CHAPTER FIVE

LOGICAL REASONING AND

FALLACIES
 5. Fallacy in General

5.1. The Meaning of Fallacy

• the word ‘fallacy’ is a general term that refers to a
logical defect or flaw or fault that a certain
argument exhibits in its structural arrangement or
reasoning process, or in the contents of its
statements used as premises or a conclusion, for
various reasons, other than merely false premises.
• In general, it is a violation of standard
argumentative rules or criteria.
• Let us take a moment now and see the standard
criteria or rules of a good argument, before
proceed to the detail discussion of fallacies.
 what are the standard rules of a good argument?
• There are four general criteria of a good
argument;
– relevance,
– acceptability,
– sufficiency, and
– Rebuttality of the premises.
A good argument must have premises that: are relevant
to the truth of the conclusion, are acceptable to a logical
person, together constitute sufficient grounds for the
truth of the conclusion, and anticipate and provide an
effective rebuttal to all reasonable challenges to the
argument or to the position supported by it.
• A premise is relevant, if its acceptance provides some reason to believe,
counts in favor of, or makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the
conclusion. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
• A premise is acceptable, if it is a reason, that the skeptic is likely to accept,
or that a rational person is ought to accept, or agreed on.
• However, an argument may not be good, even though its premises may be
relevant and acceptable, unless they are sufficient enough in number,
kind and weight.
• Finally, a good argument should also provide an effective rebuttal
(refutation, or disproof) to the strongest arguments against one’s
conclusion and also perhaps to the strongest arguments in support of the
alternative position.
• Therefore, fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good
argument.
• That is, an argument is good as far as it meets all the general criteria set
for a good argument, and hence commits no fallacy.
• It, however, becomes bad, if it violates any one of them, and hence
fallacious.
• Fallacies can be committed because of;
• a mistake in reasoning or the creation
of some illusion.
• the problem in the reasoning process or
the form of the argument, or
• defects in the contents of the
statements used as premises or a
conclusion.
 5.2. Types of Fallacies
• Fallacies are usually divided into two groups:
formal and informal.
• Depending on the kind of the problems or defects
they contain, arguments may commit either a
formal or an informal fallacy.
• A fallacy committed due to a structural defect of
argument is known as a formal fallacy.
• An informal fallacy, is a fallacy, which is
committed due to a defect in the very content of
an argument, other than in its structure of form.
 Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments that
have identifiable forms, such as categorical syllogisms,
disjunctive syllogisms, and hypothetical syllogisms.
• The following categorical syllogism contains a formal
fallacy:
All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all tigers are mammals.

This argument has the following form:

All A are B.
All C are B.
-------------------
• Through mere inspection of this form, one can see
that the argument is invalid.
• The fact that A, B, and C stand respectively for
‘‘tigers,’’ ‘‘animals,’’ and ‘‘mammals’’ is irrelevant
in detecting the fallacy.
• The problem may be traced to the second
premise.
• If the letters C and B are interchanged, the form
becomes valid, and the original argument, with
the same change introduced, also becomes valid
(but unsound).
• Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a hypothetical syllogism:
If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A, then B.
B.
-------------
A.

This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

• In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first premise, the form
becomes valid, and the original argument, with the same change, also
becomes valid.
• In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first premise, the form
becomes valid.
• In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies,
remember that formal fallacies occur only in
deductive arguments. Thus, if a given argument is
inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.
• Also, keep an eye out for standard deductive
argument forms such as categorical syllogisms and
hypothetical syllogisms. If such an argument is
invalid because of an improper arrangement of
terms or statements, it commits a formal fallacy.
 Informal fallacies
• Informal fallacies are those mistakes in reasoning process of an argument that cannot be recognized
by analyzing the structure of an argument, but only through analysis of the content of the argument.
• Only the meaning of the words, how the statements are constructed and how inferences are made that
reveals the faulty reasoning.
Consider the following example:
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
• A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:
All A are B.
All B are C.
----------------
All A are C.
• Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the
argument is clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. An analysis of
the content- that is, the meaning of the words- reveals the source of the trouble.
• The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in two different senses.
• In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured, and in the second
it means a life form. Thus, the argument really has the following invalid form:
All A are B.
All C are D.
------------------
All A are D.
• Since the time of Aristotle, logicians have
attempted to classify the various informal
fallacies.
 Aristotle himself identified thirteen and separated
them into two groups. The work of subsequent
logicians has produced dozens more, rendering
the task of classifying them even more difficult.
 The presentation that follows divides twenty-two
informal fallacies into five groups: fallacies of
relevance, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies
of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and
fallacies of grammatical analogy.
 5.2. Fallacies of Relevance

• Fallacies of relevance are those, (except missing the point)

which are committed chiefly due to a provision premises
that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
• Unlike the others, the fallacy of missing the point is
committed due to an irrelevant conclusion.
• In a good argument the premises provide genuine evidence
in support of the conclusion.
• In an argument that commits a fallacy of relevance, on the
other hand, the connection between premises and
conclusion is emotional.
• In this lesson, we will discuss eight fallacies of relevance:
Appeal to force, Appeal to pity, Appeal to people,
Argument against the person, Accident, Straw man,
Missing the point, and Red Herring.
 1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum:
Appeal to the ‘‘Stick’’)
It occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to another
person and tells that person either implicitly or
explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does
not accept the conclusion.
In other words it occurs when a conclusion defended by
a threat to the well- being of those who do not accept
the conclusion.
• This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to
the physical or psychological well- being of the
listener.
• Consider the following argument in which the arguer
uses unjustified physical threat on the listeners.
• Mr. Kebde you accused me of fraud and embezzlements. You
have to drop the charge you filed against me. You have to
remember that I am your ex-boss; I will torture both you and
your family members if you do not drop your case. Got it?

