VAkIL1ILS CI IALLAC

WnA1 IS A IALLAC?

1here are good argumenLs and Lhere are bad argumenLs ln Lhls course we've assumed LhaL Lhe 'goodness' of
an argumenL consldered as a Lechnlque by whlch people are Lo be persuaded of some proposlLlon ls
capLured by Lhe noLlon of 'effecLlveness 1haL ls LhaL an argumenL ls good/effecLlve for a respondenL lf lL ls
such LhaL Lhe argumenL leads Lo an lncreased dlsposlLlon ln Lhe respondenL Lo accepL Lhe concluslon of an
argumenL lf Lhey accepL Lhe premlsses of an argumenL ln Lhe lasL few lecLures we've been looklng aL one very
lmporLanL way ln whlch argumenLs can be good or effecLlve argumenLs We have seen LhaL valld argumenLs
are Lhe ulLlmaLely effecLlve argumenLs 1hey are as effecLlve or as good as any argumenL could posslbly be
because Lhey have Lhe Lendency Lo creaLe an lrreslsLlble urge Lo accepL Lhe concluslons glven Lhe premlsses
(And we've also recognlsed ln cerLaln formal properLles of argumenLs ways ln whlch lf an argumenL LhaL ls valld
ls noL absoluLely convlnclng as lL ls presenLed lL can be alLered wlLhouL changlng lLs meanlng Lo be absoluLely
convlnclng) 8uL we've always been aware LhaL Lhere are many oLher Lypes of effecLlve argumenL of varylng
sLrengLh 1hose argumenLs LhaL Lalk abouL Lhe happy AusLrallan for example

1he 'happy AusLrallan' argumenLs are speclal case LhaL we're golng Lo come back Lo ln laLer lecLures ln Lhls
lecLure we're golng Lo be looklng aL some oLher Lypes of argumenL LhaL are effecLlve and whlch are noL valld
1he argumenLs we'll be looklng aL achleve effecLlveness by means of varlous speclflc Lechnlques as we'll see
buL Lhey are all marked by a common feaLure LhaL Lhey aLLempL Lo dlsgulse Lhemselves as valld argumenLs ln
Lhls dlsgulse Lhey arouse our argumenL lnLulLlon ln lLs sLrongesL form buL once we see Lhrough Lhelr dlsgulse
we are ln a poslLlon Lo reslsL Lhe LempLaLlons whlch Lhey presenL because we now recognlse Lhe Lypes of
argumenLs LhaL Lhey really are and Lhey are noL Lhe sorLs of argumenLs LhaL arouse Lhose argumenL
lnLulLlons 1hey are ln LhaL respecL llleglLlmaLe argumenLs 1hese argumenLs are asslgned Lhe pe[oraLlve
label 'fallacy' and Lhey fall lnLo Lwo general caLegorles formal and lnformal Lhe flrsL of whlch ls Lhe leasL
lnLeresLlng

ICkMAL IALLACILS

We've already had a look aL Lwo very common errors ln argumenLs relaLed Lo Lhe formally valld argumenLs
We called Lhem formal fallacles because Lhey resulL from an error ln Lhe very form of Lhe argumenL 8uL Lhey
are fallacles because Lhey are ofLen effecLlve and lL can someLlmes Lake some efforL Lo see [usL why Lhey
should noL be absoluLely effecLlve le valld And lL lsn'L ootll we see LhaL Lhey are lnvalld LhaL Lhey lose Lhls
effecLlveness

4ffirminq the consequent

lf A Lhen 8 + 8



A

fle

lf you are Lngllsh Lhen you llke flsh and chlps
?ou llke flsh and chlps

So you are Lngllsh

enyinq the 4ntecedent

lf A Lhen 8 + noL A



noL 8

fle

lf you are Lngllsh Lhen you llke flsh and chlps
?ou are noL Lngllsh

So you do noL llke flsh and chlps

INICkMAL IALLACILS

1here ls no wldely accepLed caLegorlzaLlon of lnformal fallacles 1hls ls my own aLLempL aL a nftfloqoe
tflsooo

%eceit)

eqqinq the question

uses Lhe concluslon as one of Lhe reasons Lo supporL lL
Also known as etltlo tlonlll or clrcular argumenL
noLe LhaL Lhe offenslve reason may be a blJJeo premlss
Such argumenLs have Lhe form

1 (+ ?)





1

noLe LhaL Lhe form of Lhe argumenL ls acLually good A quesLlonbegglng argumenL ls formally valld
because 'A Lherefore A' ls always golng Lo be Lrue

fles

l '1he 8lble says Cod exlsLs LveryLhlng ln Lhe 8lble ls Lrue because Cod wroLe lL So Cod
exlsLs'
ll 'AusLralla's presenL consLlLuLlon ls Lhe besL guaranLee of sLable governmenL because lL ls Lhe
consLlLuLlon whlch besL proLecLs us from governmenLal lnsLablllLy'
lll 'lL's wrong Lo murder people CaplLal punlshmenL lnvolves murderlng people So caplLal
punlshmenL ls wrong'

quivocotion

An amblguous word ls used ln Lwo dlfferenL ways ln an argumenL and Lhe accepLablllLy of Lhe
argumenL depends upon noL noLlclng LhaL dlfference
An equlvocaLlng argumenL may appear Lo be valld eg lf Lhe argumenL relles upon an equlvocaLlon ln
Lhe word 'C' Lhen we mlghL see Lhe argumenL as

All are C + All C are 8



All are 8

8uL lf Lhe equlvocaLlon ls made clear and C ls replaced by Lhe synonym C
1
for one use and Lhe
synonym C
2
for Lhe oLher use Lhen Lhe apparenL valldlLy dlsappears because Lhe argumenL looks llke

All are C
1
+ All C
2
are 8



All are 8

Whlch ls no good

fles

l '1he laws of naLure musL have a lawmaker because Lhey are laws and all laws have a
lawmaker'
ll 'noLhlng ls beLLer Lhan eLernal heavenly bllss and a 8lg Mac` ls beLLer Lhan noLhlng 1hus a
8lg Mac` ls beLLer Lhan heaven'
lll 'Slx ls an odd number of legs for a horse Cdd numbers are noL dlvlslble by Lwo Slx ls noL
dlvlslble by Lwo'

%iversion)

trow Mon

ArgumenL dlrecLed agalnsL an lnaccuraLe sLaLemenL of Lhe opponenL's poslLlon

fles

l '1he Lheory of evoluLlon sLaLes LhaL humans are no dlfferenL from apes buL humans are
clearly smarLer Lhan apes so Lhe Lheory of evoluLlon ls wrong'
ll 'eople who belleve we should spend less on defence apparenLly belleve LhaL Lhe lnsLablllLy
ln Lhe former SovleL unlon and Afrlca poses no LhreaL Lo our lnLeresLs'
lll 'l'm ln favour of legallsed gambllng 1here are Lhose who oppose lL buL Lhey apparenLly
belleve LhaL anyLhlng LhaL's fun ls slnful'

ippery ope foocy

An argumenL agalnsL a proposed acLlon whlch clalms LhaL lL wlll ety tobfbly lead Lo bad
consequences ls a s s fallacy lf Lhe clalm of hlgh probablllLy ls noL supporLed (lf Lhe
clalm ls supporLed Lhen lL ls noL a s s fallacy buL a good s s ftqoeot)

fles

l 'Legallsed volunLary euLhanasla sounds flne buL lnevlLably Lhe condlLlons for euLhanasla wlll
be loosened llrsL lncurable Lermlnal dlseases wlll be lncluded Lhen merely deblllLaLlng
condlLlons Lhen expenslveLoLreaL lllnesses Lhen slmply lnconvenlenL lllnesses wlll quallfy'
ll 'llrsL Lhey'll ask for guns Lo be reglsLered Lhen Lhey'll wanL Lo lnsLlLuLe a llcence LesL Lhen
Lhey'll ban cerLaln weapons Lhen Lhey'll Lake Lhem all away and we'll be qulLe defenceless'
lll 'lL'd be a mlsLake Lo Lry Lo recreaLe Lhe welfare programs of Lhe 60s and 70s lf you glve
people someLhlng Lhey'll come Lo expecL lL and Lhen Lo regard lL as a rlghL Who would Lhen
work raLher Lhan slL back and be pald'

ose iemmo

Cne of Lhe reasons supporLlng Lhe concluslon ls a false (or lnadequaLely argued) dlvlslon of
posslblllLles lnLo a dlchoLomy Such argumenLs have Lhe form

A or 8 + noL A



8

noLlce LhaL Lhls ls a valld argumenL WhaL makes lL a fallacy ls Lhe falsehood of Lhe cholce LhaL ls Laken
as a premlss

fles

l 'uon'L voLe for Lhe blll requlrlng a deposlL on boLLles 1here's loLs of llLLer oLher Lhan boLLles
we should requlre a deposlL on all poLenLlal llLLer or on none'
ll '?ou're elLher parL of Lhe soluLlon or parL of Lhe problem'
lll 'LlLher we ban all guns or we leL crlme run amok'

%rreevonce)

4rqumentum od hominem

A personal aLLack ls made on someone and LhaL aLLack ls Laken Lo be a reason for re[ecLlng Lhe
argumenL LhaL Lhey are puLLlng forward Cenerally such argumenLs where Lhey are noL purely
abuslve (and are Lhus perhaps polsonlng Lhe well or fJ bfnolo) are aLLempLlng Lo undermlne Lhe
assumpLlon LhaL Lhe person belng aLLacked ls parLlclpaLlng ln Lhe argumenL ln good falLh ln such uses
Lhere may be a suppressed argumenL roughly llke

(ALLack on A)

f

A ls noL LrusLworLhy +

belleve someone lf Lhey are LrusLworLhy

A says LhaL x + don'L belleve whaL A says



uon'L belleve LhaL x

1here are leglLlmaLe as well as llleglLlmaLe (fallaclous) fJ boloe argumenLs WhaL dlsLlngulshes Lhe
Lwo ls Lyplcally Lhe sLrengLh of Lhe lnference (a) and Lhe LruLh of (1) and also wheLher Lhe hldden
premlss (2) ls reasonable ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe argumenL


fles

l Abosle 'We have Lo acL now Lo save Lhe foresLs'
'?ou would Lhlnk LhaL you're a hlppy'
ll cltnostfotlfl 'We should develop normal relaLlons wlLh Cuba''?ou only say LhaL because
you wanL Lo make money selllng Lhelr fancy clgars'
lll 1o poopoe '?ou're Lelllng me l should drlnk less? ?ou haven'L been sober ln a year!'

enetic foocy

Closely relaLed Lo Lhe fJ boloe argumenL
1here are always reasons why someone holds Lhe bellefs Lhey do 1hese reasons are Lo be
dlsLlngulshed from Lhe [usLlflcaLlons whlch Lhey mlghL offer for holdlng Lhese bellefs (Lg A CaLhollc
may belleve ln Cod benfose he was broughL up LhaL way buL he may jostlfy hls bellef ln Cod by
revelaLlon or phllosophlcal argumenL) A geneLlc fallacy ls commlLLed lf one aLLacks Lhe causes of a
bellef raLher Lhan Lhe [usLlflcaLlons for lL

fles

l 'SLudles show LhaL passlve smoklng ls qulLe harmless'
'1hose sLudles were all commlssloned and funded by clgareLLe companles'
ll '1he besL sysLem of lnsurance lncludes a Lype of nofaulL pollcy'
'1haL's a Lype of lnsurance pollcy belng promoLed by Lhe lnsurance companles Lhemselves
l'm sure lL can'L be good for Lhelr cusLomers'
lll 'sychlaLrlc hosplLals arose from an aLLempL Lo conLrol dlsrupLlve elemenLs noL Lo help
Lhem We should ellmlnaLe Lhem'

