ARGUMENT

• An argument is the list/ set of statements. An

argument consists of premises/ assumptions and
conclusion.
• In other words, an argument is the series of
statements called the premise/premises intended
to determine the degree of truth of another
statement, the conclusion.
• Premises: are the reasons for accepting a
conclusion. It includes since, firstly, secondly, as
for, assuming that, follows from, in view of fact
that, after all, indicated by, as shown.
• Conclusion: is the end statement. It includes
therefore, hence, consequently, suggests/proves/
demonstrates, that entails, implies.
1.
TYPES OF ARGUMENT
Deductive Argument: An argument where the conclusion follows validity from the premises. In
other words, an argument where truth of the premises guarantees truth of the conclusion.
this argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical sequence of the premises. Based on
the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily.
Or,the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises, if the premise is true, then
the conclusion must be true. It would be self contradictory to assert the premises and deny the
conclusion because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
• It follows from GENERAL→ SPECIFIC/ PARTICULAR(always true)
E.g., P: all men are mortal (GENERAL)
P: Ram is a man
C: Ram is mortal (PARTICULAR)

P: If Raj is human then he is mortal(PARTICULAR)

` P: Raj is human
C: Raj is mortal (PARTICULAR)

P: All human are animal (GENERAL)

P: All animal are mortal
C: All human are mortal (GENERAL)

• If premise is true, conclusion has to be true.

• Premises if true, do provide conclusive ground for its conclusion.
• It can be valid or invalid
• If all the premises are true and conclusion is also true, hence it is a valid argument.
• If any of the statement is false, then argument is invalid argument. Or, the conclusion, if ,logically
incorrect then argument is invalid.
• Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, it
is a valid deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a
valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
Eg. All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are
mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some
Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be
Romans (for example or anyone else).
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Valid Invalid

Premises True Premises False

Sound argument Unsound argument

2. Inductive Argument: An argument where the premises point several cases
of some pattern and the conclusion states that this pattern will hold in
general. An inductive argument will not be deductively valid, because
even if a pattern is found many times, doesn’t guarantee it will always be
found. Therefore an inductive argument provides weaker, less
trustworthy support for the conclusion than a deductive argument does.
This argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported to
some degree of probability by the premises.
Arguments that involve predictions are inductive, as the future is
uncertain.
E.g., P: we have seen 1000 swans and all of them have been white.
C: all swans are white
• It is based on probability.
• Premises only provide some support for the truth of conclusion.
• It flows from PARTICULAR → GENERAL (may/may not be true)
E.g., A is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
B is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
C is human and is mortal (PARTICULAR)
All human are mortal (GENERAL)
.
Inductive arguments are of two kinds:
(a) Cognent Inductive argument:
Argument that is (1) strong, (2) has all true premises and (3) doesn’t overlook
important evidence that would lead to another conclusion.
Cognent argument= strong argument+ all premises true

(b) non-cognent Inductive argument:

Argument that is either (1) strong, but has at least one false premise, OR
(2) is weak OR (3) overlooks important evidence that would lead to
another conclusion.
3. Abductive (Hypothetico- Deductive) Argument:
An argument that (i) point out a certain fact (ii) points out that if a certain
hypothesis were true, we would get this fact, and so (iii) concludes that
hypothesis is indeed true.
E.g., P: These coins conduct electricity (fact)
P: If these coins are made up of gold (hypothesis), then they would
conduct electricity (prediction)
C: These coins are made of gold.
• Here, we try to presume a fact by using supporting facts( or prediction).
E.g., P: Some people cannot see (fact)
P: Tim continue walking into objects. (supporting fact)
C: Tim cannot see. (abduction)
• These arguments seem to make an even bigger jump than inductive
arguments: inductive arguments generalize, while abductive arguments say
that successful predictions ‘prove’ a theory is true.
• These arguments are not deductively valid, because false theories can make
true predictions, so true predictions do not guarantee that the theory is true.
• It flows from INCOMPLETE OBSERVATION→ BEST PREDICTION(may/may
not be true)
Fallacies in Argument
CCT-UNIT 2
 Fallacies in Argument
• A fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in reality it is not so.
It is an invalid argument which is camouflaged and which can deceive or
mislead us by a show of truth. It is, so to speak, a trap, something Tricky or
hidden. Being mistakes in reasoning, fallacies arises from the violation of
one or other of the principles on which the correctness of reasoning
depends
• A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong
moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be
deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
• A fallacy is:
i. an incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or i
nvalid reasoning.
ii. unsound or invalid reasoning.
iii. the tendency to mislead.
iv. (Logic) logic an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically
invalid.
 Types of Fallacies
• There are two types of fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies: A formal fallacy is one that can be detected by analyzing
the form of an argument, such fallacies affect only deductive argument.
2. Informal Fallacies: An informal fallacy is one that can be identified only by
analyzing the content of an argument, such fallacies can affect both deductive
and inductive arguments.

