SummaryofChapter3 Afallacyisatypeofargumentthatmayseemtobecorrect,butthatprovesonexaminationnotto beso.

Typesofreasoning mistakesthatcommonlydeceivearegiventraditional namestwolarge groups of informal fallacies are distinguished: the fallacies of relevance and the fallacies of ambiguity. FALLACIESOFRELEVANCE:Inthese,themistakenargumentsrelyonpremissesthat may seem to be relevanttothe conclusion but in fact are not. We explain the types of reasoning mistakesintwelvefallaciesofrelevance: 1. Argument from ignorance(adignorantiam):When it isarguedthataproposition istrue on the ground that it has not been proved false, or when, it is argued that a proposition is false becauseithasnotbeenprovedtrue. 2. Appealtoinappropriateauthority(adverecundiam):Whenthepremisesofanargument appealtosomepartyorpartieshavingnolegitimateclaim toauthorityinthematterathand. 3. Complex question: When a question is asked in such a way as to presupposethe truthof someassumptionburiedinthatquestion. 4. Argumentagainsttheperson(adhominem):Whenanattackislevellednotattheclaims orconclusionsofanopponent,butatthepersonoftheopponent. Arguments ad hominem take two forms. When the attack is directly against persons, seeking to defame or discredit them, it is called an abusive ad hominem. When the attack is indirectly against persons, suggesting that they adopt their views chiefly because of their special circumstancesorinterests,itiscalledacircumstantial adhominem. 5. Accident:Whenoneappliesageneralizationtoanindividualcasethatitdoesnotproperly govern. 6. Converse accident: When one moves carelessly or too quickly from a single case to an indefensiblybroadgeneralization. 7. False cause: When one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of that thingormoregenerally,whenoneblundersbadlyin reasoningbasedoncausalrelations. 8. Begging the question(petitio principii): When one assumes in the premisses the truthof whatoneseekstoestablishintheconclusion. 9. Appeal to emotion (ad populurn): When careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculatedtocreateenthusiasmandemotionalsupportfor theconclusionadvanced. 10. Appeal to pity (ad misericordiam): When careful reasoning is replaced by devices calculatedtocausesympathyonthepartofthehearerforthe objectsofthespeakersconcern. 11. Appealtoforce(adbaculum):Whencarefulreasoningisreplacedwithdirectorinsinuated threatstocausetheacceptanceofsomeconclusion.

12. Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi): Whenthe premisses miss the point, purporting tosupportoneconclusionwhileinfactsupportingor establishinganother. FALLACIESOFAMBIGUITY:Inthesethemistakenargumentsareformulatedinsucha wayastorelyonshiftsinthemeaningofwordsorphrases,fromtheiruseinthepremissestotheir useintheconclusion.Weexplainthetypesofreasoningmistakesinfivefallaciesofambiguity. 1. Equivocation: When the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings, deliberatelyoraccidentally,intheformulationofanargument. 2. Amphiboly: When one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible meaningbecauseofthelooseorawkwardwayinwhichthewordsinthatstatementarecombined. 3. Accent:Whenashiftofmeaningariseswithinanargumentasaconsequenceofchangesin theemphasisgiventoitswordsorparts. 4. Composition:Thismistakeismade(a)whenonereasonsmistakenlyfromtheattributesof aparttotheattributesofthewhole,and(b)whenonereasonsmistakenlyfromtheattributesofan individualmemberofsomecollectiontotheattributesofthetotalityofthatcollection. 5. Division: This mistake is made (a) when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a wholetotheattributesofoneofitsparts,and(b)whenonereasonsmistakenlyfromtheattributes ofatotalityofsomecollectionof entitiestotheattributesoftheindividualentitiesthemselves.