RULES AND

FALLACIES
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM:

A categorical syllogism is a formal deductive

argument consisting of three statements

TERMS:

MIDDLE TERM:
It is a term that occurs in both premises and
does not occur in conclusion.
 THREE TERMS

MAJOR TERM:
Major term is the predicate of the conclusion.

MINOR TERM:
:
Minor term is the subject of the conclusion.

EXAMPLE:

No homework is fun ……… major premise

Some reading is homework……… minor premise
Some reading is not fun………. Conclusion
 DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS:
A categorical term is said to distributed if all individual
members of that category are accounted.

There are four categorical propositions that distribute the

terms. A, E I,O are the standard names for type of state
ment indicated

STATEMENT TYPE TERM DISTRIBUTED

A: All X are Y subject

E: No X are Y subject, predicate
I: some X are Y none
O: some X are not Y predicate
 RULES AND FALLACIES:

Valid syllogism conforms to certain rules

which if violated, a specific “Formal Fallacy “
is committed and the syllogism becomes
invalid

RULES:
There are six rules for standard form of
syllogisms which are presented as follows:
 RULE NO: 1
RULE:
A valid standard-form categorical syllogism
must contain exactly three terms, each of
which is used in the same sense throughout
the argument.

FALLACY:
FALLACY OF FOUR TERMS
 EXAMPLE:
1. All rare things are expensive things.
All great novels are rare things.
Therefore ,all great novels are expensive things.

This syllogism appears to have only three terms but

there are really four terms, since one of them, the
middle term, is used in different senses in two pre
mises.
2. All dogs are animals,
All cats are mammals,
So all dogs are mammals.
The four terms are: dogs, animals, cats and
mammals
 RULE NO :2

RULE:
In a valid standard form categorical syllogism
the middle term must be distributed at least
once.

FALLACY:
Undistributed middle
 EXAMPLE:
All sharks are fish.
All salmon are fish
All salmon are sharks.

In this syllogism the middle term is “fish”. In

both premises “fish” occurs as the predicate
of an A proposition and therefore it is not dis
tributed in either premises. Thus syllogism
commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.
 RULE NO : 3

RULE:
If a term is distributed in the conclusion,
then it must be distributed in a premise.

FALLACY:
Illicit major ; illicit minor
 EXAMPLES:
All horses are animals
Some dogs are not horses
Some dogs are not animals

In this example there is fallacy of “illicit major.”

All tigers are mammals

All mammals are animals
All animals are tigers

In this example there is fallacy of “illicit minor.”

 RULE NO :4

RULE:
In a categorical syllogism, two negativ
e premises are not allowed

FALLACY:
Exclusive premises
 EXAMPLE:

No fish are mammals.

Some dogs are not fish.
Some dogs are not mammals.

This syllogism is invalid because it has two

negative premises and because of that it co
mmit the fallacy of exclusive premises.
 RULE NO:5

RULE:
A negative premise requires a negative con
clusion, and a negative conclusion requires
a negative premise.

FALLACY:
Drawing an affirmative conclusion from neg
ative premise or drawing a negative conclu
sion from affirmative premises.
 EXAMPLE:
All crows are birds
Some wolves are not crows
Some wolves are birds

All triangles are three angled polygon

All three angled polygons are three sided polygons
Some three sided polygons are not triangles

Both are invalid because 1st draws an affirmative con

clusion from a negative premise. And 2nd draws negat
ive conclusion from affirmative premises
 RULE NO :6

RULE:
If both premises are universal, the conclu
sion cannot be particular.

FALLACY:
Existential fallacy.
 EXAMPLE:
All mammals are animals
All unicorns are mammals
Some unicorns are animals.

This syllogism is invalid because in this cas

e the conclusion is EXISTENTIAL i-e Begin
ning with ‘Some’.
THANK YOU
 What is a Fallacy?
 Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments
 Two points to remember about fallacies:
 fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be
quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener
 it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is
fallacious.
 Definition

 Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that

lead to faulty, illogical statements.
 They are unreasonable argumentative tactics
named for what has gone wrong during the
reasoning process.
 The Goal
 The goal today is not to label arguments as being fallacio
us or fallacy-free, but help you look critically at your own
arguments and strengthen them.
 You should also learn to spot these fallacies in debate, an
d learn how to counteract them.
 Hasty Generalization
Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases
based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is a
typical or just too small).
Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on

insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.

Stereotyping and Sexism are forms of this fallacy.