• This is a fallacious argument; the arguer is threatening the

listener to abandon his charge.
• The above argument can be re-written to expose the faulty
reasoning most clearly.
Mr. Kebede you have to drop your charge,
otherwise you will face accident.
• You can see that the conclusion is supported by force.
• The threat “accident” has no logical bearing on the
conclusion however (you have to drop your charge).
 2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
It is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by
evoking pity in one’s audience when the statements that
evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion.
The appeal to pity is not, very subtle. But if the arguer
succeeds in evoking sufficiently strong feelings of pity, he
or she may distract the audience from the logic of the
situation and create a desire to accept the conclusion.
The appeal to pity fallacy has the following form.
• Premises: You have reason to pity this person, thing or
situation (or group).
• Conclusion: You should do X for the benefit of this
person (or group), although doing X is not called for
logically by the reason given.
Consider the following argument.
• The Headship position in the department of accounting should be given
to Mr. Oumer Abdulla. Oumer has six hungry children to feed and his
wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight.

• The conclusion of this argument is “the Headship position in the

department of accounting should be given to Oumer Abdulla”.
• But the conclusion is not logically relevant to the pathetic condition of
the arguer though they do psychologically. It may be pitiful to see
people under these conditions; but this does not mean that such
conditions are logically relevant in every situation to decide. A certain
position should be open to people to fill when they have the necessary
qualification. The relevant logical reason in this situation for Oumer
Abdulla to qualify for the position is if he fulfills the necessary
educational experience.
• But ‘he has six hungry children to feed and his wife needs operation’
does not lend reason to accept the conclusion. So this is illegitimate
• There are arguments from pity, which are reasonable and plausible. There are situations where
compassion or sympathy could be a legitimate response for some situations.
• Most society values helping people in time of danger; showing compassion and sympathy is a
natural response in some situation. If some group of people are in danger, helping out may
require appeal to the compassion or pity of other people.

Consider the following argument.

• Twenty children survive earthquakes that kill most people in the village. These children lost
their parents. They are out of school, and home in the street. Unless we each of us contribute
money their life will be in danger in the coming days. We should help these children as much as
we can.
• As you can see this is argument from compassion, in which the conclusion is based on the feeling
of sympathy. The natural response of compassion and pity is a legitimate and reasonable
response.
• These children deserve special consideration or compassion; they deserve help from the
community. One of the main reasons for this deservingness is that the situation in which they
found themselves in is due to factor beyond their control. They are not responsible for the
situation in which they are in. If people are not responsible for the situation in which they are in;
it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to show compassion for these people.
• In fact, this is the main justification for some social policies to help out old people, disables,
orphan and other people who are in bad situation due to factor which is beyond their control.
• Helping people in problem when they are not responsible is reasonable. But if the people are in
bad situation in which they are responsible as a cause, showing of compassion may be
illegitimate and argument in which the conclusion is depend on illegitimate appeal to
 3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
• Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued,
recognized, and accepted by others.
• Feeling of being part of community and belongingness are some of
the most important humans needs.
• The appeal to the people strikes these desires and needs to get
acceptance for conclusion. Or the appeal to the people (or ad
populum fallacy) is an attempt to persuade a person (or group) by
appealing to these desires and needs.

Consider the following argument.

