INFORMAL FALLACIES

“It is wrong always, everywhere & for anyone,

to believe anything upon insufficient & illogical
evidence.”
W. K. Clifford

By:- Nebiyu A.
(Dilla University)
 Introduction
 FALLACY means a logical defect/mistake in argument
 Any fallacious argument is a bad argument.
 Equally, any bad argument is bad because:-
 It contains a fallacy or/and
 It has false premise/s.
 Etymologically fallacy means deception, trick or cheating.
 Fallacious arguments deceive/trick the readers/listeners (R/L).
 Since, fallacious arguments make the argument appear good, correct or
logical,
 they trick audiences into thinking that the argument is logically correct & good
 but, in fact they are not (they are bad, incorrect or illogical).
 can not easily be identified/notified
 Cont,….
 Fallacies can be committed by:-
 Speakers or writers
 Unintentionally or intentionally
 Why people commit fallacies…??? B/z to fulfilling their motives
 by diverting or controlling the R/Ls’ attention or position with no
or insufficient reason.
 Often emotive terminologies used in concealing the logical
mistakes.

 Informal Fallacies:- occurs when the content of an argument is

problematic. And
 identified by examining the content of the arguments.

 must know the fact about the issues raised in an argument

 occur in both deductive & inductive arguments

 Informal Fallacies

 There are 22 informal fallacies, under FIVE groups:-

1. Fallacies of Relevance ==== 8 fallacies
2. >> Weak Induction = 6 fallacies
3. >> Presumption === 4 fallacies
4. >> Ambiguity===== 2 fallacies
5. >> Grammatical Analogy  2 fallacies
• In different ways, arguers make those fallacious arguments, in
order to get acceptance from others (from R/L).
 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Relevance: There are 8 fallacies under fallacies of relevance, & in general these
8 fallacies occur when the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion:
1. Appeal to Force/Stick fallacy
2. Appeal to Pity Direct Form
3. Appeal to the People A. Appeal to Bandwagon
Indirect B. Appeal to Vanity
C. Appeal to Snobbery
A. Abusive
4. Argument Against the Person B. Circumstantial
C. You too (Tu Quoque)
5. Accident
6. Straw Man
7. Missing the point
8. Red Herring
 In these 8 fallacies, the following 2 basic features are common:-
i. The premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but may be psychologically relevant to it.
iii. There is only emotional (not logical) connection b/n the premises & the conclusion.
 SUMMERY on Fallacies of Relevance
1. Appeal to Force: committed when an arguer threats/pressures a R/L to accept its C (instead
of providing logical Ps).
Example- Wife to husband: I deserve a weekend in Langano & if you don’t’ agree to take me there; I am going to leave you.
2. Appeal to Pity: committed when an arguer tries to pose/support its C by appealing (evoking)
pity from the R/L so as to get mercy, sympathy or any kinds of excuse.
3. Appeal to the People: an arguer appeals to emotion so as to get acceptance from others.
(OR an arguer plays on certain psychological needs for the purpose of getting the R/L to accept its C.)
 Direct: occurs when arguer arouses mob mentality (or addresses its appeal at the crowd &
motivates as a whole the emotions & enthusiasm of the public to win acceptance for a conclusion).
 Indirect: occurs when the arguer urges the R/L to do/accept something, simply b/cz:
 everyone else is doing or accepting it, or admired people are using it.

The Indirect approach is committed in 3 forms:

A. Appeal to Bandwagon: occurs when the arguer plays on the R/L's need to feel part of a group.
(OR it emphasizes that the majority’s choice is the correct one & so urges the R/L to join them.)
B. Appeal to Vanity: an arguer plays on the R/L’s vanity. (OR often associates the product with someone
who is admired, & informs that you, too, will be admired if you use it.)
C. Appeal to Snobbery: an arguer plays on the R/L's need to feel superior. (OR an arguer promotes the
position that “if you qualify as one of a member of the selected few or want to be a
member of the selected few, you should use this product”) .
 Cont’d…
4. Argument against the person: arguer tries to reject other’s argument by attacking personal
characteristics of that arguer (instead of attacking the argument).
This fallacy can be committed in 3 ways:
A. Abusive: when the 2nd arguer attacks the first arguer by verbally abusing the arguer.
B. Circumstantial: ” ” ” ”by noting certain circumstances that predisposed him/her to argue in this way.
C. You too: ” ” ” ” by noting that the arguer is hypocrite (his/her action is contrary with its words)

5. Accident: committed when an arguer misapplies (wrongly applies) a general rule, principle or
truth to specific case that the rule was not intended to cover.
6. Straw man: committed when an arguer distorts another person’s argument, & then attacks/rejects
the distorted argument.
7. Missing the point: committed when the premises of an argument clearly imply one conclusion,
but the arguer draws a different conclusion which is not implied/supported by the premises.
8. Red herring: committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the R/L by changing the
original subject to some different issue without the R/L notifying it, & then draws a
conclusion based on the new/changed subject.
 Fallacies of Weak Induction (FWI)
 F. Weak Induction: occur when the premises provide a bit of support for the conclusion, but not enough/sufficient
to believe the conclusion. (Not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the case with the previous 8 fallacies of relevance)
 There 6 fallacies under FWI
 Each of the 6 fallacies of FWI commonly share THREE basic features:-
i. The premises provide a share of evidence to support the conclusion, but the evidences are not good enough to cause
a reasonable person to accept the conclusion.
ii.The connection b/n premises & conclusion is not strong enough
iii. Involve emotional appeal.

1. Appeal to unqualified Authority:

2. Appeal to Ignorance:
3. Hasty Generalization:
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

4. False Cause: B. Non causa pro causa

C. Oversimplified cause
5. Slippery Slope
6. Weak Analogy
 SUMMERY on Fallacies of Weak Induction
9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority: committed when arguer cites untrustworthy
authority/person. This fallacy is committed when an arguer cites a statement made by other
person as evidence for a conclusion, that person is not qualified to make such a statement;
(or that person may lack credibility or expertise/professionalismto make such a statement) .
10. Appeal to Ignorance: committed when the premises asserts that nothing is known or proved
about something, & then a certain conclusion is drawn about that thing. OR
: It is committed when the lack to evidence, knowledge, proof, or information about something is used to support
the conclusion.
11. Hasty Generalization: committed when an arguer draws a general conclusion about something
based on insufficient evidence, i.e. vary limited information or unrepresentative
samples.
12. False Cause: committed whenever the link between premises & conclusion depends on some imagined
causal connection that properly does not exist, an attempt to suppose that ‘X’ causes ‘Y’ where as ‘X’
probably does not cause ‘Y’ at all.
This fallacy can be committed in 3 ways/types:
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:- two things are causal connected b/z one happen after the other
B. Non causa pro causa:- picking the wrong thing/cause as a cause
C. Oversimplified cause:- selecting one out of the several causes & treating it as if it is the only cause
13. Slippery Slope: committed when the conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction (series of events).
14. Weak Analogy: committed when the conclusion depends on defective (not strong) similarity. OR
 SUMMERY on Fallacies of Presumption
15. Begging the Question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by
leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle.
16. Complex Question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question. OR
: committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a
single answer is then given to both of them.
17. False Dichotomy: committed when a disjunctive ("either . . . or . .") premise presents two
unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the
undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
18. Suppressed Evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.

SUMMERY on Fallacies of Ambiguity

19. Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.
20. Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of ambiguous statement.

SUMMERY on Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

21. Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
22. Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts.
 All the 22 Fallacies
1. Appeal to force: Arguer threatens reader/listener.
2. Appeal to pity: Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener. Appeal to the people (direct): Arguer
arouses mob mentality.
3. Appeal to the people (indirect): Arguer appeals to R/L's desire for respect, love, security,… etc.
4. Argument against the person: arguer tries to discredit/rejects another argument by calling to
question certain personal characteristics of that arguer
A. Abusive: Arguer verbally abuses other arguer.
B. Circumstantial: Arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to argue this way.
C. You Too (Tu quoque): Arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite.
5. Accident: General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
6. Straw man: Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument.
7. Missing the point: Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by premises.
8. Red herring: Arguer leads reader/listener off track.
9. Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
10. Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved, & then a conclusion is
drawn.
11. Hasty generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample.
 Cont’d….
12. False cause: Conclusion depends on non-existent or minor causal connection.
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc;- two things are causal connected b/c one happen after the other
B. Non causa pro causa:- picking the wrong thing as a cause
C. Oversimplified cause:- selecting one out of the multiple causes & treating it as if it is the only
cause.
13. Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
14. Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on defective (not strong) analogy.
15. Begging the question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by
leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle.
16. Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.
17. False dichotomy: Either ...or statement hides additional alternatives.
18. Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
19. Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase.
20. Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous
statement.
21. Composition: Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
22. Division: Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts.