examples:

1) “If we don’t strengthen our military, then we will be left weak and defenseless. Pretty
soon other countries will take advantage of us and will take advantage of us and will want
to invade us. Once they invade us we will lose all of our freedoms and we will live in a
dictatorship. Such a dictatorship will take away our rights and we will be miserable”.

2) “I really shouldn’t eat this slice of pizza because if I do I will probably lose all control
and go off my diet, and then I will keep gaining weight and eventually got diabetes”.

6. Weak Analogy

This fallacy is committed whenever a conclusion is drawn about something because it is similar
to something else. So, this is exactly like the NON-fallacious variety of inductive argument
called the “argument by analogy”-except that a conclusion derived from an analogy is not
supported if the analogy or similarity is not very strong.

Examples:

3) Every year more people die in a car crashes than in plane crashes. You will be much
safer if a plane crashes.
4) The old saying that “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is so true”. Therefore.
Taking nonlethal doses of poison will be good for your health.
Conclusion
In conclusion the fallacy of weak induction violates the sufficiency principles, which
state that whenever someone presents an argument in favor of or against a viewpoint,
they should make an effort to offer pertinent and acceptable justifications of the
appropriate kind, which taken collectively are sufficient in number and weight to justify
accepting the conclusion. As opposed to the eight fallacies of relevance, which occur
when the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, the weak induction fallacies
arise when the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is insufficient to
sustain the conclusion.

A. Appeal to unqualified authority – unqualified authority

B. Appeal to ignorance – The lack of evidence is evidence for…
C. Hasty Generalization – insufficient data to warrant the conclusion.
D. False Cause – unsupported correlation of events
E. Slippery slope – bad consequences are sure to follow…
F. Weak Analogy – dissimilarities outweigh similarities
 Reference

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING MODULE

https://wachemo-elearning.net/courses/logic-and-critical-thinking-phil-1011/lessons/
chapter-5informal-fallacies/topic/fallacies-of-weak-induction/

https://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_3.html

https://scientificmethod.fandom.com/wiki/
Fallacies_of_Weak_Induction#Fallacy_of_the_Undistributed_Middle