LOGICAL FALLACIES

Ayesha Masood
 Can be false premise: Problems of
cogency/soundness

Can be defective reasoning:

Problems of validity/strength.
DEFECTIVE
ARGUMENTS Fallacy:
• Defect in a argument, other than
a false premise
• Usually based on defective
patterns of reasoning
 FORMAL • A defect in the structure of an
FALLACIES argument.

FALLACY
• A defect in the content of an
argument.
INFORMAL • When argument’s stated
FALLACIES premise fail to adequately
support the proposed
conclusion.
FORMAL FALLACIES
• Formal fallacies can be understood as a use of invalid structures
that look like valid structures in the first appearance.
• In categorical syllogism
• P  Q / Q // P
• P  Q / ~P // ~Q
• P v Q / P // ~Q
• In hypothetical syllogism
• Denying the antecedent
• Affirming the consequent
 Fallacies of relevance

Fallacies of Insufficiency

INFORMAL Fallacies of Inappropriate Assumption

FALLACIES
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Analogy
 RELEVANCE CAN BE POSITIVE:

• When premise give support to the truth of

conclusion (however weak).

Examples

RELEVANCE • All dogs have five legs. Rover is a dog. So

Rover has five legs.
• Most Wexford College students live off-
campus. Annie is a Wexford College
student. So, probably, Annie lives off-
campus.
• Zoya is a woman. Therefore, Zoya enjoys
knitting.
 Relevance can be negative:

• When premise provide evidence to

negate the truth of conclusion.

RELEVANCE Example:

• Zain is three years old. Therefore,

he probably has a PhD.
• Zoya is six months old. She can
probably drive by now.
 Occur when premises
are logically irrelevant
to the conclusion
FALLACY OF
RELEVANCE Yet they may be
psychologically
relevant!
APPEAL TO FORCE
AKA ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM OR APPEAL TO THE STICK.
• Happens when arguer poses an argument, and then implicitly and
explicitly implies that reader will come to harm, if argument is not
accepted.
EXAMPLE:
• Raise my salary. Otherwise, I will send to your boss those financial
statements that I came across last month!
• Which is really like: If I succeed in threatening you, then I deserve a
raise in salary.
 Threat

Conclusion

Statement
 ARGUMENTUM AD
MISERICORDIAM
• Arguer attempts to
support the truth of
conclusion by
evoking pity from
the listener/reader
• That pity can be
directed towards the
arguer or any other
person/group.
APPEAL TO PITY
EXAMPLES
• I admit that I embezzled some funds from the company account, but
if you convict me, my life will be ruined, my children will starve. Surely
you should find me not guilty.
• I know I came late to couple of classes and I was absent. But you
should mark me present because otherwise I will not get good grades
in this course, and I need it to maintain my GPA. I won’t get in my
dream school if my GPA fell.
Pleading

Conclusion

Statement
 Aka Argumentum ad populum
• When arguer uses the desire of
humans to be loved, esteemed,
APPEAL TO valued, recognized and admired
to get them to accept a
PEOPLE conclusion.
• Direct and Indirect approaches
• When arguer (usually speaking to a
crowd/audience) excited some emotions,
resulting in mob mentality.
• Also works by arousing suspicion of fear
and anger in a crowd.
• Used by propagandist and demagogues.

DIRECT APPROACH
Pakistan is smiling at
us due to opposition’s
statement
 Your
group is
better

Conclusion

Statement
INDIRECT APPROACH
• Arguer focuses on the individuals, capitalizing on their relationship to
the crowd.
• Can be of three types:
APPEAL TO VANITY
If you agree, then you will also be admired,
young, sexy, beautiful, smart, famous, etc.
 BANDWAGON:
If you do not agree, then you will be left out, or left behind the group
Appeal to snobbery:
If you agree then you will also become
one of the few (rich, famous, so on)
 You want
to be cool,
hip,
wealthy…

Conclusion

Statement
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON
Aka Argumentum ad hominem
• Arguer A presents a certain argument
• The other, arguer B, instead of critique the
argument itself, argues against A.
• Three types:
• Background attack
• Circumstance attack
• You too
Ad hominem Abusive
• When one person discredits the other person’s
argument by pointing out their background.
• Example
• What a stupid argument!
• Pitwari, jiyala, insafiya
You are a
bad
person

Conclusion

Statement
AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL
• One arguer attempts
to discredit other by
alluding to certain
circumstances that
affect the opponent.
 You are
doing
something
bad

Conclusion

Statement
YOU TOO! TU QOUQUE!
• Aka You are another one!, look who is talking, two wrongs
• Occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in
order to avoid taking the other's position seriously.
Example:
• Hey! you are running through a red light. And so did you, just last
week. So, shut up!
 You are
doing it as
well

Conclusion

Statement
IMPORTANT
• Do not mistake tu qouque fallacy with pointing out
the hypocrisy of others.
• It occurs only when you conclude the argument must
be wrong!
 • When the opponent
distorts the original
argument, argues
against the distorted
argument, and
concludes that the real
argument has been
destroyed as well.

STRAW MAN
EXAMPLE
• Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.
• Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain
that we evolved from monkeys!
• Ted: Actually, that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I
never claimed we evolved from monkeys. Unlike math and logic,
science is based on empirical evidence and, therefore, a scientific fact
is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for
the fact that biological evolution does occur, falls into this category.
EXCEPTION
• At times, an opponent might not want to expand on the
implications of his or her position, so making assumptions
might be the only way to get the opponent to point out that
your interpretation is not accurate, then they will be forced
to clarify.
 • A seemingly plausible, though
ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic
Example
• I think we should make the academic
requirements stricter for students. I
recommend you support this because
we are in a budget crisis, and we do not
want our salaries affected.

RED HERRING
 • When a general rule is misapplied to
an obvious exception.
• It looks deductively valid, but is
unsound.
• Example:
• Those who cut people with knives are
criminals. Surgeons cut people with
knives. Therefore, surgeons are
criminals! (once sound, BTW)

FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
 • Aka Ignorantio Elanchi
• Premise of the argument supports a
certain conclusion
• But then arguer draws a different
conclusion, vaguely related to the
first one.
EXAMPLE:
• Crime rate in our country is
constantly rising. We must enforce
the Islamic mandated laws to ensure
peace in our country.

MISSING THE POINT