Philosophy 112: Elementary Logic

10. Informal fallacies

Abstract: This lecture deals with informal fallacies and introduces three
different kinds and a number of examples of informal fallacies.

What are informal fallacies?

A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves,
on examination, that its form or contents is not in order. “Formal fallacy”
refers to the invalid form of the argument, for instance, invalid modus ponens
or tollens. “Informal fallacy” pertains to a flaw in the contents or meaning of
arguments. So, an informal fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be
correct, but that proves, on examination, that its contents is not in order.

There are numerous fallacies (about 100). We distinguish only a few major
ones here. They can be divided into three groups: 1. Fallacies of relevance, 2.
Fallacies of presumption and, 3. Fallacies of ambiguity.

1. Fallacies of relevance
When an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion,
the fallacy committed is one of relevance. Examples:

1.1. Ad hominem (argument against the person): this is an argument that

attacks the person who makes an assertion rather than the person's
argument.

a. Direct:

E.g. Bill Gates has argued against further regulation of the software industry.
But Bill Gates is just a billionaire geek who’s out to make more money and
take over the world. His argument can’t be a good one.

E.g. Don’t listen to Eddie’s arguments on education, he’s an idiot.

b. Circumstantial: A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one

attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is
making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves
substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's
religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). A Circumstantial ad
Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have
no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.

Examples:

Bill Gates is rumoured to be in some way associated with GMO giants

Monsanto – which would of course explain why people’s increasing unease
about animal-derived protein is eminently exploitable, and how this unease
could be channelled towards greater consumption of genetically modified
plant protein.

She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she
is only saying it because she is a Republican.

I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical
issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is
required to hold such views.

Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending.

After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine.

Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increase development. Of course,
Bill is the CEO of a corporation.

You can't believe what Professor Smith says about teacher's salaries
because, as a teacher himself, naturally, he would be in favour of more
money.

You can't believe what Professor Smith says about teacher's salaries because
he comes from a family of mostly teachers; naturally, he would be in favour of
a higher salary.

c. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (you, too) or appeal to hypocrisy

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false

because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what
a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the
following form:

Person A makes claim X. Person B asserts that A's actions or past

claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any
particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims
only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's
claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a
hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

If you truly believe in environmentalism, instead of debating with me,

you should be out there helping the cause.
Rebuttal
Presumably, Speaker 1's intent was only to argue the benefits of
environmentalism, not to assert his own personal moral standing.
Attacking the speaker's actions therefore does not address his
argument.

2
 Your argument against consumerism is invalid because you own a
computer, cell phone, or other luxuries.
Rebuttal
Regardless of whether Speaker 2 believes Speaker 1 is personally
acting in accordance with his beliefs, this is not in itself an argument
against the validity of those beliefs.

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So

take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't
be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're
wrong now."

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is

morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef
sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food
and clothing is wrong!"

Mom, you can’t tell me not to use drugs. After all, you’ve admitted to
me that when you were my age you used to smoke enough pot every
night to get ten people stoned.

1.2. Ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance): this is the mistake committed

when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true.

Examples:

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you won't do well in logic;

thus, we may conclude that you will do well.

You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of
Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.

There is no absolute clear evidence that James, Jones, and David did not
rape Mary and Ann, thus we may safely conclude that they are not guilty.

There is intelligent life in outer space, for no one has been able to prove that
there isn't.

3
I know that every action we perform is predetermined because no one has
proved that we have free will.

1.3. Ad verecundiam (argument from authority): this fallacy arises when the
appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter
at hand.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the
argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or
"the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I
saw on TV..." or some similar statement. In such cases the person is often
hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a
legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the
claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert
(without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

An example: appealing to Albert Einstein, a noted authority on physics, to

support one's political or religious beliefs. While Einstein undoubtedly had
political beliefs, he was certainly no politician or experienced in politics to the
point where he could make a more informed judgment than most people. He,
along with the likes of Stephen Hawking are often quote-mined as being either
for or against the existence of God; and the fact that such "authorities"
believed in it one way or another is cited as proof of one position being right
and the other wrong. The fact that the same individuals can be selectively
quoted to back up either position should give a good indication of how useful
they are as genuine points in an argument. The opinion of an authority
speaking outside his/her field is sometimes worth considering because that
person is intelligent and knowledgeable about many subjects but its value is
limited.

