Alexander Frieson-Chan

V00898155
January 20, 2020

PHILOSOPHY 201 CHAPTER 5 – FALLACIES

A fallacy is a defect in an argument. Occur both in deductive and inductive

arguments.

An informal fallacy is detected by looking at the content of the argument.

NOT THE PATTERN.

Genetic Fallacy – The reason given to believe that a claim is true or false is because of
its origin.
For. E.g.:
“Russell’s idea about tax hikes came to him in a dream so it must be worthless”

“You cannot trust what Chloe says about her family, she’s a pathological liar”(No
fallacy, it is relevant to the content at hand)

Ad Hominem (Appeal to the Person) – An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one claims
that we shouldn’t believe an argument because of some property about the arguer
himself.
For. E.g.:
Character
“Jack says that smoking in bars should be legal but he’s an idiot.”

Motives
“Jack says that smoking in bars should be legal but he’s just worried that he’ll lost his
job if the smokers go elsewhere” (Should not disregard content because of ulterior
motive at hand)

Circumstances
“Jack says that smoking in bars should be legal but he’s a smoker so of course he’d say
that.”

Tu quoque (“You too”)

“Jack says that smoking in bars should be legal but he doesn’t allow smoking in his
home so you shouldn’t believe him”

A way to distinguish these, is if you can point at the arguer and disagree with them
personally instead of the argument, then it’s ad hominem. If a group or body then it
could potentially be a genetical fallacy.
Alexander Frieson-Chan
V00898155
January 20, 2020
Composition & Division – The fallacy of composition occurs when one falsely claims
that the attributes of the parts can be transferred to the attribute of the whole.
For E.g.:
“Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.” (Fallacy)
“Each atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the chalk has mass.” (No fallacy)

Division – With the fallacy of division one incorrectly attributes the property of the
class to the individuals in the class.
For. E.g.:
“Wild apes are going extinct so this wild ape is going extinct.”
“The average Canadian family has 2.3 children. The Smith family is an average
Canadian family. The Smith family has 2.3 children.”

Equivocation – When our belief in the conclusion depends on the fact that a word or
phrase is used in two different senses, then the fallacy of equivocation has been
committed.
For. E.g.:
“I have a right to smoke outdoors if I want to. Therefore, smoking outdoor is the right
thing to do.” (The word right is being used in two different ways. The meaning is
changed to help the argument.)

Appeal to Popularity – In this fallacy the arguer claims that a statement is true because
a substantial number of people believe it to be true.
For. E.g.:
“The vast majority of Canadians believe that the long gun registry is a waste of money.
So, it is.”
“Sherry received the most votes so she should be crowned prom queen.” (No fallacy.)

Appeal to Common Practice – In this case the fallacy occurs because of what people do
instead of what they believe.
For E.g.:
“Fords are the most reliable cars on the road. Most people own a Ford”

Appeal to Tradition – This fallacy occurs when we are asked to believe that a claim is
true or false simply because it is part of a tradition.
For E.g.:
“Acupuncture has been used for a thousand years in China. It must work.”
Note: It is also not reasonable to reject a claim solely because it is part of a tradition.
For. E.g.:
“Children have always been given few rights under the law it’s time to throw out old
fashioned ideas and bring in the new.”
Alexander Frieson-Chan
V00898155
January 20, 2020
Appeal to Ignorance – In an appeal to ignorance one concludes that something is true
just because it has never been proven false.
For. E.g.:
“People have tried to prove the claims of astrology true, but have failed. Thus, the
claims of astrology must be false.”
“My wife must be having an affair, because I can’t prove that she isn’t.”

Appeal to Emotion – Any kind of emotion. Only turns to a fallacy when you only
appeal to emotion and don’t give good reasons. You can be very emoted when arguing,
obviously.

Red Herring – Distraction to the argument.

Straw-Man – Misrepresent the opposing argument. Build their argument up as a straw

man and blow it down. Over simplify it, attribute views to the opponent that they don’t
actually hold.

January 27, 2020

Begging the Question – Has a few different forms. One can beg the question by using a
premise that is essentially a restatement of the conclusion or providing a premise that is
not known to be true independent of the conclusion. They’re unsatisfying. You beg for
the answer to be given. Only assumed that it was the case. In all cases of begging the
question, the arguer uses some linguistic device to create the illusion that inadequate
premises provide adequate support for a conclusion. If no such attempt at illusion is
made then there is no fallacy.

For E.g.:
“Abortion is murder, so abortion is wrong.”
“Capital punishment is justified for the crime of kidnapping since it is legitimate that
someone be put to death for such an inhuman act.” (Premise and conclusion, same idea
but worded differently)

False Dilemma – A false dilemma occurs in an argument when one of the premises has
an “or” statement but there are in fact more alternatives than the two presented in the
disjunction. If one of the disjuncts is true then no fallacy is committed. Forced to pick
between unlikely option.

For. E.g.:
You should let me go to Anna’s after school or I will be miserable for the rest of my life.
You don’t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life.
So, you should let me go to Anna’s.
Alexander Frieson-Chan
V00898155
January 20, 2020
Slippery Slope – An argument commits the fallacy of the slippery slope when there is
the assumption that a chain reaction of events will take place when it is not reasonable
to assume so. Usually, the result of the argument is disaster. Some causal link.

For. E.g.:
“Genetic testing on embryos should be outlawed. If we start testing on embryos then
we’ll do testing on fetuses and eventually we’ll be using children as guinea pigs.”

Hasty Generalization – A hasty generalization is a fallacy that occurs in inductive

arguments when the sample used as evidence for the conclusion is not representative of
the group.
For. E.g.:
“100,000 people from Calgary were asked what party they would vote for in the next
election. 75% of them said they would vote Conservative. Therefore, the Conservatives
will have a majority government.

Careful! Composition may be confused with Hasty Generalization. You have to be

talking about what is true of MORE things, not the thing that is CREATED.

Faulty Analogy – Pointed to things that are the same, but have nothing to do with what
is being concluded. Analogies are always inductive, you will never get to certainty.
Difference lies in the conclusion. Individual is analogy, group is H.G.