• I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to
belong to a party that stands for what is good for the country. Proud
to cast my lot with the kind of people who make this nation great.
Proud to stand with men and women who can get our nation back on
its feet. Yes, there are those who criticize us, who label our view of
trade agreements as “protectionist.” But when I look at you hard-
• The speaker wants the audience to accept his conclusion that ‘the trade
agreement is not a protectionist’. But look how he supports his thesis. He
appeals to the emotions of the crowd, the strong feelings of the crowd,
however, do not lend logical support to anyone’s view about trade
agreements.
• Premises to the effect that “I am proud to be associated with you” and “you
are hard-working people” are irrelevant to the conclusion (that “our view of
trade agreements is right”). As you can see, the arguer uses the feeling of
individuals to be part of the group to accept his conclusion. And anyone
who wants to be part of the group, who does not want to be deviated from
the mob mentality, accepts the conclusion as true.
• However, one does not have to be addressing a large group to commit the
ad populum fallacy.
• Any attempt to convince by appealing to the need for acceptance (or
approval) from others counts as an ad populum fallacy. Consider the
following argument.
• Mrs. Riley, are you saying that President Bush made a moral error when he
decided to go to war with Iraq? I can’t believe my ears. That’s not how
Americans feel. Not true Americans, anyway. You are an American, aren’t
• The mere fact that Ms. Riley is an American provides her with no logical
support for the conclusion that America’s war with Iraq was just or moral.
• But like most Americans, Ms. Riley may wish to avoid being regarded as
unpatriotic, and so an appeal to the people may influence her thinking.
• Two approaches are involved in appeal to people fallacy: direct and indirect.
• 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 the strategy used by nearly every propagandist and
demagogue.
• Because the individuals in the audience want to share in the camaraderie,
the euphoria, and the excitement, they find themselves accepting any
number of conclusions with ever-increasing fervor.
• In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd
as a whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach is very
common in most advertising industries.
• There are three recognizable forms in indirect approach: Bandwagon, Vanity,
and Snobbery.
I. Bandwagon fallacy
• Bandwagon fallacy is a kind of fallacy that commonly appeals to the
desire of individuals to be considered as part of the group or
community in which they are living. One of the characteristics of
community or group is that they share some values and norms.
• Not only they share but also every individual are expected to manifest
group conformity to these shared values. Bandwagon fallacy just uses
these emotions and feelings to get acceptance for a certain conclusion.
For instance, consider the following example.
The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the opinion that child
circumcision is the right thing to do. Thus, you also should accept that child
circumcision is the right thing to do.
• This argument presents appeal to bandwagon and if the person
considers that child circumcision is the right thing to do because the
majority of people accepts it, then this argument commits the fallacy of
bandwagon.
• Dear learners, do you see any relationship between sociocentrism and
bandwagon fallacy?
II. Appeal to Vanity
• The appeal to vanity often associates the product
with someone who is admired, pursued, or
imitated, the idea being that you, too, will be
admired and pursued if you use it.
For example, BBC may show the famous footballer,
Frank Lampard, wearing Addidas shoe, and says:
Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn
only by few respected celebrities! ADIDDAS SHOE!!!
• The message is that if you wear the shoe, then
you, too, will be admired and respected, just like
the famous footballer, Frank Lampard.
III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy
• let us look into the meaning of snob.
• Snob means a person who admires people in higher classes too much and
has no respect for people in the lower classes or a person who thinks
individuals from higher social classes are much better than other people
because they like things many people do not like.
• Appeal to snobbery fallacy is based on this desire to be regarded as superior
to others. This fallacy appeal individuals and their desires to be regarded as
different and better.
Consider the following argument.
The newly produced Gebeta Guder wine is not for everyone to drink. But you
are different from other people, aren’t you? Therefore, the newly produced
Gebeta Guder wine is for you.
• As you can see, it is a kind of advertisement and it appeal to the desire of,
particularly of those who are most famous and successful people, to be
different from the mass; it appeals their desire to be different from the
demos. And if the individuals want to be part of those who perceive
themselves as different from the mass, then he can easily be cheated by this
advertisement..
• to sum up, in the direct approach the arousal of a
mob mentality produces an immediate feeling of
belonging for each person in the crowd. Each person
feels united with the crowd, which evokes a sense of
strength and security.
• When the crowd roars its approval of the
conclusions that are then offered, anyone who does
not accept them automatically cuts himself or
herself off from the crowd and risks the loss of his or
her security, strength, and acceptance.
• The same thing happens in the indirect approach,
but the context and technique are somewhat
subtler.
 4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
• Argument against the person is another type of relevance fallacy.
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances
(either directly or implicitly) a certain argument and the other then
responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s
argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the
second person is said to commit an argument against the person. In
any of the kinds of conversational frameworks in which people
reason with each other, despite the opposition and partisanship
characteristic of many kinds of dialogue, there must also be a
presumption that in order to achieve collaborative goals,
participants must observe rules of polite conversation.
• Arguers must be able to trust each other, to some extent at least, to
be informative and relevant, to take turns politely, and to express
their commitments clearly and honestly. Without this kind of
collaboration in contributing to a dialogue, argument of a kind that
uses reasoning to fulfill its goals of dialogue interaction would not be
possible.
• Attacking the other party’s honesty or sincerity in
argument is a powerful move. Such an argument
leads one to the conclusion that such a person lacks
credibility as an arguer who can be trusted to play
by the rules. This argument is so powerful because
it suggests that such a person cannot ever be
trusted and that therefore whichever argument
they use, it may simply be discounted as worthless.
Thus, the person attacked cannot meaningfully take
part in the dialogue any longer, no matter how
many good arguments they seem to have. Because
they are so powerful and dangerous, ad hominem
arguments have often been treated in the past as
fallacious.
• The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the
ad hominem abusive, the ad hominem circumstantial, and the
tu quoque.
I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy
• In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to
the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first
person. The following is the form of ad hominem argument:
Premise: A is a person of bad character.
Conclusion: A’s argument should not be accepted.
• In this type of argument, A is the proponent of an argument
that has been put forward.
• The premise that is alleged is that A is a person of bad
character. What is normally cited is some aspect of A’s
character as a person, and often, character for veracity is the
focus of the attack.
• The attack is directed to destroying the person’s credibility, so that his
argument is discounted or reduced in plausibility because of the
reduction in credibility of the arguer. Thus, this type of attack is
particularly effective where a person’s argument depends on his
presumed honesty or good character for its plausibility. Consider the
following example.
In defending animal rights, Mr. Abebe argues that the government should
legislate a minimum legal requirement to any individuals or groups who
want to farm animals. He argues that this is the first step in avoiding
unnecessary pain on animals and protecting them from abuse. But we
should not accept his argument because he is a divorced drunk person who
is unable to protect even his own family.
• The conclusion of the argument says that we should reject the idea of
legislating a minimum legal requirement to protect animals. But what
reason is offered to support the conclusion? That Abebe is a drunk and
divorced person is the only reason given. But it is impossible to
conclude that we should reject legislation a minimum legal requirement
to protect animals from the idea that Abebe is a drunk and divorced
person. This is just an explicit and direct personal attack.
II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy
• The second type of against the person fallacy is ad hominem circumstantial. The
ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but
instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts
to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that
affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the
opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore
not be taken seriously. Consider the following example:
• Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of Nations that member states
should give hand to Ethiopia to expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the
member states should not listen to the king. Haileselassie I argue in this way
because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are expelled from
Ethiopia.
• This argument is fallacious because the arguer does not pay serious attention to
the substance of the argument of the king. He just tried to discredit the idea of
the king by association it with the circumstance with the Italian evacuation. He
did not attack directly why member states should not help the country. The ad
hominem circumstantial is easy to recognize because it always takes this form:
‘‘Of course, Mr. X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him.’’
III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy
• The tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties
of the ad hominem argument, except that the second arguer attempts to make
the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. The second arguer
usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first
arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion.
• This fallacy has the following form: ‘‘How dare you argue that I should stop doing
X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself.’’