• Types of Formal Fallacies:

• Appeal to Probability - This is a statement that takes something for granted
because it is probable or possible.
Example: I see a dark cloud on the horizon. Dark clouds mean rain. It’s going to
rain here today.
• Bad Reasons Fallacy - Also known as Argumentum ad Logicam, in this type
of fallacy, the conclusion is assumed to be bad because the arguments are bad.
Example: Her new friend drives an old car. She must be poor. She should not talk
to her.
• Masked Man Fallacy - Also known as the Intentional Fallacy it involves a
substitution of parties. If the two things that are interchanged are identical,
then the argument is assumed to be valid.
Example: a private investigator informed police that the murder is committed
by someone who has red car. Mr. A also has a red car. Hence, Mr. A is the
murderer.
• Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does
not follow from the propositions or premise.
Example: All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, therefore,
he is not Irish.

• Informal Fallacies: Following are the major types of informal fallacies:

 Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies of Defective Induction
 Fallacies of Presumption
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Fallacies of Relevance
• The fallacy of relevance share the common characteristics that the argument in
which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to
follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.
• In an argument that commit fallacy of relevance, the connection between
premises and conclusion is emotional. To identify a fallacy of relevance, one
must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional
appeal. Following are the various types of fallacies of relevance:

1. APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM de BACULUM): occurs

when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a conclusion,
provides some sort of threat or harm to the listener or reader if the
conclusion is not accepted. E.g., Either you can pay me the ten thousand
you owe me, or you can pay your dentist.
 2. APPEAL TO PITY ( ARGUMENTUM ad MISERICORDIAN): occurs
when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a conclusion,
attempts to get the conclusion accepted by evoking pity from the listener or
reader. E.g., Our company is on the rocks, financially, if you sue us, we will go
out of business, and our children will not be able to go to college.
Example: TAX PAYER TO JUDGE: Your honor, I admit that I declared
thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two.
But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I shall
probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that
she desperately needs and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty. The
conclusion of this argument is “Surely I am not guilty”. The conclusion is not
logically relevant, although it is psychologically relevant.

3. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE (ARGUMENTUM ad POPULUM): when

the arguer tries to get the conclusion accepted by playing upon the listener’s
desire to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, or accepted. E.g.,
Everybody knows that Smith cannot win, so you should vote for Connor in the
election. This is also known as APPEAL TO MAJORITY.
• The appeal to the people uses there desires to get the reader or listener to accept
a conclusion. Two approaches are involved:

• The Direct Approach: The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing
a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to
win acceptance for his or her conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of
mob mentality. This is a strategy used by nearly every propagandist and
demagogue. Politicians and some state rulers are masters of this techniques.

• The Indirect Approach: In the indirect approach the arguer aims his or her
appeal not to the crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately.
The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon
argument, the appeal to snobbery and the appeal to vanity.