Other examples:

Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than
Isaac Newton?

H.L.A. Jenkins, the noted international rose expert, has publicly stated that
logic is essential to a life of excellence; consequently, this view must be so.

Judge Jenkins is a very successful and reliable authority, so if he has

acquitted the 6 men accused of raping the 2 women on the basis of lacking
evidence, then they will not be guilty.

1.4. Ad populum (argument from popular appeal): an argument that attempts

to persuade by appealing to someone’s or a group's emotions or desires. In
this fallacy the arguer uses common desires or emotions such as the need to
be appreciated or, to fit in, to be admired, etc. to persuade the listener to
believe a conclusion. Such a fallacy may proceed directly, as when a speaker
excites emotion in a crowd in order to take advantage of the common
tendency of excited crowds to accept (often dubious) claims without much
justification. An appeal to the people may also proceed indirectly, in the sense

4
that the arguer appeals to one’s desired role as part of the crowd (rather than
appealing to the crowd as a whole). Two examples of the indirect approach
are given below.

a. Bandwagon argument

In a bandwagon argument the arguer uses the common desire to fit in with the
crowd in order to make his conclusion more likely to be accepted. For
example:

“Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.”

I can’t believe you’re not doing logic. Everybody that studies here does logic.

b. Appeal to Vanity

In this sort of appeal to the people the arguer uses the desire to be associated
with someone or something that is admired or loved in order to get the listener
to accept their claim. For example:

Come for dinner at the Ritz. The elite of New York City have dined here since
1920.

Further examples:

"My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is
overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without
the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are
dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in
my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain
terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States.
Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing
the right thing."

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I
was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they
must be okay."

Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are
racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in
the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is
nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane
accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.

1.5. Appeal to emotions

This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy:

Appeal to Popularity

5
 1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.

Appeal to Emotion

1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most

people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is
accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the
emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.

Examples of Appeal to Emotion

The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy
one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were
just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by
your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new
freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the
evils of the government and the need to throw out the people who are
currently in office. After hearing the speech, Bill is full of hatred for the current
politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old
politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.

1.6. Ad misericordiam (argument from pity or misery): an argument that uses

passion to advance a conclusion.

E.g., Tamara is such a nice girl and will be broken-hearted if she does not get
75% in logic.

E.g., Given the scarcity of jobs and poor conditions people live in very poor
areas, you must accept that they will become xenophobic and thus violent if
foreigners move into these areas. So, one cannot hold them accountable for
their xenophobia.

1.7. Ad baculum (argument from force): an argument that uses the threat of
harm for the acceptance of the conclusion

E.g., I'm sure you will agree to the proposal before your committee because
your future with this company might end if you don't.

E.g., I think I really deserve a raise. After all, I’d hate to have to let your wife
know you’ve been cheating on her for the last five years.

6
1.8. Ignoratio elenchi ("ignoring of the disproof"). A fallacy that consists in
disproving or proving something different from what is in question or called
for. So it is fallacy committed when an argument purporting to establish a
particular conclusion is instead directed to proving a different conclusion. It
can also be called the irrelevance fallacy: a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion or
missing the point.

Examples:

"You cannot convict my client of murder. We have proven that one of the
arresting officers made prejudicial remarks, remarks scornful of my client.
Look at the videotape, the audiotape, the man's own testimony. He is a full-
blown racist; you must not trust anything he says."

Undermining an allegation of murder is something different than proving that

one member of the plaintiff's team is bigoted; hence, the i.e. fallacy here.

E.g.: The crime rate in Milwaukee has been increasing at an alarming rate.
Therefore, the state of Wisconsin should reinstate the death penalty.

There may be a number of different conclusions one might draw given the
premise concerning Milwaukee’s increase in the crime rate, but reinstatement
of the death penalty is hardly supported by that premise.

1.8. Red herring: Similar in category, but with darker implications than
ignoratio elenchi, that go beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red
herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the
subject. A red herring fallacy occurs when an arguer distracts the reader or
listener with some claim that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The arguer then
makes a conclusion concerning the irrelevant issue, or draws no conclusion at
all. In short, one can say that a "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to
divert from an argument by changing the topic.

E.g.: Environmentalists have complained about the dangers of nuclear power

for quite some time. However, electricity is dangerous no matter how it’s
generated. In fact, people often forget that electricity is terribly dangerous.
Many people get electric shocks each year because of such ignorance. It’s
really too bad the government won’t do more to educate the public about the
dangers of electricity (adopted from Hurley 121).

