Logic & Critical

Thinking
Fallacies
LECTURE 12
Course Instructor: Rizwan Ahmad | Email: [email protected]

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 1

 RECAP
1.Classification of Fallacies
 Fallacies of relevance
(Continued…)

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 2

 Objectives
Classification of Fallacies
 Fallacies of relevance
 Fallacies of Defective Induction

Copy & Cohen Chapter 04, Patrick Harley Chapter 03

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 3

Classifications of Fallacies
F ALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
 R1: The appeal to the populace
 R2: The appeal to emotion
 R3: The red herring
 R4: The straw man
 R5: The attack on the person
 R6: The appeal to force
 R7: Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion)

4
 R6. The Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum)

5
 R6. The Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum)
 A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or
veiled threat of force. Also known as “argument ad
baculum.”
 Often called appeal to fear or appeal to force.
 The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an
arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells
that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm
will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the
conclusion.
 The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the
physical or psychological well-being of the listener or
reader, who may be either an individual or a group of
people.
6
 R6. The Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum)

7
 R6. The Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum)
 Examples
 Child to playmate: Doremon is the best show on TV; and if
you don’t believe it, I’m going to call my big brother over
here and he’s going to beat you up.
 If you are not going to answer my questions in the class,
you will be failed in the exam.
 Don’t argue with me, remember who pays your salary?
 This is physical or psychological threat?

8
R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

 A fallacy in which the premises support a different

conclusion from the one that is proposed. Also known
as “irrelevant conclusion” and “ignoratio elenchi.”

 There is a “disconnect” between the premises and

the conclusion.

 Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.”

9
R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

10
 R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

 Example:
 Suppose that one person
emphasizes how important
it is to increase funding for
the public schools. His
opponent responds by
insisting that a child’s
education involves much
more than schooling and
gets underway long before
her formal schooling
begins

11
 overview
Fallacies of Relevance
• R1. The Appeal to the Populace (ad Populum)
• An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for
some conclusion is an inappropriate appeal to the multitude.
• R2. The Appeal to Emotion
• An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for
some conclusion is emotions—fear, envy, pity, or the like—of
the listeners.
• R3. The Red Herring
• An informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used
to mislead and confuse.
• R4. The Straw Man
• An informal fallacy committed when the position of one’s
opponent is misrepresented and that distorted position is
made the object of attack.
12
 overview

Fallacies of Relevance
• R5. Argument Against the Person (ad Hominem)
• An informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the
substance of some position, one attacks the person of its
advocate, either abusively or as a consequence of his or her
special circumstances.
• R6. Appeal to Force (ad Baculum)
• An informal fallacy committed when force, or the threat
of force, is relied on to win consent.
• R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
• An informal fallacy committed when one refutes, not the
thesis one’s interlocutor is advancing, but some different
thesis that one mistakenly imputes to him or her.

13
 Fallacies of Defective Induction

 D1: The argument from ignorance

 D2: The appeal to inappropriate
authority
 D3: False cause
 D4: Hasty generalization

14
 Fallacies of Defective Induction

• There are many fallacious arguments in

which the premises are relevant and yet
are wholly inadequate.
• These we call fallacies of defective
induction.
• What are asserted as premises simply do
not serve as good reasons to reach the
conclusion drawn
15
 D1. The Argument from Ignorance

• A fallacy in which the premises are too weak

or ineffective to warrant the conclusion.
• Someone commits this fallacy if he or she argues
that something is true because it has not been
proved false, or false because it has not been
proved true because he or she does not know
enough about the subject, or has not been given
enough evidence.
• Ignorance fallacies can be found everywhere in
everyday conversation, in advertising, in politics
and in history.

16
 D1. The Argument from Ignorance
(Argumentumad Ignorantiam)
 Whenever some great change is proposed,
within an institution, or in society at large,
those threatened by it are likely to attack with
an argument from ignorance.
 How do we know it will work? How do we
know that it is safe? We do not know; and
without the knowledge that it is workable and
safe, we must not adopt the change proposed.
 Example:
 Change in Policy, New Cure, A Vaccine, Existing
of God
17
D1. The Argument from Ignorance
(Argumentumad Ignorantiam)

18
D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

 Fallacy in which a conclusion is accepted as true

simply because an expert has said that it is true.
This is a fallacy whether or not the expert’s area of
expertise is relevant to the conclusion.
 Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks
credibility.
 The person might lack the requisite expertise,
might be biased or prejudiced, might have a
motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,” or
might lack the requisite ability to perceive or
recall.

19
 D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

 Example:
 Advertising Toothpaste, Automobile, Medicine, Washing powder,
TV anchors and corona virus.

20
 D3. False Cause
(Argument non Causa pro Causa)
 A fallacy in which something that is not really the
cause of something else is treated as its cause
 The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link
between premises and conclusion depends on some
imagined causal connection that probably does not
exist.
 Example:
 There are more laws on the books today than ever before, and
more crimes are being committed than ever before. Therefore,
to reduce crime we must eliminate the laws.
 A fair coin was flipped five times in a row, and each time it
came up heads. Therefore, it is extremely likely that it will come
up tails on the next flip.

21
 D3. False Cause
(Argument non Causa pro Causa)

 The quality of education in our grade schools and

high schools has been declining for years. Clearly, our
teachers just aren’t doing their job these days.

22
 D4. Hasty Generalization

 A fallacy of defective induction in which one moves

carelessly from a single case, or a very few cases, to a
large scale generalization about all or most cases. Also
known as “converse accident.”
 Throughout our lives, we rely on statements about
how things generally are and how people generally
behave.
 Hasty generalization is the fallacy we commit when we
draw conclusions about all the persons or things in a
given class on the basis of our knowledge about only
one (or only a very few) of the members of that class.
 Stereotypes, What is it?

23
 D4. Hasty Generalization

Example:
 He smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age
fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore,
smoking really can’t be that bad for you.
 Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy
Smiley toothpaste brand. Therefore, it must be
great.

24
 Overview
Fallacies of Defective Induction
D1. The Argument from Ignorance (ad Ignorantiam)
 An informal fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an illegitimate
appeal to ignorance, as when it is supposed that something is likely to
be true because we cannot prove that it is false.

D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad Verecundiam)

 An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate, either
because the authority appealed to has no special claim to expertise on
the topic at issue, or, more generally, because no authority is assured
to be reliable.

D3. False Cause (non Causa pro Causa)

 An informal fallacy in which the mistake arises from accepting as the
cause of an event what is not really its cause.

D4. Hasty Generalization

 An informal fallacy in which a principle that is true of a particular case is
applied, carelessly or deliberately, to the great run of cases.

25
 Q&A

Riphah International University, Lahore

26