Take, for example common dumb blonde jokes:
 Example
"My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the
one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!
"
 Tip
Tip: Ask yourself what kind of "sample" you're
using: Are you relying on the opinions or experien
ces of just a few people, or your own experience in
just a few situations? If so, consider whether you
need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping
conclusion.
 Missing the Point
The premises of an argument do support a particular conclu
sion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
 Example
“The seriousness of a punishment should match the
seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for
drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a
very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the
death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.”
 Tip
Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at th
e premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective perso
n would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusi
on, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to
support such a conclusion, and then see if you've actually gi
ven that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sw
eeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especiall
y careful if you know you're claiming something big.
 Post Hoc (False Cause)
Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of c
ourse, sometimes one event really does cause another one
that comes later. But sometimes two events that seem
related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That
is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
 Example
“President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent
crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”
 Tip
To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give
us some explanation of the process by which the tax increas
e is supposed to have produced higher crime rates.
 Slippery Slope
The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually endi
ng in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's real
ly not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asse
rts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,”
we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she a
ssumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.
 Example
“Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we
don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant
of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will be
come a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for the
ir lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terri
ble consequence, we should make animal experimentation il
legal right now.”
 Tip
Check your argument for chains of consequences, where yo
u say "if A, then B, and if B, then C," and so forth. Make sure
these chains are reasonable.
 Weak Analogy
Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more o
bjects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being co
mpared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analo
gy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits
the fallacy of weak analogy.
 Example
“Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal par
ts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ri
diculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restriction
s on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.”
 Tip
Identify what properties are important to the claim you're m
aking, and see whether the two things you're comparing bot
h share those properties.
 Appeal to Authority
Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to resp
ected sources or authorities and explaining their positions o
n the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get read
ers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famo
us name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really
isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to a
uthority.
 Example
“We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected peo
ple, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their
opposition to it.”
 Tip
There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to aut
hority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are expe
rts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just
saying “Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, t
oo,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the autho
rity used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your read
ers have more to go on than a person’s reputation.
 Ad populum
The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” The
re are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what th
ey all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes adva
ntage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in
with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to
accept his or her argument.
 Example
“Gay marriage is moral. 51% of Americans think so!”
 Tip
Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your audien
ce believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it,
all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if yo
u believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opi
nion is not always the right one!
Ad hominem and tu quoq
ue
Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad
hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”)
fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on argum
ents or evidence.
 Example
“Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that p
ornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter p
erson, so you shouldn't listen to her.”
 Example
 In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the op
ponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing a
gainst, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be liste
ned to.
 Tip
Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rathe
r than on their personal character. (The exception to this is,
of course, if you are making an argument about someone's c
haracter—if your conclusion is “President Clinton is an unt
rustworthy person,” premises about his untrustworthy act
s are relevant, not fallacious.)
 Appeal to Pity
The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get pe
ople to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for so
meone.
 Example
“I know the exam is graded based on performance, but yo
u should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke
down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to st
udy!”
 Tip
Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audie
nce to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someon
e.
 Appeal to Ignorance
In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look,
there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Theref
ore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”
 Example
“People have been trying for centuries to prove that God d
oes exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore,
God does not exist.”

“People have been trying for years to prove that God does
not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore,
God exists.”
 Tip
Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evi
dence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidenc
e.
 Straw Man
One way of making our own arguments stronger is to antici
pate and respond in advance to the arguments that an oppo
nent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets u
p a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to
score points by knocking it down.
 Example
“Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish every
one who reads it! But such harsh measures are surely inappr
opriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers sho
uld be left in peace.”
 Tip
Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as str
ongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you ca
n knock down even the best version of an opponent's argum
ent, then you've really accomplished something.
 Red Herring
Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tang
ent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from wha
t’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the ori
ginal issue.
 Example
“Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thin
g to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the studen
ts and the professor are getting along well.”
 Tip
Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-li
ke form. How many issues do you see being raised in your a
rgument? Can you explain how each premise supports the c
onclusion?
 False Dichotomy
In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it look
s like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates
one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one
option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first plac
e. But often there are really many different options, not just t
wo—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so q
uick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
 Example
“Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and
put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ saf
ety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone's safety, so we m
ust tear the building down.”
 Tip
Examine your own arguments: If you’re saying that we ha
ve to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or a
re there other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If there a
re other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why
they, too, should be ruled out.
 Begging the Question
This fallacy comes in several forms and can be harder to det
ect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basicall
y, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to sim
ply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence;
the argument either relies on a premise that says the same t
hing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as
“being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ign
ores an important (but questionable) assumption that the ar
gument rests on.
 Example
“Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethi
cal thing to help another human being escape suffering thro
ugh death.”
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human
being escape suffering through death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.
 Example
“Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia is morally
wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active euthanasi
a is murder.”
 Tip
One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out
your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. S
ee if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to mov
e from one premise to the next or from the premises to the c
onclusion.
 Equivocation
Equivocation is sliding between two or more different mean
ings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argu
ment.
 Example
“Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So chariti
es have a right to our money.”
 Tip
Identify the most important words and phrases in your argu
ment and ask yourself whether they could have more than o
ne meaning. If they could, be sure you aren’t slipping and
sliding between those meanings.
How Do I Find My Own
Fallacies?
 Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you're defendi
ng.
 List your main points; under each one, list the evidence y
ou have for it.
 Learn which types of fallacies you're especially prone to,
and be careful to check for them in your work.
 Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow
ones.
 Double check your characterizations of others