Click to edit Master title style

FALLACIES

1
 • What is a Formal Fallacy?
Click to edit Master title style
• A formal fallacy exists due to a mistake in the design
of the argument. As such, the end doesn’t follow
from the premises. All formal fallacies are explicit
sorts of fallacies or contentions in which the ends
don’t follow from the premises. Formal fallacies are
distinguished by basically looking at the design of
the contention select of the individual assertions.
• Talking about the argument, argument formed by
three segments, which are the premise, inference,
and conclusion. Each of the segments must be true
and not contradictory to each other to be considered
valid. However, a conclusion from an invalid
argument could be true or false, and that makes the
argument can’t be used as a reference. 2 2
Click to edit Master title style
1. Anecdotal Fallacy (misleading vividness)
Misleading vividness is when the compelling details of an event are used to argue
that such events are common, that is rather than establishing that such
occurrences are actually frequent, the emotional impact of such events is used as
proof of their likelihood. So basically, the premise and conclusion of the
argument aren’t coherent.
P1    : Amy wants to buy a new hair dryer.
P2    : Her friend, Jasmine tells her that she buys a Brand A hair dryer,
and the hair dryer didn’t last that long.
C    : Amy says she will definitely not buy Brand A. 

3 3
Click to edit Master title style
2. Conjunction Fallacy
Conjunction fallacy is when we assume that a certain condition tends to be more
true than the common condition.
Jason is a soccer athlete at his young age, he plays soccer very well and he practices
everyday. Which one is more likely to happen now?
1.Jason is an accountant 
2.Jason is an accountant of football management 
Maybe, you’ll assume that option B tends to be true. But actually option A is the
one, because we don’t know the truth, and by choosing option A, there are more
possibilities.
4 4
3. Masked – Man Fallacy
Click to edit Master title style
This happens when the Leibniz rule isn’t
applied in understanding an argument. The rules
themselves contain a statement that if some
object has a specific property when the others
do not, there is no way that those objects are the
same.
P1    : Brenda is a smart and diligent
student
P2    : There are a few students that failed
the test
C    : Brenda is definitely not one of those
students. 5 5
Click to edit Master title style

4. Propositional Fallacy 
Proportional fallacy is a formal fallacy due to misinterpretation of
conjunctions, disjunctions, or implications of the premises that are
used.
P1    : I can’t cook and dance together at the same time
P2    : I am not dancing 
C    : I am cooking 
6 6
Click to edit Master title style
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Logical Fallacies are usually divided into formal and informal. Formal
fallacies occuring in Syllogisms are called Syllogistic fallacies.
•A valid argument is the one where if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. it has a correct formal structure.
•A sound argument is in addition to being a formally correct
argument, also contains true premises.
Ideally, the best kind of formal argument is a sound, valid argument. Formal
logic checks only argument validity, not soundness, so can not solely be
used to determine whether or not an argument is true.
There are only Formal Fallacies in this list.

7 7
Click to the
Affirming edit Master title
consequent style
When there is a simple conditional statement, where condition or
precursor (antecedent) results in consequent and they are swapped in
their places, for example, source true statement:
Caution! When it’s raining, then the road is slippery.
If swap antecedent (When it’s raining) and consequent (the road is
slippery) - that converse switch is called Affirming the consequent.

It is a type of non sequitur reasoning also called fallacy of the

converse, converse error, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency.
When the road is slippery - it’s raining. 8 8
That is especially clear if there are several reasons (antecedents) for
Click to edit Master title style
a consequent. The road can be slippery because of the snow or
machine oil spilt. These types of converse errors are common in
everyday thinking and communication and can result for example
from communication issues or failure to consider other possible
reasons for the event.
The opposite statement with converse switch, denying the
consequent, is a correct form of argument, for example:

If the road is not slippery then it’s not raining.

9 9
Click to edit
Denying Master title style
the antecedent

Also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a

formal non sequitur fallacy of inferring the inverse
from the original statement. It’s happening when
both antecedent and consequent of logical
statement are negated, for instance for the original
example above about the rain and road:

When it’s not raining, then the road is not

slippery.
1010
Click to edit Master title style
The reasoning is not valid and it is a logical fallacy
because there could be other reasons for the road to
become slippery.
Obvious absurdity of this fallacy can be demonstrated on
generalizational conditions, if we have original statement

If it’s a dog then it’s a mammal.

Denying both antecedent and consequent would

result in
If it’s not a dog then it’s not a mammal.

1111
Cats and horses don’t express any agreement with this kind of
Click to edit Master title style
logic.
Affirming a disjunct
Also called the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false
exclusionary disjunct occurs when a in a statement with a disjunct
this is supposed to meen exclusive or (either … or…) instead of
literal inclusive. It is a Fallacy of Equivocation between the
operations OR and XOR. For example:

Leave the door open! There are cats or dogs still outside.

The Affirming a disjunct example:

Both cats are inside we can close the door now, no one outside.
1212
 Click
The to edit
fallacy liesMaster title style
in supposing and expressing that
if one disjunct is true then another must be
false; actually they may both be true. There is a
valid argument disjunctive syllogism, that looks
similar but must be diffirentiated.
Denying a conjunct
Very similar to False Dichotomy. It suggests
assumption that if to conditions are exclusive
then one of them must be true.

Are you paying by cash or by card?

1313
Even if we can not pay using both methods (Denying a conjunct), that
Click to edit Master title style
doesn’t mean we have to pay using one of them. In reality see false dilemma
fallacy, there is still possibility of the third or fourth or option of not buying
now at all.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle
This non sequitur also called non distributio medii is a type of formal fallacy
that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism (logical
conclusion based on two premises of grouping) is not distributed. It is thus a
syllogistic fallacy. For example:
• All cats are animals.
• Lion is a animal.
• Therefore, lion is a cat.
1414
IfClick to edit
in sentence Master
above in firsttitle stylesets (cats and animals) are
raw those
swapped then the argument would be valid. Though not very
sound.
This Fallacy of the undistributed middle example, called
the Politician’s Syllogism, politician’s fallacy or politician’s logic is
shown in “Yes, Prime Minister” TV series on BBC:

•We must do something

•This is something
•Therefore, we must do this.
1515
Click to edit Master title style
Fallacy of Four Terms
This formal syllogistic fallacy also called quaternio
terminorum, occurs when a syllogism has four (or
more) terms rather than the requisite three,
For example here, the three terms are: “goldfish”,
“fish”, and “fins”:

• All fish have fins.

• All goldfish are fish.
• Therefore, all goldfish have fins.

1616
Click to edit Master title style
Using four terms invalidates the syllogism:
• All fish have fins.
• All goldfish are fish.
• Therefore, all humans have fins.

In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation:
using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term
even though only three distinct words are used:
• Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
• A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
• A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

1717