 Bandwagon Argument: this argument is based on the fact that majority of the
society is following a trend so one should do the same.
Example: You should use colgate, because 90 percent of the population of India
uses colgate to brush their teeth.
 Appeal to Vanity: It often associates the product with someone, who is admired
and pursued if you use it. For Example: Raymond the complete man, the tag line
gives an argument that wearing Raymond clothes gives a presumption of being
strong, masculine and royal man.
 Appeal to Snobbery: Snob appeal refers to the qualities or attributes of a
product that might appeal to a consumer with "snobby" tastes. It may refer to the
actual product itself or the exclusivity the consumer could potentially experience
as a result of owning the product that is being advertised.
 Example: A Rolls Royce is not for every one. If you qualify as one of the select
few, this distinguished classic may be seen and driven at British Motor cars. (By
appointment only, please) or Rajni Gandha add showing royalties consuming it,
making an appeal that only royal people have taste for same.

4. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (Argumentum ad Hominem):

• ad hominems are a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes
another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background,
physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue. It also
known as Fallacy of Personal Attack.
• Example: You graduated with a PhD from NYU, I’m surprised that you don’t
believe that humans are responsible for climate change
• The Tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins when the second arguer attempts
to make the first appear to be hypocritical of arguing in a bad faith. Example
Child to parent: your argument that stop stealing candy from the shop is no
good. You told me yourself just a weak ago that you, too, stole candy when
you were a kid.

5. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT: When a general rule is wrongly or

unjustifiably applied to a specific case. E.g., Dogs have four legs; Fido just
had one of his legs amputated; so Fido is not a dog any more.

6. STRAW MAN FALLACY: it occurs when someone argues that a person

holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it
is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking
the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is
attacked.
Example: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense
budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to
leave the nation defenseless.
7. FALLACY OF MISSING POINT: occurs when the premises of an
argument lead, or seem to lead, to one conclusion and then a completely
different conclusion is drawn. E.g., Abuse of the welfare system is rampant
nowadays. Our only alternative is to abolish the system altogether.

8. RED HERRING FALLACY: It occurs when an arguer diverts the attention

of the reader or listener by going off on extraneous issues and points but ends by
assuming that some conclusion relevant to the point at hand has been
established. Example: “I think there is great merit in making requirements
stricter for graduate students. I recommend, you support it too. After, all we all
are in budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.”

9. ATTACKING THE MOTIVE: When an arguer criticizes a person’s

motivation for offering a particular argument or claim rather than examining the
worth of the argument.
Example: Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus but
Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He will make fortune if
his company is picked to build a new campus. Obviously, Trump’s argument is a
self-serving nonsense.
 Fallacies of Defective Induction
1. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: Concluding that something is true because it
has not been proven false (or vice versa) or When the premises state that
nothing is known with certainty about a certain subject, and the conclusion
states something definite about that subject.
Example: God exists because no one deny it. You cannot prove that God does not
exist, therefore he exists. Or
‘We have no hard evidence that fairies exist. Which must mean they are so
incredibly magical that they can make themselves completely invisible to humans’.

2. APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY: When an arguer cites the

testimony or belief of an authority who is not necessarily reliable or who is not an
expert in the subject at hand. Or Arguing that something is true because someone
else has said so, but when the supposed authority or expert really lacks the relevant
expertise, or can be suspected to have a bias.
Example: He has a PhD in Physics, that makes him a doctor, so we should ask him
if I have Swine Flu.
3. FALSE CAUSE: When the link between premises and conclusion in an
argument depends on the supposition of some causal connection that does not
in fact exist.
Example: The clock chimed six times, and then the sun came up; the sun
would not have come up without the clock chiming six times.
Or: I prayed that the Patriots would win the Super Bowl, and they did! God
heard my prayer.