See the following example:

• Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette
because you yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while
you yourself is smoking?
• The argument is fallacious because whether the doctor smokes is irrelevant to
whether the his premises support the conclusion that the patient should quit
smoking cigarette; and the fact that the doctor himself smokes does not make
smoking right. Smoking is wrong whether the advisor himself did the action or
not.
• Dear learners, what relationships do you observe between tu quoque fallacy and
the standard of consistency?
 5. Accident
• The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is applied
to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
• Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the
premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned
in the conclusion.
• Consider the following example:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, John Q. Radical
should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
• In this example, the general rule is that freedom of speech is
normally guaranteed, and the specific case is the speech made by
John Q. Radical. Because the speech incited a riot, the rule does not
apply.
• The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more
accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the
rule.
• In the example, the accidental feature is that the movement
transgress the right to private property.
 6. Straw Man
• The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s
argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted
argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been
demolished.
• By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it
down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been
knocked down as well. The following are the main features of straw man
fallacy.
• First there are two individuals or groups discussing about some
controversial issues; the two has opposite views. One of the arguers
presents his views about the issues and the other is a critic.
• Second the critic however does not rationally criticize the main or the
substantive argument of the opponent. Rather he criticizes ideas which
are the misrepresentation of the main content of the argument. He does
so for easy attacking the argument.
• Third the critic concludes, by criticizing the misrepresented ideas that he
knock down the main ideas. Since the critic does not attack the main
ideas, rather he criticized the misrepresented argument, one can argues
Consider the following argument.
• Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the
country and thus it should be replaced by geographical federalism. But
we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the country
back to the previous regime. Geographical federalism was the kind of
state structure during Derg and monarchical regime. We do not want
to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr. Belay’s proposal.
• This argument involves two persons: Mr. Belay and his critic. Mr. Belay
argues for geographical federalism and his critic opposing the view.
This critics show that the critic do not refute or oppose the idea of
geographical federalism. Rather he first misrepresented geographical
federalism as going back to the past and then he criticizes the past
regime and by doing so he believed the real argument knocked down.
But he did not criticize the substance of the argument; he criticizes
distorted idea which do not represent his opponent. This is an
example of how straw man fallacy is committed.
• When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers
should keep in mind two things.
• First, they have to try to identify the original
argument, which is misrepresented by the critic.
• Second, they should look for what gone wrong in
the misrepresentation of the argument. Is the
critic exaggerated the original argument or is he
introduced a new assumption which is not
presumed by the original argument.
• Dear learners, do you see any relationship
between straw man fallacy and the principle of
charity?
 7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
• All the fallacies we have discussed thus far have been instances
of cases where the premises of an argument are irrelevant to
the conclusion.
• Missing the point, however, illustrates a special form of
irrelevance. It occurs when the premises of an argument
support one particular conclusion, but then a different
conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is
drawn.
• Whenever one suspects that such a fallacy is being committed,
he or she should be able to identify the correct conclusion, the
conclusion that the premises logically imply.
• Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.”
• The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her
own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses
the point entirely.
• Consider the following argument.
The world is in the process of globalizing more than ever. The world
economy is becoming more and more interconnected. Multinational
companies and supra national institutions are taking power from local
companies and national governments. The livelihood of people is
randomly affected by action and decision made on the other side of the
planet and this process benefits only the rich nations at the expense of
the poor. What should be done? The answer is obvious: poor nations
should detach themselves from the process.
• Are the premises and the conclusion in this argument related? It is
unrelated. The correct conclusion would be to redirect globalization
in a way that is beneficial for both the poor and the rich, not to
detach countries from the process. The above conclusion however
is logically not related with the premises.
• After all, detachment from globalization process is more costly for
poor countries. It is better to regulate the process of globalization
than to detach altogether from the system if that is possible.
 8. Red Herring
• This fallacy is closely associated with missing the point. It is committed when the
arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a
different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either
drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some
conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the
argument.
• The fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to follow a
scent. A red herring (smoked and dried fish species) is dragged across the trail with
the aim of leading the dogs astray. Since red herrings have an especially potent
scent (caused in part by the smoking process used to preserve them), only the best
dogs will follow the original scent.
• To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original
subject of the argument without the reader or listener noticing it. One way of doing
this is to change the subject to one that is subtly related to the original subject.
Consider the following argument to understand the point clearly.
The editors of Addis Flower newspaper have accused our company of being one of the
city’s worst water polluters. But Addis flower newspaper is responsible for much more
pollution than we are. After all, they own a Paper Company, and that company
discharges tons of chemical residues into the city’s river every day.
• Dear learners, do you think this is a good argument. Let us analyze this argument.
• There are two individuals here: a certain editor accusing a certain company about its
impact on water quality and the response of representative of the company. The editor
accused the company as a worst water polluter. But the response from the representative
is not about why it is not a worst polluter; rather it changes the topic into the activity of
the paper company in which the editor is working and accused the company as a worst
water polluter. In other words, attention is diverted from the original topic into a new
topic.
• Now the question is: is it a right response? The answer is no; because even if the paper
company is the worst water polluters that does not mean that the editor accusation is
wrong. The editor’s accusation is wrong only if evidence is given which proof to the
contrary. But no evidence is given to proof it; rather the activity of another company is
discussed which is logically irrelevant with the original topic. So it is called red herring
fallacy because the topic is slightly changed into another but closely related topic. But if
the readers do not have experience in following ideas, they will not notice that there is
change of the topic.
• A second way of using the red herring effectively is to change the subject to some flashy,
eye-catching topic that is virtually guaranteed to distract the listener’s attention. Topics of
this sort include sex, crime, scandal, immorality, death, and any other topic that might
serve as the subject of gossip. Here is an example of this technique:
Professor Conway complains of inadequate parking on our campus. But did you know that
last year Conway carried on a torrid love affair with a member of the English Department?
The two used to meet every day for clandestine sex in the copier room. Apparently they didn’t
realize how much you can see through that fogged glass window. Even the students got an
eyeful. Enough said about Conway.
• The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy because both have
the effect of drawing the reader/listener off the track. This confusion can usually be
avoided by remembering the unique ways in which they accomplish this purpose. In the
straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes by
knocking down the distorted argument. In the red herring, on the other hand, the
arguer ignores the opponent’s argument (if there is one) and subtly changes the
subject. Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, one should attempt to determine
whether the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the
subject. Also keep in mind that straw man always involves two arguers, at least
implicitly, whereas a red herring often does not.
• Both the red herring and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with
missing the point, because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this
confusion, one should note that both red herring and straw man proceed by generating
a new set of premises, whereas missing the point does not. Straw man draws a
conclusion from new premises that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument, and
red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws one from new premises obtained by
changing the subject. Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion from the original
premises. Also, in the red herring and straw man, the conclusion, if there is one, is
relevant to the premises from which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the conclusion
is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn. Finally, remember that missing the
point serves in part as a kind of catchall fallacy, and a fallacious argument should not be
identified as a case of missing the point if one of the other fallacies clearly fits.
 5.3. Fallacies of Weak Induction

• It is a rule of a good argument to contain premises

that together constitute sufficient grounds for the
truth of the conclusion.
• They must provide sufficient reasons for a rational
person to accept the conclusion as true.
• In some arguments, premises provide strong
reason for the conclusion to be acceptable.
• Sometimes, however, premises may not
successfully support the conclusion.
• If premises do not support the conclusion
strongly then the resulting argument will be
labeled as Weak Induction.
• The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles
of sufficiency, which states that whenever a person
presents an argument for or against a position,
he/she should attempt to provide relevant and
acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together
are sufficient in number and weight to justify the
acceptance of the conclusion.
• Therefore, the fallacies of weak induction occur not
because the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion, as is the case with the eight fallacies of
relevance, but because the connection between
premises and conclusion is not strong enough to
support the conclusion.
• There are different kinds of fallacies of weak induction and
the following are the most important ones:
• Appeal to Unqualified Authority,
• Hasty Generalization,
• False Cause,
• Weak Analogy,
• Slippery Slope, and
• Appeal to Ignorance.
• In each of these fallacies, the premises provide at least a
shred of evidence in support of the conclusion, but the
evidence is not nearly good enough to cause a reasonable
person to believe the conclusion.
• Like the fallacies of relevance, however, the fallacies of
weak induction often involve emotional grounds for
 9. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
• We saw in the second chapter that argument from authority is inductive argument.
• It is discussed that appeal to authority or otherwise called appeal to expert opinion
is an argument in which the conclusion depends on a testimony of expert or
knowledgeable people.
• It is frequently the case in personal, social, and political deliberations that one does
not know all the relevant facts.
• One may get information from another person who has the facts.
• For example if you want to know whether the sun is the centre of the universe or
not, or if you want to know whether all matters are made of sub-atomic particle,
you can ask people who are knowledgeable in the area.
• One can improve chances of getting correct information by choosing a source that
has reason to think is reliable.
• But to some extent, you will have to rely on presumption or trust that your source
is knowledgeable and honest and is not misinforming you.
• However, the cited authority or witness could lacks credibility for different reasons.
• 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.
• The appeal to unreliable authority (or ad
verecundiam fallacy) is an appeal to an authority
when the reliability of the authority may be
reasonably doubtable.
• When an appeal to unreliable authority is made, the
arguer assumes, without sufficient warrant, that the
authority in question is reliable.
• When there is legitimate doubt about whether an
authority is reliable, then the appeal to authority is
fallacious.
• Ad verecundiam fallacies are common in advertising
when celebrities who lack the relevant expertise
endorse products.
Consider the following example.
The famous artists, artist Woriku said that Vera Pasta
is the most nutritious food. So Vera pasta must be the
most nutritious food.
• Artist Worku could be good artists but we want to
know whether he is an expert on nutrition and the
argument leave us in doubt about that.
• A more subtle appeal to unreliable authority
occurs when a well-known expert in one field is
cited as an expert in another field even though he
or she lacks expertise in it.
• This form of fallacy is especially subtle if the two
fields are related.
•
 Prof. Kebede, who is an expert in animal science, argued that, in
more complex societies, there is higher level of division of labor
and in less complex societies, there is less division of labor.
• This argument as you can see is flawed/false.
• This is because the expert’s field of specialization and the conclusion he
made are unrelated. He is an expert in biology but he gives us a witness on
society.
• This argument also reminds us of another point to keep in mind when
evaluating an appeal to authority, namely, that the appeal to authorities in
matters of controversy is often problematic.
• After all, in such matters, the authorities themselves often disagree.
• And when this occurs, if we have no good reason to suppose that one
authority is more likely to be correct than another, then the appeal to
authority should be unconvincing.
• For instance, in matters involving religious and moral issues it is difficult to
find an ultimate authority to give final decision.
• Whatever the expertise of the authority, it is safe not to depend on this
authority for knowledge.
 10. Appeal to Ignorance
(Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

• When the premises of an argument state that nothing

has been proved one way or the other about
something, and the conclusion then makes a definite
assertion about that thing, the argument commits an
appeal to ignorance.
• The issue usually involves something that is incapable of
being proved or something that has not yet been
proved.
Observe the following example:
People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is the descendant of
King David of Israel and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we
must conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of
Conversely, the following argument commits the same fallacy:
People have been trying for centuries to prove the claims that
Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is not the descendant of King David
of Israel, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that Haileselassie I of Ethiopia is in fact the
descendant of King David of Israel.
• The premises of an argument are supposed to provide
positive evidence for the conclusion.
• The premises of these arguments, however, tell us nothing
about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of
Ethiopia and Kind David of Israel; rather, they tell us about
what certain unnamed and unidentified people have tried
unsuccessfully to do.
• This evidence may provide some slight reason for believing
the conclusion, but certainly not sufficient reason.
• However, these examples do lead us to the first of two important exceptions to the
appeal to ignorance.
• The first stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain
phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the
phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about
the question.

• Consider, for example, the following argument:

Teams of historian have tried for long time to verify the proposition that King
Tewodros II of Ethiopia did not commit suicide during the British attack of Maqdella
but they failed to do so. Therefore, we must conclude that King Tewodros actually
committed suicide at Maqdella.
• The premises of this argument are true. Given the circumstances, it is likely that the
historian in question would have proved if King Tewodros II did not commit suicide.
Since they did not proof it, it likely that he did commit suicide. Thus, we can say that
the above argument is inductively strong.
• As for the two arguments about the alleged relationship between Haileselassie I of
Ethiopia and Kind David of Israel, if the attempts to prove or disprove the historical
claims had been done in a systematic way by qualified experts, it is more likely that
the arguments would be good. But as these arguments stand, the premises state
nothing about the qualifications of the investigators, and so the arguments remain
• The second exception to the appeal to ignorance relates to courtroom
procedure.
• In Ethiopia, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the
prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant
beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defence may justifiably
argue that his or her client is not guilty.
Example:
Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case
against the defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the law, the defendant is not
guilty.
• This argument commits no fallacy because “not guilty” means, in the
legal sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has not been
proved.
• The defendant may indeed have committed the crime of which he or
she is accused, but if the prosecutor fails to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered “not guilty.”
 11. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
• Hasty generalization is a defective form of argument from
inductive generalization.
• A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge
of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
• Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic,
it is argued that all the members of the group have that same
characteristic.
• For example, if we wanted to know the opinion of the student
body at a certain university about whether to adopt a law
prohibiting the use of face book in campuses, we could take a poll
of 10 per cent of the students.
• If the results of the poll showed that 80 percent of those sampled
favored the law, we might draw the conclusion that 80 percent of
the entire student body favored it. These illustrate the use of
statistics in inductive argumentation.
• The problem that arises with the use of samples has to do with whether the sample
is representative of the population.
• It is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations.
• The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not
representative of the group.
• Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.
Consider the following examples.
Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to know the reading skill among young
people. It has found out that, among ten young people it interviewed, none of them
read a book for the last two years. The conclusion is obvious: all young people in the
country do not have the culture of reading books.
• In these arguments, a conclusion about a whole group is drawn from premises that
mention only a few instances. Because such small, atypical samples are not
sufficient to support a general conclusion, the argument commits a hasty
generalization.
• The mere fact that a sample may be small, however, does not necessarily mean that
it is atypical.
• On the other hand, the mere fact that a sample may be large does not guarantee
that it is typical.
• In the case of small samples, various factors may intervene that render such a
sample typical of the larger group.
 12. False Cause Fallacy
• False cause fallacy is a defective and flawed form of argument from causality.
• Argument from causality is a kind of argument which argues either from the
knowledge of causes to the knowledge of effects or from the knowledge of the effect
to the knowledge of causes. In such argument two things are presented as having
causal connection.

• the most important kind of evidence that event A causes event B in any particular
case, is that there is a statistical correlation between A and B: event A and event B are
correlated. For example, if a significant statistical correlation is found between reduced
incidence of heart attacks and drinking of red wine, the tentative conclusion may be
drawn as a hypothesis is that drinking red wine is the cause of the reduction in heart
attacks.
• A correlation is a purely statistical relationship, determined by counting up numbers
where one event occurs in a case where another event also occurs.
• One problem with arguments from correlation to cause is that there may not be a real
correlation between two events, but people might believe that relation exists.
• Another problem is that a statistical correlation between two events can simply be a
coincidence.

Consider the following example.

A sophisticated statistical study by Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and
Pro. Wakjira Negera citing studies from 141 countries found
that the larger the per cent of its gross national product a
country spends on weapons, the higher is its infant death rate.
Dr. Zemenu Ahmed and Pro. Wakjira concluded that there is a
plausible link between military spending and the infant death
rate.
• However, critics questioned whether their finding represents
anything more than a coincidence. Dr. Bilal Ahmed a
statistician at the Ethiopian statistics authority said that the
same statistical approach could be used to show a causal link
between infant mortality and the consumption of bananas.
• He questioned whether statistical correlation between two
things, in cases like these, is a reason to conclude that one
thing causes the other.
• Another critical question is whether both things correlated with each other are
really caused by some common factor that is causing both of them. The following
case is a classic example.
At a conference on the bond between humans and pets in Boston in 1986, researchers
reported that pets can lower blood pressure in humans, improve the survival odds of
heart patients, and even penetrate the isolation of autistic children. According to a
report in Newsweek researchers at the conference reported on the beneficial effects of
pet companionship. Studies showed that women who had owned dogs as children
scored higher on self-reliance, sociability, and tolerance tests than petless women.
Men who had owned a dog “felt a greater sense of personal worth and of belonging
and had better social skills.” Children with pets also showed greater empathy.
• In this case, there was a genuine correlation between pet ownership and health
improvement, but both factors could well be the result of the better than average
social qualities of the people who acquire pets. In a case like this, there may be a
genuine correlation between two factors A and B, but the reason for the correlation
is that some third factor C, is causing both A and B. In such a case, it is not correct to
draw the conclusion that A causes B.
• Argument from correlation to cause is extremely useful for practical purposes in
guiding action in practical matters. But in many cases, there is a natural human
tendency to leap too quickly to a causal conclusion once a correlation has apparently
been observed. In such cases, it is better to ask appropriate critical questions before
placing too much weight on an argument from correlation to 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. Whenever an argument is
suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or
listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the
supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at
all. There are many varieties of false cause fallacy. Perhaps the most
common form is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means in Latin
“after this, therefore because of this.” This form of the false cause
fallacy occurs whenever an arguer illegitimately assumes that
because event X preceded event Y, X caused Y. Here is an example:
Since I came into office two years ago, the rate of violent crime has
decreased significantly. So, it is clear that the longer prison sentences
we recommended are working.
• The longer prison sentences may be a causal factor, of course, but
the mere fact that the longer sentences preceded the decrease in
violent crime does not prove this.
 13. Slippery Slope Fallacy

• Slippery slope fallacy is a defective form of

argument from slippery slope.
• One very common form of argumentation is used
when one party in a dialogue says to the other,
“This action would not be good, because it could
have bad consequences.” For example, suppose you
are thinking of taking a certain medication and your
doctor says, “You have high blood pressure, and
taking this medication raises blood pressure, so in
your case there would be a bad side effect of taking
it.”
• This form of argumentation is called argument from
consequences.
• It cites allegedly foreseeable consequences of a
proposed action as the premise, and the conclusion
is then inferred that this course of action is or is not
recommended. This form of reasoning can be used
in a positive or negative way, as an argument to
respond to a proposal that has been put forward
when two parties are having a dialogue on what to
do. In argument from positive consequences, a
policy or course of action is supported by citing
positive consequences of carrying out this policy or
course of action. In argument from negative
consequences, a policy or course of action is argued
against by citing negative consequences of carrying
it out.
• A slippery slope argument is a species of negative reasoning
from consequences, used where two parties are deliberating
together and one warns the other not to take a contemplated
action, because it is a first step in a sequence of events that
will lead to some horrible outcome. What is distinctive about
the slippery slope argument as a special subtype of argument
from consequences is that there is said to be a connected
sequence of actions, such that once the first action in the
series is carried out, a sequence of other actions will follow, so
that once the sequence starts there is no stopping it, until
(eventually) the horrible outcome comes about.
• This particularly horrible outcome is the final event in the
sequence and represents something that would very definitely
go against goals that are important for the participant in the
deliberation who is being warned, for example, it might be his
personal safety or security.
• Slippery slope fallacy occurs when the arguer assumes that a chain
reaction will occur but there is insufficient evidence that one (or
more) events in the chain will cause the others; when there is no
actual or real connection among the chain of events. The chains of
causes are supposedly like a steep slope - if you take one step on
the slope; you’ll slide all the way down. And since you don’t want to
slide all the way down, don’t take the first step. Consider the
following example.
Against cultural, social and religious norms of Ethiopia, a Chinese
firm was authorized to run donkey slaughter house in Bishoftu. But
this company should be closed. If donkeys are continuously
slaughtered and exported, then Ethiopian who works in the abattoir
will start to eat donkey meat. Then members of the family of these
workers will be the next to eat donkey meat. This gradually leads
their neighbors and the village to accept the same practice. Finally,
the whole country will follow which in turn leads to the total collapse
of Ethiopian food culture.
• The links in this alleged chain are weak. This is not to say that
donkey slaughter house is risk free practice. It is only to say that,
logically speaking, when causal connections are claimed, there
needs to be sufficient evidence that the connections are genuine.
And to claim that opening donkey slaughter house in the country
necessary leads to adopting donkey meat as a culture is plainly to
make a claim that is insufficiently supported by the evidence.
• The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy.
Deciding whether a slippery slope fallacy has been committed can
be difficult when there is uncertainty whether the alleged chain
reaction will or will not occur. But many slippery slopes rest on a
mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain
action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to trump up
support for his or her position by citing all sorts of dire
consequences that will result if the action is taken or the policy
followed. In such cases there is usually little problem in identifying
the argument as a slippery slope.
 14. Weak Analogy

• Weak analogy is a defective or flawed argument from analogy.

• Argument from analogy is a very commonly used kind of case-based
reasoning, where one case is held to be similar to another case in a
particular respect. Since the one case is held to have a certain property,
then the other case, it is concluded, also has the same property
(because the one case is similar to the other).
• Two things, situations or cases could be similar to each other in certain
respects, but dissimilar in other respects. While one case may be
generally similar to another, it does not mean that the two cases will be
similar in every respect. If they were similar in every respect, they would
be identical case. However, two cases can be generally similar, even
though there are quite important differences between them.
Consider the following example.
After ingesting one milligram of substance alpha per day for ninety days,
white mice developed genetic abnormalities. Since white mice are similar
in many ways to humans, it follows that substance alpha probably
produces genetic abnormalities in humans.
• The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when
the analogy between things, situations and
circumstance is not strong enough to support the
conclusion that is drawn.
• Evaluating an argument having this form requires
a two-step procedure: (1) Identify the attributes a,
b, c,. . that the two entities A and B share in
common, and (2) determine how the attribute z,
mentioned in the conclusion, relates to the
attributes a, b, c, . . . If some causal or systematic
relation exists between z and a, b, or c, the
argument is strong; otherwise it is weak.
 5.4. Fallacies of Presumption

The fallacies of presumption include begging the question,

complex question, false dichotomy, and suppressed evidence.
These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the
conclusion but because the premises presume what they purport
to prove.
• Begging the question presumes that the premises provide
adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not,
and
• complex question presumes that a question can be answered by
a simple “yes,”“no,” or other brief answer when a more
sophisticated answer is needed.
• False dichotomy presumes that an “either . . . or . . .” statement
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not,
and suppressed evidence presumes that no important evidence
has been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has.
 15. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
• The fallacy of begging the question is committed
whenever the arguer creates the illusion that
inadequate premises provide adequate support for the
conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key
premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the
conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle.
• The Latin name for this fallacy, petition principii,
means “request for the source.” The actual source of
support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the
argument is said to beg the question. After reading or
hearing the argument, the observer is inclined to ask,
“But how do you know X?” where X is the needed
support.
• The first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is by leaving a possibly
false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more
is needed to establish the conclusion. Examples:
1. Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally
wrong.
2. Of course humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how
similar they are.
3. It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the
government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.
4. Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor-assisted suicide. After all,
many of these people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.

• The first of these arguments begs the question “How do you know that abortion is
a form of murder?”
• The second begs the question “Does the mere fact that humans and apes look
similar imply that they evolved from common ancestors?”
• The third and fourth beg the questions “Just because the poor earn less than the
average citizen, does this imply that the government should give them handouts?”
and “Just because terminally ill patients cannot commit suicide by themselves,
does it follow that they have a right to a doctor’s assistance?”
• These questions indicate that something has been left out of the
original arguments. Thus, the first argument is missing the premise,
“Abortion is a form of murder”; the second is missing the premise, “If
humans and apes look similar, then they have common ancestors;” and
so on.
• These premises are crucial for the soundness of the arguments.
• If the arguer is unable to establish the truth of these premises, then the
arguments prove nothing. However, in most cases of begging the
question, this is precisely the reason why such premises are left
unstated.
• The arguer is not able to establish their truth, and by employing
rhetorical phraseology such as “of course,” “clearly,” “this being the
case,” and “after all,” the arguer hopes to create the illusion that the
stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for the conclusion
when in fact it does not.
• The same form of begging the question often appears in arguments
concerning religious topics to justify conclusions about the existence of
God, the immortality of the soul, and so on.
• Example:
The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization.
Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.
• This argument begs the question, “How do you know that the
organization in the world could only have come from an intelligent
creator?”
• Of course the claim that it did come from an intelligent creator may
well be true, but the burden is on the arguer to prove it. Without
supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing. Yet
most people who are predisposed to believe the conclusion are likely
to accept the argument as a good one. The same can be said of most
arguments that beg the question, and this fact suggests another
reason why arguers resort to this fallacy: Such arguments tend to
reinforce pre-existing inclinations and beliefs.
• The second form of petito principii occurs when the conclusion of an
argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different
language. In such an argument, the premise supports the conclusion,
Examples:
Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping
because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death
for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for the simple
reason that if a person has no vision of the future he could not possibly
preach revolution.
• In the first argument, saying that capital punishment is “justified” means
the same thing as saying that it is “legitimate and appropriate,” and in the
second argument, the premise and the conclusion say exactly the same
thing. However, by repeating the same thing in slightly different language,
the arguer creates the illusion that independent evidence is being
presented in support of the conclusion, when in fact it is not.
• