JAIN TPH-499 PERIOD 5 PAGE 1

RESPONSE PAPER
LAST NAME: JAIN
FIRST NAME: SANJAY
PROGRAM CODE: DMCR
COURSE CODE : TPH-499
PERIOD NUMBER: PERIOD 5
INSTRUCTOR: EBUZIEM

Edit or delete text to show actual information below:

The author applied UK conventions of grammar, usage, and mechanics
The student must use Turabian/Chicago parenthetical/in-text references (ideally with Zotero) and confirm below:
The author did use Zotero to insert references
The author did use Grammarly Premium (provided by EUCLID)
My plagiarism rate (per Grammarly Premium) is: 1%
The author used the following software: Word for Mac, 16.86 (24060916)

7 key concepts with page number in text:

1. Fallacy of Division (LaBossiere 2010, 34)
2. Gambler’s Fallacy (LaBossiere 2010, 36)
3. Genetic Fallacy (LaBossiere 2010, 38)
4. Guilt by Association (LaBossiere 2010, 38)
5. Ignoring a Common Cause (LaBossiere 2010, 42)
6. Red Herring (LaBossiere 2010, 52)
7. Ad hominem Tu Quoque (LaBossiere 2010, 37) 13/06/2024 12:34:00 PM

LOGIC AND CRITICAL REASONING

1) INTRODUCTION
“42 Fallacies” by Michael C. Labossiere (LaBossiere 2010) is a thorough manual
that clarifies prevalent mistakes in logical thinking. This paper examines seven fallacies
outlined in the book: the Fallacy of Division, Gambler’s Fallacy, Genetic Fallacy, Guilt
by Association, Ignoring a Common Cause, Red Herring, and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.
The analysis offers a comprehensive account of every fallacy, including its structure,
illustrative instances, and strategies to prevent these errors in logical thinking.

2) FALLACY OF DIVISION
The Fallacy of Division arises when one makes an inference that assumes what is
valid for the entire entity is also true for its components without sufficient justification.
LaBossiere (2010, 34) elucidates that this mistake is prevalent in mundane and scholarly
reasoning. The structure of the argument is that if the whole possesses property X, then
the individual parts of the whole also possess property X. An example of this is the
assumption that if a sports team is the best, then each player must be the best in his
JAIN TPH-499 PERIOD 5 PAGE 2

particular role. This argument fails to acknowledge that the team’s triumph may be
attributed to exceptional collaboration, tactics or coaching rather than each player’s
abilities. To avoid the fallacy, it is imperative to ascertain that inferences regarding
individual components are grounded in concrete evidence pertaining to those components
rather than solely relying on the characteristics of the entirety.

3) GAMBLER’S FALLACY
The Gambler’s Fallacy refers to the mistaken notion that previous random events
impact the likelihood of future random events in the immediate future. LaBossiere (2010,
36) observes that this logical error frequently arises in situations involving uncertainty
and probability, especially in gambling. The structure of the argument is that if event A
has occurred consecutively X times, then event B is scheduled to appear next. An
example is the belief that the occurrence of tails is expected to follow after obtaining
heads six times in a row from flipping a coin. This disregards the reality that every coin
flip is a separate occurrence with an equal probability of 50% for landing on heads or
tails. Comprehending the autonomy of unpredictable occurrences is of utmost
importance. Each event should be evaluated independently, considering its probability
based on its unique circumstances.

4) GENETIC FALLACY
The Genetic Fallacy refers to evaluating a statement based on its source rather
than its present significance or context. LaBossiere (2010, 38) highlights that this error
diminishes the credibility of an argument by giving more importance to its origin rather
than its content. The structure of the argument is that if source Y is the origin of claim X,
then source Y is defective. Hence, it can be concluded that assertion X is fundamentally
faulty. An example of this is disregarding a scientific theory because it was put forward
by an individual who was later proven to be deceitful without considering the existing
evidence that supports the theory. One must assess assertions based on their existing
evidence and merits rather than their source to avoid this fallacy. The soundness of an
argument should be based on the calibre of its proof rather than the record of the person
presenting it.

5) GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Guilt by Association rejects a claim because it is connected to a hated group.
LaBossiere (2010, 38) identifies this mistake as a prevalent strategy in political and social
discussions when the attention is diverted from the argument to the associations of the
one presenting it. The structure of the argument is that person A asserts claim X, and
person A is affiliated with group Y. Group Y is widely unpopular. Hence, claim X is
incorrect.
JAIN TPH-499 PERIOD 5 PAGE 3

An example of this is dismissing a political policy solely based on the

endorsement of an unpopular person without considering the policy’s merits. To avoid
this fallacy, focus on the argument rather than the individual or collective entity
connected to it. Evaluate the assertion by examining the supporting evidence and logical
reasoning it presents.

6) IGNORING A COMMON CAUSE

This error, known as the fallacy of Common Cause, arises when one mistakenly
concludes that one occurrence is the cause of another only based on the fact that they co-
occur, without considering the possibility of a shared underlying cause. According to
LaBossiere (2010, 42), this fallacy might result in erroneous conclusions regarding
causation. The structure of the argument is that if event A and event B co-occur, then
event A is the direct cause of event B. An example of this is assuming that smoking leads
to alcoholism based on the observation that many individuals who have alcoholism also
smoke, without taking into account the potential social factors that could contribute to
both behaviours. One can avoid the fallacy by examining whether a shared factor could
explain the events in the issue. Correlation should not be mistaken for causation, and it is
essential to consider all potential reasons to draw correct conclusions.

7) RED HERRING
A Red Herring is a rhetorical device that introduces a tangential topic to distract
attention from the main issue. LaBossiere (2010, 52) highlights that this fallacy is
commonly employed in debates to divert attention from a vulnerable stance. The
structure of the argument is that the subject of discussion is topic A, but topic B is
presented with the pretence of being connected to topic A. Topic A is deserted. An
example of this is during a debate on climate change; the participants intentionally shifted
the focus to unrelated economic measures to avoid addressing the environmental
challenges at hand. One can avoid the fallacy by concentrating on the first matter and
scrutinising the pertinence of any newly brought subjects. Ensure that all points discussed
are directly relevant to the issue.

8) AD HOMINEM TU QUOQUE
The Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy is committed when an argument is
disregarded because the person making the argument does not behave consistently with
it. The error described by LaBossiere (2010, 37) might be a type of ad hominem assault
that redirects attention from the argument to the conduct of the individual involved. The
structure of the argument is that person A asserts statement X, and person A’s behaviour
or previous remarks do not align with assertion X. Hence, assertion X is incorrect. An
example of this is disregarding a physician’s health recommendations due to the
physician’s smoking habit rather than considering the credibility of the advice based on
JAIN TPH-499 PERIOD 5 PAGE 4

the doctor’s expertise. One can avoid the fallacy by assessing arguments based on their
intrinsic qualities rather than the conduct of the one delivering them. Discrepancies in an
individual’s conduct do not automatically render his argument invalid.

9) CONCLUSION
Gaining a comprehensive understanding of these fallacies is essential for
constructing robust and coherent arguments, as well as for critically assessing the
reasoning of others. Labossiere’s “42 Fallacies” (LaBossiere 2010) is an invaluable tool
for recognising and avoiding these prevalent errors in logical thinking.

REFERENCES
LaBossiere, Michael. 2010. 42 Fallacies.