4uthority

Appeallng for supporL Lo someone whose auLhorlLy (lf any) ls noL relevanL Lo Lhe maLLer ln quesLlon
noLlce Lhe slmllarlLy ln Lhe suppressed argumenL LhaL seems Lo lle behlnd Lhls fallacy Lo LhaL whlch
lles behlnd Lhe fallacy of ftqoeoto fJ boloe

(A ls an auLhorlLy)

f


A ls LrusLworLhy +
2
belleve someone lff Lhey are LrusLworLhy



A says LhaL x + belleve whaL A says



8elleve LhaL x

1here are leglLlmaLe as well as llleglLlmaLe (fallaclous) argumenLs from auLhorlLy WhaL dlsLlngulshes
Lhe Lwo ls Lyplcally Lhe sLrengLh of Lhe lnference (a) and Lhe LruLh of (1) and also wheLher Lhe hldden
premlss (2) ls reasonable ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe argumenL

fles

l 'Can you doubL LhaL alr has welghL when you have Lhe clear LesLlmony of ArlsLoLle afflrmlng
LhaL all Lhe elemenLs have welghL lncludlng alr and excepLlng only flre'
ll 'l'm noL a docLor buL l play one on 1v'
lll 'A ma[orlLy of docLors Lhlnk LhaL Lhe morallLy of young people has decllned'

qnoronce %4rqumentum od iqnorontiom)

Clalmlng LhaL someLhlng ls Lrue because lL has noL been proved Lo be false or false because lL has noL
been proved Lo be Lrue
Such argumenLs rely upon a hldden premlss and have Lhe forms

'A' ls noL proved + lf 'A' was Lrue lL would have been proved



'A' ls noL Lrue

'noL A' ls noL proved + lf 'A' was false 'noL A' would have been proved



'A' ls Lrue

1hese are fallacles when Lhe hldden premlss ls obvlously false or lf lL ls noL obvlously Lrue and yeL ls
noL argued for

fles

l 'My wlfe musL be havlng an affalr slnce l can'L prove LhaL she lsn'L'
ll 'Slnce no one has been able Lo prove Cod's exlsLence Cod does noL exlsL'
lll 'Slnce no WMu's have been found Lhere were never any WMus'

Motivotiono 4ppeos

ALLempLlng Lo lnduce someone Lo accepL a concluslon by appeallng Lo moLlves raLher Lhan provldlng
reasons Lo Lhlnk LhaL Lhe concluslon ls Lrue

fles

l lotne (1bteft left Atqoeoto fJ bfnolo% '?ou should noL puL smoklng bans ln your
resLauranLs because lf you do we smokers wlll boycoLL you and we are a large parL of your
cusLomer base'
ll 9lty (Atqoeoto fJ lsetlnotJlf% 'l am quallfled for Lhls [ob l have some expelence
and l need Lhe money Lo geL my baby slsLer lnLo Lhe eyehosplLal'
lll 9tejoJlnlfl (9olsooloq tbe well% 'Would anyone be so naive as Lo doubL LhaL Lhe flnesL
palnLers were lrench?'

%Misceoneous)

orites

Clalmlng LhaL Lwo alLernaLlves cannoL be unconLroverslally dlsLlngulshed and LhaL Lherefore Lhere ls
no dlfference beLween Lhem
1he argumenL appears Lo rely upon a hldden premlss LhaL lf Lwo concepLs are dlfferenL LhaL Lhere ls a
sharp dlvlslon beLween Lhem


roperLy
1
ls deflned ln Lerms of x
roperLy
2
ls deflned ln Lerms of x
x can vary by small lncremenLs
A has properLy
1

lor anyLhlng 8 wlLh properLy
1
lf properLy
1
ls dlfferenL from properLy
2
Lhen Lhere ls a polnL aL
whlch lncremenLal varlaLlon of x from LhaL whlch deflnes
1
Lowards LhaL whlch deflnes
2
ls
sufflclenL Lo resulL ln 8 havlng properLy
2
raLher Lhan
1

lf A has
1
and x ls lncremenLally varled Lhen A sLlll has properLy
1

1herefore Lhere ls no polnL aL whlch lncremenLal varlaLlon of x from LhaL whlch deflnes
1
Lowards
LhaL whlch deflnes
2
ls sufflclenL Lo resulL ln 8 havlng properLy
2
raLher Lhan
1

1herefore
1
and
2
are noL dlfferenL

(1haL's looks preLLy halry lLself lL makes more sense lf you subsLlLuLe

1
'halry'
2
'bald' x 'number of halrs' A '8ob')

ArgumenLs llke Lhls are fallaclous lf Lhe hldden premlss ls noL Lrue (because Lhe concepL ls genulnely
vague) or lf lL ls noL obvlously Lrue and yeL ls noL argued for

fles

l lrom Lhe momenL of concepLlon a foeLus grows and changes consLanLly AL each momenL lL
dlffers ln only Lhe sllghLesL way from Lhe prevlous momenL WhaL Lhen ls Lhe exacL polnL aL
whlch Lhe foeLus ceases Lo be a mere foeLus and becomes lnsLead a person? lor any polnL
ldenLlfled as Lhe momenL when a foeLus becomes a person Lhe foeLus aL LhaL polnL wlll noL
dlffer slgnlflcanLly from Lhe foeLus a momenL earller Slnce we can'L ldenLlfy any momenL aL
whlch a foeLus becomes a person and yeL Lhe chlld ls already a person when born Lhe
foeLus musL be a person from Lhe momenL of concepLlon
ll All anlmals have rlghLs and we oughL Lo respecL Lhese rlghLs Pow so? Pumans have rlghLs
we all accepL LhaL 8uL whaL ls Lhe relevanL dlfference beLween humans and hlgher apes?
say Lhe chlmpanzee? Pumans and hlgher apes are boLh consclous lnLelllgenL belngs capable
of learnlng and communlcaLlng Lhrough language Apes ln Lurn are closely relaLed Lo oLher
hlgher mammals hlgher mammals Lo lower mammals and lower mammals Lo oLher anlmals
LxacLly where do rlghLs come lnLo Lhe plcLure? We cannoL draw a sharp and nonarblLrary
dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhose anlmals whose rlghLs we oughL Lo acknowledge and Lhose we
needn'L boLher wlLh so Lhe rlghLs of all anlmals oughL Lo be respcLed
lll (8oberL nozlck (1974) Aoftnby 5tfte foJ utolf new ?ork 8aslc 8ooks pp 290292)
1 1here ls a slave compleLely aL Lhe mercy of hls bruLal masLer's whlms Pe ls ofLen
cruelly beaLen called ouL ln Lhe mlddle of Lhe nlghL and so on
2 1he masLer ls klndller and beaLs Lhe slave only for sLaLed lnfracLlons of hls rules
(noL fulfllllng Lhe work quoLa and so on) Pe glves Lhe slave some free Llme
3 1he masLer has a group of slaves and he decldes how Lhlngs are Lo be allocaLed
among Lhem on nlce grounds Laklng lnLo accounL Lhelr needs merlL and so on
4 1he masLer allows hls slaves four days on Lhelr own and requlres Lhem Lo work only
Lhree days a week on hls land 1he resL of Lhe Llme ls Lhelr own
3 1he masLer allowes hls slaves Lo go off and work ln Lhe clLy (or anywhere Lhey wlsh)
for wages Pe requlres only LhaL Lhey send back Lo hlm LhreesevenLhs of Lhelr
wages Pe also reLalns Lhe power Lo recall Lhem Lo Lhe planLaLlon lf some
emergency LhreaLens hls land and Lo ralse or lower Lhe LhreesevenLhs amounL
requlred Lo be Lurned over Lo hlm Pe furLher reLalns Lhe rlghL Lo resLrlcL Lhe slaves
from parLlclpaLlng ln cerLaln dangerous acLlvlLles LhaL LhreaLen hls flnanclal reLurn
for example mounLaln cllmblng clgareLLe smoklng
6 1he masLer allows all of hls 10000 slaves excepL you Lo voLe and Lhe [olnL
declslon ls made by all of Lhem 1here ls open dlscusslon and so forLh among Lhem
and Lhey have Lhe power Lo deLermlne Lo whaL uses Lo puL whaLever percenLage of
your (and Lhelr) earnlngs Lhey declde Lo Lake whaL acLlvlLles leglLlmaLely may be
forbldden Lo you and so on
7 1hough sLlll noL havlng Lhe voLe you are aL llberLy (and are glven Lhe rlghL) Lo enLer
lnLo Lhe dlscusslons of Lhe 10000 Lo Lry Lo persuade Lhem Lo adopL varlous pollcles
and Lo LreaL you and Lhemselves ln a cerLaln way 1hey Lhen go off Lo voLe Lo declde
upon pollcles coverlng Lhefst range of Lhelr powers
8 ln appreclaLlon of your useful conLrlbuLlons Lo dlscusslon Lhe 10000 allow you Lo
voLe lf Lhey are deadlocked Lhey commlL Lhemselves Lo Lhls procedure AfLer Lhe
dlscusslon you mark your voLe on a sllp of paper and Lhey go off and voLe ln Lhe
evenLuallLy LhaL Lhey dlvlde evenly on some lssue 3000 for and 3000 agalnsL Lhey
look aL your balloL and counL lL ln 1hls has never yeL happened Lhey have never yeL
had occaslon Lo open your balloL (A slngle masLer also mlghL commlL hlmself Lo
leLLlng hls slave declde any lssue concernlng hlm abouL whlch he Lhe masLer was
absoluLely lndlfferenL)
9 1hey Lhrow your voLe ln wlLh Lhelrs lf Lhey are exacLly Lled your voLe carrles Lhe
lssue CLherwlse lL makes no dlfference Lo Lhe elecLoral ouLcome
1he quesLlon ls whlch LranslLlon from case 1 Lo case 9 made lL no longer Lhe Lale of a slave?

ose 4nooqy

Argulng faulLlly LhaL because Lwo Lhlngs have cerLaln slmllarlLles Lhey wlll also have oLher slmllarlLles

An argumenL from analogy generally looks llke Lhls

1 lL ls clalmed LhaL Lhe Cb[ecL (an argumenL or a naLural phenomenon or an ldea or whaL
you wlll) has properLles
1

2

n

2 1he Analogue also has properLles
1

2

n

3 1he analogue has properLy
4 1herefore Lhe ob[ecL has properLy

1he argumenL relles upon Lhe hldden premlss LhaL

3 lf Lwo ob[ecLs share properLles
1

2

n
Lhey wlll also share properLy

ArgumenLs llke Lhls are fallaclous lf Lhe hldden premlss ls noL Lrue or lf lL ls noL obvlously Lrue and yeL
ls noL argued for

fles

l A counLry ls llke a shlp wlLh Lhe presldenL as Lhe capLaln !usL as Lhe capLaln should be
obeyed wlLhouL quesLlon durlng a sLorm Lhe presldenL should be glven speclal powers ln
perlods of crlsls
ll 1he flnances of a governmenL are llke Lhe flnances of a famlly A famlly can'L go on spendlng
more Lhan lL earns
lll Spendlng a greaL deal of money Lo provlde medlcal care for Lhe aged ls llke wasLlng money
on a car When a car ls all worn ouL needs a new englne Lransmlsslon and body work lL's
beLLer [usL Lo [unk lL 1he same goes for people