Here the arguer does nothing to address the issue of the dangers of nuclear
power, but instead changes the subject to the danger of electricity. If there’s
even an argument at all here, it certainly has nothing to do with the original
issue.

E.g.: "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for
students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis
and we do not want our salaries affected."

7
Topic A is the proposal that academic requirements be raised. Topic B is the
possible effects of a budget crisis on teacher salaries. Topic A is abandoned
and the unrelated topic B is introduced.

Eg.: Accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever
pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said
you didn't like the color."

Meaning: Ned reverts the topic of his cheating by creating an argument about
his household tasks.

Eg.: I do not believe that taxes should be higher. Higher taxes often lead to
lower salaries and socialist entitlement programs.

Meaning: In truth, higher taxes do not have a direct relationship to salaries or

entitlement programs. However, associating these three things is designed to
make each seem equally unpalatable to the audience.

1.9. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on

misrepresentation/distortion of an opponent's position. The arguer then
attacks the distorted version (the straw man), making a conclusion against the
original argument or position. In other words, to "attack a straw man" is to
create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially
similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having
actually refuted the original position.

E.g., Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.

Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses
its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a
position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants”.

E.g., Jones has argued against allowing prayer in public schools. Obviously
Jones is an atheist and advocates atheism. However, atheism was
encouraged in the former Soviet Union as part of a campaign to suppress
practice of all religions. We clearly don't want such a state to exist here, so
Jones’ position can’t be a good one (adapted from Hurley p. 119).

Jones’ position gets distorted into one that endorses atheism (which clearly
isn’t entailed by the claim that prayer in public schools is improper). The
arguer then finds fault with atheism the distorted version of Jones’ real
position), and concludes that Jones’ position is bad. Of course, attacking the
distorted version of Jones’ position is irrelevant to the merit of Jones’ actual
view.

1.10. Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to
extreme and often ludicrous outcomes.

Examples:

8
 “If we allow gay people to get married, what’s next? Allowing people to
marry their dogs?”

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll
be charging $40,000 a semester!"

"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the

government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to
die."

"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over
you."

"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start
banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you
know, they will be burning all the books!"

1.11. Two Wrongs Make A Right

A charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have

sinned, or might have done wrong as well.

Logical form

Person 1 did X to person 2.

Therefore, Person 2 is justified to do X to person 1.

Person 1 believes that person 2 would do X to person 1.

Therefore, Person 1 is justified to do X to person 2.
Example 1:
Jimmy stole Tommy’s lunch in the past.
Therefore, it is acceptable for Tommy to steal Jimmy’s lunch today.

It was wrong for Jimmy to steal Tommy’s lunch, but it is not good reasoning to
claim that Tommy stealing Jimmy’s lunch would make the situation right.
What we are left with, are two kids who steal, with no better understanding of
why they shouldn’t steal.
Here is a similar example:
Bill borrows Jane's expensive pen, and later finds he hasn't returned it. He
tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.
Example 2:
It looks like the waiter forgot to charge us for the expensive bottle of
champagne. Let’s just leave -- after all, if he overcharged us, I doubt he
would chase us down to give us our money back that we overpaid.

9
Here the reasoning is a bit more fallacious because we are making an
assumption of what the waiter might do. Even if that were true, two rip-offs
don’t make the situation right.

War atrocities and terrorism are often defended in this way.

Similarly, some people defend capital punishment on the grounds that the
state is killing people who have killed.

This is an informal fallacy that occurs when assuming that, if one wrong is committed,
then another wrong will cancel it out.

 Speaker A: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.
 Speaker B: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

The unstated premise is that breaking the law (or the wrong) is justified, as long as
the other party also does so. It is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to
change or distract from the issue. For example:

 Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should

not do that.
 Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his
Congressional testimony!

Even if President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony, this does not establish
a precedent that makes it acceptable for President Williams to do so as well. (At best,
it means Williams is no worse than Roberts.) By invoking the fallacy, the contested
issue of lying is ignored.
The tu quoque fallacy is strictly a specific type of "two wrongs make a right".
Accusing another of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some
situations, does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as
contradictory.

2. Fallacies of presumption

These are arguments that are logically inadequate because they presume as
true key assumptions that must be independently verified to establish their
conclusions.

2.1. Complex question: asking question in such a way as to presuppose the

truth of some conclusions buried in that question. A complex question
combines two or more distinct questions into a single one, thus presuming the
truth of some claim. All of the following questions are complex questions.

E.g.: Have you stopped using drugs?

Two questions are linked here: “have you ever used drugs?” and “if you have
used drugs, did you stop doing so?” By joining them together in Have you
stopped using drugs? one overrides the first question. The result is that no
matter how one answers, one seems to admit to using drugs at some point.

10
Thus the questioner makes an unwarranted presumption that whoever is
answering the question is using drugs.

E.g.: Are you still beating your wife?

E.g.: Where did you hide the drugs you stole?

A similar sort of move is made in the latter two complex questions.

E.g.: an executive of a utility company may ask: "Why is the private

development of resources so much more efficient than any government –
owned enterprise?"

Here the person presumes the greater efficiency of the private sector.

2.2. False Cause: presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not
really exist. In Latin it is called non causa pro causa.

E.g.: Napoleon became a great emperor since he was so short.

or
E.g.: Since Jack sat in the back of the class and made an A on the last test,
maybe I should sit there too.

2.3. Petitio Principii (circular argument; begging the question): to assume the
truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it.

E.g.: I believe that Frosted Flakes are great because it says so on the Frosted
Flakes packaging.

E.g.: "Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a
brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree."
Oscar Wilde, De Profundis.

E.g.: "You know that God is a just and loving God because God is God and
cannot be unjust or unloving."

E.g.: "Women write the best novels because men do not write novels as well."

E.g.: "There are many juvenile delinquents because many juveniles break the
law, and the reason so many juveniles break the law is that they are juvenile
delinquents."

E.g.: "The soul is simple because it is immortal, and it must be immortal

because it's simple."

E.g., Logic is an essential course because it is required at many colleges. It is

required at those colleges because the ability to reason is vital and because
logic is so essential.

11
2.4. Fallacy of Accident: When we presume the applicability of a
generalisation to individual cases that it does not properly govern, we commit
the fallacy of accident.

E.g: Logic courses fulfil the social science electives at most other universities,
so our logic course here fulfils the same requirement.

2.5. Converse Accident (hasty generalization; glittering generality): When we

presume that what is true of a particular case is true of the great run of cases,
we commit the fallacy of converse accident.

E.g.: Not one person spoke to me on the way to the library; Fort Hare
University is not as friendly as I was led to believe.

2.6. False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this

type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way
that there are only two possible options.

Examples:

“If you don’t vote for this candidate, you must be a Communist.”

Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."

Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge
deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."

Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that
you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for
a while."

3. Fallacies of Ambiguity

When terms used in the premises have quite another sense in the conclusion.

3.1. Equivocation: When we confuse the several meanings of a word or

phrase – accidently or deliberately – we commit the fallacy of equivocation

E.g.: Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions,
thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with
two different meanings.)

E.g.: The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked
there.

12
E.g.: All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human (this
is called "illicit obversion").

E.g.: A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the
Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool.

E.g.: Good steaks are rare these days, so don't order yours well done.

3.2. Composition: an argument that attributes to a whole characteristics of the

parts.

E.g.: "Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team
is a great team." This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able to
play together very well and hence they could be a lousy team.

E.g.: "Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a
masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece." This is fallacious since a
show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail to
"come together" to make a masterpiece.

E.g.: "Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beans, so you will like this
beef, potato, and green been casserole." This is fallacious for the same
reason that the following is fallacious: "You like eggs, ice cream, pizza, cake,
fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls, and yogurt so
you must like this yummy dish made out of all of them."

E.g.: Since I can lift up each individual part of my car, I can lift up the whole
car.

3.3. Division: an argument that attributes to the parts of a whole the

characteristics of the whole itself.

E.g.: The United States is a rich country. Therefore, every American is rich.

E.g.: The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue.

E.g.: A living cell is organic material, so the chemicals making up the cell
must also be organic material.

E.g.: Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large.

E.g.: Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely eaten. Therefore its
constituent elements, sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten.

E.g.: Americans use much more electricity than Africans do. So Bill, who lives
in primitive cabin in Maine, uses more electricity than Nelson, who lives in a
modern house in South Africa.

Exercises

13
Identify the fallacies in the following arguments.
1. “All laws have a lawmaker. The law of gravitation and motion are laws.
Therefore the laws of gravitation and motion have a lawmaker.”
2. “How can you tell us not to use drugs when you yourself smoke and drink
and take all sorts of pills?”
3. “When did you stop beating your wife?”
4. “It has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that smoking causes
cancer. Therefore smoking doesn’t cause cancer.”
5. “I know God must exist. For all recorded history billions of people have
believed in some type of deity. If the vast majority of humankind has
believed in God, who are we to doubt?”
6. “It is not necessary to put a fence around the cemetery. After all, those
who are outside, don’t want to get in, and those who are inside, can’t get
out.”
7. “Shall we go out to a nice restaurant and have a fine dinner, or shall we
stay home and split the tiny bit of greasy leftover pie - you know, the one
that got burnt in the oven yesterday?”
8. “Those who accuse the government of being underhand about the R43
billion arms deal, do not understand the sensitive nature of the behind-the-
scenes negotiations.”
9. “An injury to one is an injury to all.”
10. Political slogans: “Let us be your voice”, “South Africa deserves better”.
“Create jobs”.
11. “Last year her husband left her in a cheerful frame of mind”.
12. Everything happens for a purpose. If there were no purpose, nothing
would happen.
13. Johan is a total racist, so you shouldn’t believe his theory of mathematics.
14. Johan is a total racist, so you should not put him in charge of a human
rights commission where he would be required to promote racial harmony.
15. Silicone implants do not cause cancer. My friend Susan has them and she
told me.
16. OJ Simpson is clearly guilty of murder. Everyone believes it, and will tell
you the same thing.
17. Nomsa is the kindest, most loving and most generous person I know, and
she would do anything for anyone in need. So, she could not really have
failed her driver’s license.
18. How can we be sure God exists? The bible says that God exists, and the
bible is the word of God.
19. Professor Mavuso’s arguments for affirmative action must be weak, for, as
a black woman she stands to benefit enormously from its implementation.
20. The idea that thousands and thousands of innocent women could be at
risk from cancer from silicone implants is just too horrific to contemplate.
We must, therefore, accept that they do not cause cancer.
21. Since most people think that their lives have been easier over the last few
years, we can conclude that they have been easier.
22. Because the very pro-abortion former executive director of the National
Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association Scott Richard Swirling
has pleaded guilty to negotiating on-line to have sex with a man’s 12-year-
old daughter, it means that those associated NFPRHA (pronounced nif-

14
 pur-Ha!) can’t be trusted in what they say about abortions on demand for
pre-teen females.
23. You can’t tell me that reintroducing the death sentence would reduce the
level of crime. Everyone who says that is either completely stupid or totally
reactionary in their political views.
24. God undoubtedly exists, for my parents told me so.
25. The Catholic Church acknowledged covering up the crimes of a bunch of
misordained molesting male priests who were ‘oriented’ mainly towards
post-pubescent young males, therefore we are right to ignore what the
Church says about fornication, birth control, self abuse, divorce, and
abortion.
26. Alan Boesak is not guilty of fraud. This is because he is our valiant and
steadfast hero of the struggle, who boldly fought back the forces of
Apartheid evil and darkness.
27. No one has ever proved that cell phones cause cancer. Therefore, cell
phones do not cause cancer.
28. Chocolate and vanilla are the most popular ice cream flavours. Since you
do not like chocolate, your favorite flavour must be vanilla.
29. I think we can all agree that the notorious ax murderer Joe Blogs, who
used his last words to state that killing is wrong, is a hypocrite. Therefore,
hacking people to pieces with dull axes is okay.

Further examples drawn from http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/fall_rev.html -

see the answers on this website!

1. Einstein became a great physicist because his parents and his teachers left
him alone to dream. Had they badgered him to study, he never would have
gotten beyond the Swiss patent office.
False cause/ Ignorantiam

2. As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had its turn
signal on. Thus, I conclude that the drivers in this state are not well trained
since they never use their turn signals.
Converse accident

3. The best definition distinguishing man from other animals is that man is a
rational animal. Therefore, you, as a person, should spend more time
studying and using your brain than you should spend for partying.
Fallacy of accident/Begging the question/Irrelevant conclusion

4. I can see that you are greatly impressed by the power of logic and
argument. Therefore, are you going to sign up for Philosophy 102:
Introduction to Philosophic Inquiry this semester or next semester? It's got to
be one or the other.
Complex question/Irrelevant conclusion

5. The Smithson Foundation is investigating whether or not police officers are

using excessive force in traffic arrests of minorities. Hence, it is quite
reasonable to conclude that some police officers, at least, use excessive force

15
in that kind of arrest.
Fallacy of accident

6. The testimony of the defendant accused of manslaughter in this indictment

should be disallowed because she has been arrested for shoplifting on many
occasions.
Ad hominem

7. Why haven't you written to your Mother as often as you should? You would
feel much better about yourself if you would attend to the details of life which
are this important.
False cause

8. It should be no surprise to you that the state is, again, headed into either a
recession or a deep economic downturn. After all, a Republican has just
been elected governor.
Ad hominem? Irrelevant conclusion

9. When I was shopping at Bess's Fine Clothing, not one person gave me the
time of day. I guess Bess's is not a very friendly place to work.
Converse accident

10. John Bardeen, a professor at the Advanced Institute of Physics, has gone
on record to say that the American Medical Association needs to raise its
standards for physicians. The opinion of a man of that brilliance should not be
disregarded.
Ad verecundiam

11. If we took a poll right now, almost every American would agree that a
vaccine for AIDS will soon be found. Therefore, there can be little doubt that
AIDS will be practically wiped out in the near future.
Ad populum

12. I made low grades on my first tests in math and English. I must really be
dumb.
False cause

13. As a daughter when I was four, my father taught me the beauty of

numbers, and I have excelled at mathematics ever since. My conclusion as to
why females do not score as high on math tests? The males with a high
aptitude for mathematics are not spending enough time with their daughters.
Irrelevant conclusion

14. I think that the tests given in this class were more than fair, and I think you
will agree with me because, if you do not, your grade in this course will
certainly be in jeopardy.
Ad baculum

15. The result of my doing well in economics is very simple. I eat Post
Toasties for breakfast every morning for breakfast, and this breakfast helps

16
my ability to analyze in great depth. I think it must be all those complex
carbohydrates.
False cause

16. Oriental Philosophy is the best course taught at Lander University. I know
this because all of my friends say so.
Ad populum

17. Look Mr. IRS examiner, of course I owe taxes—I'm not denying that.
However, I was unable to file on time because my wife was sick and my two
children need my attention. Surely the IRS is not opposed to keeping the
family together.
Ad miserecordium

18. Mr. Smith, maybe there is some truth in what you say about me being
rude to sales people, but I have certainly heard may sales people complain
about your manners, so you are certainly not the person to point this out to
me.
Ad hominem

19. Sir, don't you want to look more closely at our aluminum siding for your
new home? When we put this up, your home will take on the glow of beauty,
and you will be admired by others as someone who cares. Not only that, but
your life will be richer as you proudly invite others to your home to share the
better way of life.

Band wagon

20. It is easy to see that goodness is in the world and not just in our minds,
because as we look at the world, some things are obviously not evil or
indifferent in themselves.
Beg the question

21. Mr. Watkins has clearly and concisely detailed his arguments concerning
the relative safety of tobacco products for Third World countries. But, let me
remind you that we could hardly expect him to say anything else because he
has worked in the tobacco industry for the last twenty years.
Ad hominem

22. All persons act in order that they might get pleasure. Even so-called
altruistic persons who help others so much that they do almost nothing for
themselves must get pleasure out of giving. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.
Suppose a person hits himself over the head with a hammer. He must get
pleasure from it, because why else would he do it if he didn't get pleasure
from it?
Beg the question

23. The Roper Organization says that more persons watch CBS's 60 Minutes
that any other news program on television. Therefore, it must be the best

17
news programming on TV.
Fallacy of accident/ad populum

24. Hilda Robinson, an old backwoods, ignorant lady who never got past the
fourth grade in school, claims that chicken soup is good for a cold. What does
she know? She is ignorant of the scientific evidence.
Ad hominem

25. Watch the Business Report at 7:00 on channel 6. It's the best report on
current dealings on Wall Street because no comparative study of business
reposts has ever proved to our satisfaction that there is any better.
Ad verecundiam

Directions: Please indicate the best answer to the fallacies in the following
passages. Not all passages necessarily contain fallacies. Fallacies present
here include those of relevance and presumption.

1. Einstein became a great physicist because his parents and his teachers left
him alone to dream. Had they badgered him to study, he never would have
gotten beyond the Swiss patent office.

Answer: Since there is no causal connection between "leaving someone

alone to dream" and "becoming a great physicist," the fallacy of false cause
occurs. One can also say, ad ignorantiam, for how could one conclude from
what one does not know?

2. As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had its turn
signal on. Thus, I conclude that the drivers in this state are not well trained
since they do not ever use their turn signals.

Answer: The number of examples and the method of selection are not reliable
methods of generalization; hence, the fallacy of converse accident occurs

3. The best definition distinguishing man from the other animals is that man is
a rational animal. Therefore, you, as a person, should spend more time
studying and using your brain than you should spend for having a good time.

Answer: Although all persons, as human beings, have rational capacities, it

does not follow that in this specific case one should necessarily be rational
more often--fallacy of accident is committed. One can also argue for a non
sequitur (irrelevant conclusion), from our rational nature does not directly
follow that one should study more.

4. I can see that you are greatly impressed by the power of logic and
argument. Therefore, are you going to sign up for Philosophy 102:
Introduction to Philosophic Inquiry this semester or next semester? It's got to
be one or the other.

18
Answer: The question presupposes that the listener will sign up for a logic
course; hence, the fallacy of complex question occurs. Perhaps also an ad
populum, an appeal to popular emotions, we all like to be flattered.

5. The Smithson Foundation is investigating whether or not police officers are

using excessive force in traffic arrests of minorities. Hence, we may
conclude that some police officers, at least, use excessive force in that kind of
arrest.

Answer: An investigation does not entail that any evidence has been
forthcoming so far. Since no evidence is adduced, one cannot justifiably come
to a conclusion. The fallacy of ad ignorantiam occurs in this passage.

6. The testimony of the defendant accused of manslaughter in this indictment

should be disallowed because she has been arrested for shoplifting on many
occasions.

Answer: Strictly speaking, one should evaluate the cogency of the testimony
and evaluate it on its own merit. Fallacy of ad hominem occurs because being
a shoplifter does not entail not telling the truth.

7. Why haven't you written to your Mother often as you should? You would
feel much better about yourself if you would attend to the details of life which
are this important.

Answer: The supposition that the Mother is not written to sufficiently often is
assumed without evidence and is used as the evidence for drawing another
conclusion; hence, the fallacy of complex question is committed. This is yet
somewhat unclear, we do not know the context. One could also argue for a
non sequitur, for writing to the mother does not necessarily lead to feeling
better about one’s life.

8. It should be no surprise to you that the state is, again, headed into either a
recession or perhaps a deep economic downturn. After all, a Republican has
just been elected governor.

Answer: The locutor assumes, without evidence, that the election of a

Republican will cause a slowing down of the economy. The fallacy of false
cause occurs. Could also be an ad hominem, one attacks the republican, not
any of his arguments.

9. When I was shopping at Bess's Fine Clothing, not one person gave me the
time of day. I guess Bess's is not a very friendly place to work.

Answer: The speaker is generalizing from one experience. More evidence

would be necessary to reach the conclusion that Bess's is not a good place to
work. The speaker commits the fallacy of converse accident.

10. John Bardeen, a professor at the Advanced Institute of Physics, has gone
on record to say that the American Medical Association needs to raise its

19
standards for physicians. The opinion of a man of that brilliance should not be
disregarded.

Answer: An authority in physics is being cited outside of his field of expertise.

The ad verecundiam fallacy occurs. Simply from the fact that most persons
believe a statement is true, it does not follow logically that the statement is
true--ad populum fallacy. Right, but it could also be an ad verecundiam as far
as authority is used as argument.

11. If we took a poll right now, almost every American would agree that a
vaccine for AIDS will soon be found. Therefore there can be little doubt that
AIDS will be practically wiped out in the near future.

Answer: Simply from the fact that most persons believe a statement is true, it
does not follow logically that the statement is true--ad populum fallacy.

12. I made low grades on my first tests in math and English. I must really be
dumb.

Answer: Too few examples are used to justify such a conclusion; fallacy of
converse accident is committed. Also a non sequitur, from two such tests
does not follow stupidity.

13. As a daughter when I was four, my father taught me the beauty of

numbers, and I have excelled at mathematics ever since. My conclusion on
why females do not score as high on math tests? The males with a high
aptitude for mathematics are not spending enough time with their daughters.

Answer: The author of this example assumes that her case would be typical of
all or most other daughters if they had had similar experiences. The fallacy of
converse accident occurs.

14. I think that the tests given in this class were more than fair, and I think you
will agree with me because, if you do not, your grade in this course will
certainly be in jeopardy.

Answer: The threat of a poor grade is logically unrelated to the fairness of

tests; hence the ad baculum fallacy is committed.

15. The result of my doing well in economics is very simple. I eat Post
Toasties for breakfast every morning for breakfast, and this breakfast helps
my ability to analyze in great depth. I think it must be all those complex
carbohydrates.

Answer: No causal evidence is given for the relation between eating a

breakfast cereal and ability to analyze, so the fallacy of false cause occurs.

16. Oriental Philosophy is the best course taught at Lander University. I know
this because all of my friends say so.

20
Answer: Although most friends think so, that doesn't make it so. Ad populum
fallacy occurs.

17. Look Mr. IRS examiner, of course I owe taxes--I'm not denying that.
However, I was unable to file on time because my wife was sick and my two
children need my attention. Surely the IRS is not opposed to keeping the
family together.

Answer: The unfortunate circumstances of the taxpayer are logically

independent of his responsibility to pay his taxes--ad misericordiam fallacy.

18. Mr. Smith, maybe there is some truth in what you say about me being
rude to sales people, but I have certainly heard may sales people complain
about your manners, so you are certainly not the person to point this out to
me.

Answer: The ad hominem variation of "you're another" (also phrased tu

quoque) is offered.

19. Sir, don't you want to look more closely at our aluminum siding for your
new home? When we put this up your home will take on the glow of beauty,
and you will be admired by others as someone who cares. Not only that, but
your life will be richer as you invite with pride others to your home to share the
better way of life.

Answer: Some logicians would classify this passage of an instance of the ad

populum fallacy – and I would agree, it is an instance of the bandwagon.
Lander states: the passage is regarded here as "rhetoric and persuasion."

20. It is easy to see that goodness is in the world and not just in our minds,
because as we look at the world, some things are obviously not evil in
themselves.

Answer: Although "good" and "evil" are not complementary classes, this
passage can be analyzed as petitio principii, since ceteris paribus ("all other
things being equal") the meanings are similar enough to be circular reasoning.
If this analysis is acceptable then, in a sense, this fallacy turns of the fallacy of
false dichotomy.

21. Mr. Watkins has clearly and concisely detailed his arguments concerning
the relative safety of tobacco products for third world countries. But, let me
remind you that we could hardly expect him to say anything else because he
has worked in the tobacco industry for the last twenty years.

Answer: Although Mr. Watkins worked for the tobacco industry, it does not
follow necessarily that he does not speak the truth. One might even offer the
argument that his expertise is actually relevant to the subject of the argument.
Fallacy of ad hominem is committed.

21
22. All persons act in order that they might get pleasure. Even so-called
altruistic persons who help others so much that they do almost nothing for
themselves get pleasure out of giving. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.
Suppose a person hits himself over the head with a hammer. He must get
pleasure from it, because why else would he do it if he didn't get pleasure
from it?

Answer: The fallacy is petitio principii or circular argument. The premise that
all persons act from the motive of pleasure is the same statement as the
conclusion. But it could also be a fallacy of complex question, for one
assumes in the question the truth of the premise that we act out of pleasure.

23. The Roper Organization says that more persons watch CBS's 60 Minutes
that any other news program on television. Therefore, it must be the best
news programming on TV.

Answer: Simply because a program is popular, the conclusion doesn't

logically follow that the program is the best--unless, of course, one defines
"best" as "the most popular" as is sometimes done in marketing. Logically
speaking, the fallacy of ad populum occurs.

24. Hilda Robinson, an old backwoods, ignorant lady who never got past the
fourth grade in school, claims that chicken soup is good for a cold. What does
she know? She is ignorant of the scientific evidence.

Answer: The attack on character and circumstances is characteristic of the ad

hominem fallacy.

25. Watch the Business Report at 7:00 on channel 6. It's the best report on
current dealings on Wall Street because no comparative study of business
reposts has ever proved to our satisfaction that there is any better.

Answer: From the fact that a conclusion has not been proved, no other
conclusion can be drawn. This passage illustrates one common version of the
ad ignorantiam fallacy. Could also be taken to be and ad verecundiam – the
study on business reposts is used as an argument, and not the programme
(the Business Report) itself.

22