4. HASTY GENERALISATION: When a conclusion is drawn about all the

members of a group or population from premises about some sample of the
group that is not representative.
Example: “Attack on USA was done by a Muslim. Hence all Muslims are
terrorists.”
Or: Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, I don’t trust any vegetarians.
 Fallacies of Presumption / Fallacy of
Inappropriate Assumption
1. CONFORMATION BIAS: Often we tend to seek, recognize, and value
information that is consistent with our attitudes, beliefs, and expectations.
If we form an initial impression, we may favor findings that support that
impression, and discount, ignore, or misconstrue data that don't fit.
Conformation bias is of two types:

 PREMATURE CONFORMATION: this is an invalid argument in which

when a particular hypothesis is taken and then the following premise does
not give enough evidence for the hypothesis to be true, then we say
premature conformation fallacy arises.
 Example: “If devil existed then bad things would happen in the world. Bad
things do happen in the world. Therefore, devil exists.”
 PREMATURE DISCONFIRMATION: when a hypothesis along with “auxiliary
assumptions” are true and the next premise declines hypothesis then the premature
disconfirmation fallacy occurs.
 Example: “If Sam were the vandal then his boot prints would be in the snow. But his
boot prints aren’t in the snow. Therefore, Sam isn’t the vandal.”

 No hypothesis ever entails any observational consequence in isolation. For example,

is it the case that if Sam were the vandal then his boot prints would be in the snow? Is
Sam’s being the vandal all that we need for the boot prints? Presumably not. Maybe
Sam wasn’t wearing his boots at the time of the vandalism. Maybe it didn’t snow until
after the vandalism was done. Assumptions like “Sam was wearing his boots,” and “It
snowed before the vandalism” are called “auxiliary assumptions,” so it isn’t really the
hypothesis alone that entails the observational consequences, but the hypothesis
together with a host of auxiliary assumptions. “If Sam were the vandal then his boot
prints would be in the snow,” is short for “If Sam were the vandal, and if he were
wearing boots at the time, and if it snowed before the vandalism, etc, etc, then there
would be boot prints in the snow.” We might not take the time to state of all of these
auxiliary assumptions explicitly, but they’re there nonetheless, and we can always
save the hypothesis by sacrificing an auxiliary hypothesis instead. We can, in other
words, maintain that Sam really is the vandal but that he was wearing slippers when
he toilet-papered the house.
 In short, the failure to detect an observational consequence of an hypotheses refutes
the hypothesis only if we have reason to believe that the auxiliary assumptions are
true. Hypothesis disconfirmation depends upon the truth of a missing premise.
2. BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY: Begging the question is a
fallacy in which a claim is made and accepted to be true, but one must
accept the premise to be true for the claim to be true. This is also known
as circular reasoning. Essentially, one makes a claim based on evidence
that requires one to already accept that the claim is true.
Example: God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is from God.
Or: ‘Paranormal activities exist because I have witnessed what can only be
described as paranormal activity.’

3. COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY: When several questions are

combined into one, in such a way that a yes-or-no answer is required, the
person they are asked of has no chance to give separate replies to each, and the
fallacy of the complex question is committed.
Example: Did your misleading claims result in you getting promoted?
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION: When the inference in an argument
depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two or more different
senses. Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used
deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying
one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from
the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can
“say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.
Example: Banks have lots of money in them; the sides of rivers are banks;
therefore, the sides of rivers have lots of money in them.
Or: “His political party wants to spend your precious tax dollars on big
government. But my political party is planning strategic federal investment in
critical programs.”
2. AMPHIBOLY FALLACY: The fallacy of amphiboly occurs, when the arguer
misinterpret a statement that is syntactically ambiguous and proceeds to draw a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. The syntactical ambiguity arises
from a mistake in grammar or punctuation. A missing comma a dangling modifier,
an ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun Or some other careless arguments of words
because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways.
Example: A king said “if I will lead an army against XYZ kingdom, I will destroy
a great kingdom.”
Or: "Don't let worry kill you off - let me help you.”

3. FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: Inferring that something is true of the whole

from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
Example: Hydrogen is a gas. Oxygen is a gas. Hence H2O is also a gas.
Or: our brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have consciousness.
Therefore, your brain cannot be the source of consciousness.

4. FALLACY OF DIVISION: Fallacy of division occurs when someone argues

that something that is true for the whole is also true for the parts of the whole.
Example: The boys in my neighborhood like to play basketball after school. So
my new neighbor, Kevin, will like to play basketball with them.
Or: Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, it’s component elements,
sodium and chlorine, are non-poisonous.