Critical Thinking

Week 6: Logical Fallacies I

Fallacies of Relevance
Overview
• We encounter arguments everywhere: in books, advertisements, TV talk shows,
political speeches, newspapers, class discussions, and with our family and friends.

• Some of those arguments are sound and convincing, but many are fallacious.

• An Argument is Fallacious when it contains one or more Logical Fallacies.

• A Logical Fallacy—or fallacy, for short is an argument that contains a mistake in

reasoning.
Logical Fallacy

https://youtu.be/4CtofTCXcYI?si=P42qZQgqzqpXX2LQ
Logical Fallacy
The simplest way to classify logical fallacies is to divide such fallacies into
two broad groups:

1. Fallacies of Relevance are mistakes in reasoning that occur because the

premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

2. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence are mistakes in reasoning that occur

because the premises fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion (will be discussed in Chapter 6).
 Notice that relevance has
The Concept of Relevance nothing to do with truth.
A can be relevant to B, even if
• To consider the fallacies of relevance, we mustA clarify B) concept
(and/orthe is false. of Relevance.

A statement is relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason

for thinking that the second statement is true or false.

There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or irrelevant to another:
1. A statement is positively relevant to a claim if it counts in favor of the claim.
2. A statement is negatively relevant to a claim if it counts against the claim.
3. A statement is logically irrelevant to a claim if it counts neither for nor against
the claim.
Positive Relevance Examples
• First argument: All dogs have five legs. Rover is a dog. So, Rover has
five legs.
• Second argument: Most EUI students live off-campus. Adam is an
EUI student. So, probably, Adam lives off-campus.
• Third argument: Sara is a woman. Therefore, Sara enjoys cooking.

Each of these premises is positively relevant to its conclusion

Negative Relevance Examples
• Suzan is a high-school senior. So, Marty likely has a Ph.D.

• Sandra is two years old. So, Sandra probably goes to college.

In both examples, the premises are negatively relevant to the

conclusion.
Each premise, if true, provides at least some reason for thinking
that the conclusion is FALSE.
Logical Irrelevance Example
• Last night I dreamed that Egypt won the football world cup.
Therefore, Egypt will win the world cup.

Neither of these premises provides a reason for thinking that

its conclusion is either true or false.

Thus, they are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Exercise 1
Determine whether the premises in the following arguments are positively
relevant, negatively relevant, or logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
1. Adam recently gave Amy an engagement ring. Therefore, Adam loves
Amy.
• Positively Relevant
2. The sky is blue. Hence, the next president will be a Democrat
• Logically Irrelevant
3. Sara lives in Alexandria. Hence, Sara lives in the Capital of Egypt.
• Negatively Relevant
Fallacies of Relevance
A Fallacy of Relevance occurs when an arguer offers reasons that are
logically irrelevant to his or her conclusion.

Fallacies of relevance often seem to be good arguments, but they aren’t.

Fallacies of Relevance
• Personal Attack (ad Hominem)
• Attacking the Motive
• Look Who’s Talking (Tu Quoque)
• Two Wrongs Make a Right
• Scare Tactics
• Appeal to Pity
• Bandwagon Argument
• Straw Man
• Red Herring
• Equivocation
• Begging the Question

5-13
Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
We commit the fallacy of Personal Attack when we reject someone’s
argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person’s
argument or claim.

5-14
Attacking the Motive
The fallacy of attacking the motive is related to the fallacy of personal attack.
Attacking the Motive is the error of criticizing a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of
the argument or claim itself.
Common pattern:
1. X is a bad person
2. Therefore, X’s argument must be faulty.

However, motivation is not always irrelevant. If someone is motivated to

misrepresent the facts, then you have a good reason to be doubting about the
“facts” they put forth.
• e.g., Bob said that there is no scientific evidence that smoking can cause cancer. But
Bob is a spokesperson for the tobacco corporations, so you shouldn't believe that there
is no such evidence just because he says there isn’t.

5-16
Look Who’s Talking (Tu Quoque)
The fallacy of Look Who’s Talking is committed when an arguer
rejects another person’s argument or claim because that person
fails to practice what he speaks.

For example:
Doctor: You should quit smoking.
Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do!

5-18
Two Wrongs Make a Right
• This fallacy is committed when one tries to make a wrong action
look right, by comparing it to another wrong (perhaps worse)
action.
• e.g., I don’t feel guilty about cheating; everyone does it.
• Common forms:
• X is common behavior; therefore, X is not wrong.
• X is worse than Y. Therefore Y is not wrong.
• However, sometimes actions can be justified by the fact that
other action have taken place.
• e.g., I killed the man because he was about to kill me; it was an act of
self-defense.

5-20
 Scare Tactics
• This fallacy is committed when an arguer threatens harm (physical or non-
physical) to a reader or listener if he or she does not accept the argument's
conclusion and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion.
• e.g., This gun control bill is wrong for America, and any politician who supports it will
discover how wrong s/he is at the next election.
• Common form:
1. If you don’t accept what I say something bad will happen.
2. Therefore, what I say is true.
• Such arguments are not always fallacious. If the natural consequences of
doing X are negative, then the consequences of doing X are relevant to the
truth of the statement “You should not do X.”
• e.g., You shouldn’t pass that law, it will hurt the public welfare.

5-21
Appeal to Pity
• …occurs when an arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings of pity or
compassion from his listeners or readers.
• e.g., He deserves to start on the football team; if he doesn’t he will be really upset.
• A starting position is deserved by ability, not by reaction.
• e.g., You shouldn’t give me an F in the class just because I failed all the exams; I had really
rough semester.
• A grade is deserved by achievement, not by circumstance.
• Such arguments are not always fallacious. If feelings are a legitimatize
motivating factor for action, then brining out those feelings are appropriate to
persuade.
• e.g., Everyone is counting on you; you should play hard!

5-22
This Week’s Readings

Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction

5th Edition
Chapter 5
Summary
• Logical Fallacy (or fallacy): an argument that contains a mistake in
reasoning.

• Fallacy of Relevance: mistakes in reasoning that occur because the

premise are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

• Relevance: A statement is relevant to another statement if it would, if

true, provide at least some evidence that the second statement is true
or false.

5-24
Questions??