Chapter Five: Informal Fallacies – Exam Study Notes
📌 Definition of Fallacy
A fallacy is a defect or error in reasoning that renders an argument logically flawed.
Not just false premises: fallacies involve poor logical connections or misleading content.
Can occur in deductive or inductive reasoning.
� Types of Fallacies
1. Formal Fallacy
o Occurs in deductive arguments with identifiable structure (e.g., syllogisms).
o Can be identified by examining form, not content.
o Example: “All A are B, All C are B, therefore All A are C” → Invalid form.
2. Informal Fallacy
o Occurs in both inductive/deductive arguments.
o Detected only through analysis of content.
o Often involve misleading language, relevance errors, or emotional appeal.
� Categories of Informal Fallacies
I. Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments where premises are not logically relevant, though they may be emotionally
persuasive.
1. Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum)
o Using threats to persuade acceptance of a conclusion.
o E.g., “Drop the charge, or you’ll face consequences.”
2. Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam)
o Evoking sympathy to win argument.
o Illegitimate if pity isn’t logically relevant.
o Exception: Compassion appeals based on lack of control over situation.
3. Appeal to the People (Ad Populum)
o Appealing to popular beliefs or emotional desires for acceptance.
o Forms:
Direct: Mob mentality.
Indirect:
Bandwagon: “Everyone thinks so…”
Vanity: “You’ll be admired if…”
Snobbery: “Not for everyone, but for special people like you.”
4. Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem)
o Attacking the person, not the argument.
o Types:
Abusive: Insults the person.
Circumstantial: Suggests bias due to background.
Tu Quoque: Hypocrisy; “you too” argument.
5. Accident
o Misapplying a general rule to a case it wasn’t meant for.
o E.g., Freedom of speech doesn’t justify inciting a riot.
6. Straw Man
o Distorting someone’s argument to attack it more easily.
o Example: Misrepresenting advocacy of federalism as a return to dictatorship.
7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
o Drawing a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from premises.
o Often vaguely related but still off-track.
8. Red Herring
o Distracting from the original topic by shifting to a different issue.
o Similar to Straw Man but doesn’t distort—just changes subject.
II. Fallacies of Weak Induction
Occur when premises are not strong enough to support the conclusion.
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Ad Verecundiam)
o Relying on opinion of someone without relevant expertise.
o E.g., An artist recommending nutritional facts.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam)
o Assuming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or vice versa).
o Exceptions:
Qualified experts failed to find evidence.
Legal context: “Not guilty” due to lack of evidence.
3. Hasty Generalization
o Drawing a conclusion about a group based on an unrepresentative sample.
o E.g., Interviewing 10 people and generalizing to the entire population.
4. False Cause
o Mistaking correlation for causation.
o Types:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: “After this, therefore because of this.”
Non causa pro causa: Mistaking coincidence or other factors for causality.
5. Slippery Slope
o Arguing that one event will lead to a chain of extreme consequences without
sufficient evidence.
6. Weak Analogy
o Relying on an analogy that is too dissimilar to support the conclusion.
