FALLACY

Fallacy means mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

A fallacy is an idea which many people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on
incorrect information or reasoning. A fallacy is an illogical step in the formulation of an argument. An
argument in academic writing is essentially a conclusion or claim, with assumptions or reasons to
support that claim.

FOR EXAMPLE
People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove
it. Therefore, God does not exist.”

IMPORTANCE OF FALLACIES

Common fallacies involve errors in reasoning. Studying fallacies teaches you

to identify these errors in other people’s arguments and avoid them in your
own.

FALLACY OF REVELANCE
Fallacies of relevance share a common characteristic in that the arguments
in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion. Yet, the premises seem to be relevant psychologically, so that the
conclusion seems to follow from the premises.
The appeal to emotion or argument ad populum

Argumentum ad Populum (an appeal to popularity, public opinion or to the

majority) is an argument, often emotively laden, for the acceptance of an
unproved conclusion by adducing irrelevant evidence based on the feelings,
prejudices, or beliefs of a large group of people.
In general, the argument considered as a fallacy occurs due to taking advantage of
people's positive or negative emotions in order to divert attention away from logically
relevant evidence for the conclusion being advanced. So the appeal is a fallacy of
diversion rather than any kind of deductive fallacy. To say that many people believe a
statement is not a proof that the statement is true, although in some cases it can
provide inductive or empirical evidence for its truth.
A.• bandwagon (an appeal to the majority of persons),
• argumentum ad passiones (an argument appealing to the passions),
• argumentum consensus gentium (an argument based on the general
beliefs of mankind), and
• argumentum ad captandum (vulgus) (an improper argument intended to
captivate the populace).

Identification of these varieties can overlap; discussion and examples are given
in order below. (Most current textbooks address only the snob appeal and
bandwagon varieties).

B. Insight into why a group's belief sometimes does not provide good evidence for
the truth of the belief is reflected in this anecdote about Einstein retold by
Stephen Hawking:

“When a book was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he

[Albert Einstein] retorted, “If I were wrong, then one would have been
enough!”

Einstein indicates here that the proper way to show a theory false is to disprove
the theory rather recruit the opinions of others.

An appeal to emotion is an effort to win an argument without facts, logic, or reason, but
instead by manipulating the emotions of the audience.

Emotional Appeal
An appeal to emotion is also classified as a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy meaning
that there is flawed or incorrect logic used in an argument, therefore making the
argument unsound.
Now, it is important to distinguish that this is not the same thing as pathos. Pathos is
certainly used to make an appeal to emotion, but they are different. Pathos is the
emotional effect of the writer or speaker on the audience using various writing styles,
rhetoric, vocal intonations, gestures, and so on.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious
argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar
to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or
values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is
therefore correct.[

the appeal to pity (argument ad misericordiam)

An appeal to pity is also called argumentum ad misericordiam, (the sob story, or
the Galileo argument) is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an
argument or idea by exploiting one's opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a
specific kind of emotion. Basically it is the argument attempts to persuade by
provoking irrelevant feelings of sympathy. The appeal to pity fallacy, like all appeal
to emotion fallacies, is a fallacy of relevance
For example
"You need to pass me in this course, since I'll lose my scholarship if you don't."

the appeal to force (argument ad baculum)

Argumentum ad baculum is also called argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick is
the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

Typically, an ad baculum argument is one where an arguer threatens a respondent in order to

induce them to adopt a standpoint.

For example
 If you don't join our demonstration against the expansion of the park, we will evict you from
your apartment;
So, you should join our demonstration against the expansion of the park.
Argument against the person(argument ad hominem)

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position,

you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the
argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or
institution.
For example

Student:

Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone
knows he used cocaine.

Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi or missing the point, is the informal
fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose
conclusion) fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.

For example

A and B are debating about the law.

A: Does the law allow me to do that?
B: My neighbor John believes that the law should allow you to do that because of this and that.
B missed the point. The question was not if B's neighbor believes that law should allow, but
rather if the law does allow it or not.

fallacies of ambiguity
A fallacy of ambiguity is a flaw of logic, where the meaning of a statement is
not entirely clear. This can create statements which are both compelling and
incorrect, either by accident or by design. Unfortunate phrasing is often
responsible for unintentional humor. There are many types of ambiguous
 fallacy, with fallacies of equivocation, amphiboly, and accent among the most
common.

For example

Language is a versatile and subtle tool, able to take advantage of word selection, phrasing,
context, and emphasis to shape meaning. Sometimes, multiple interpretations can lead to
confusion. Vague statements may lack any clear meaning at all. An unclear or muddled
statement that leads the listener or reader to an incorrect conclusion is a fallacy of ambiguity.

Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in
an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another
meaning in another portion of the argument.
Equivocation means “calling two different things by the same name,” is the logical
fallacy of using a word or phrase in an argument either.
Equivocation is a common fallacy of ambiguity, where a word or phrase is used with
two distinct meanings. In this case, the conclusion is drawn as if there were only one
meaning. “Exciting books are rare, and rare books are expensive, so exciting books
are expensive,” is an example of equivocation. Each portion of the statement is
factual, but the word “rare” has two similar but distinct meanings.

For example

Salad is healthy, and taco salad is a salad. Therefore, taco salad is healthy.

Amphiboly Fallacy

The fallacy of amphiboly happens when someone uses grammar or

punctuation in a way that a statement could be interpreted as having more
than one meaning, so it is unclear what is really meant.
Amphiboly causes confusion by using words or phrases that may be interpreted in
different ways. For instance, on hearing “The landlord kicked the tenant out of the
apartment,” a listener interpret this to mean that the tenant was evicted by the
landlord. The listener might alternately assume that the landlord physically assaulted
and launched the tenant into the street. Context and experience lead to the
assumption that the first is more likely, but both are possible interpretations, creating
a fallacy of ambiguity.

For example
The governor says, 'Save soap and waste paper. ' So soap is more valuable than paper.

Fallacy of Accent

The fallacy of accent (also referred to as accentus and misleading accent) is a type
of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an
unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it is left unclear which word the
emphasis was supposed to fall on. Later writers have extended the fallacy to ambiguity caused
in sentences due to grammar as well.
Accent can become a source of confusion where verbal emphasis alters meaning. For example,
any sarcastic statement taken out of context might appear as an argument supporting the
opposite position. When this deliberate, it is an especially cynical fallacy of ambiguity.
Depending on the emphasis, “Jeff did not mow my lawn today,” might lead the listener to
believe that Jeff mowed someone else’s lawn, that he mowed something else, or that he did
mow his lawn on another day.

Composition fallacy

The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that
something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the
whole.
A fallacy of composition involves assuming that parts or members of a whole will
have the same properties as the whole. This leads to wrong conclusions because
what is true of the different parts is not necessarily true of the whole.
For Example
This house is made of bricks. A brick is light in weight. Therefore, this house is also
light in weight.

Fallacy of division

A fallacy of division is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is
true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.
For example

1. The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream

2. Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary
3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream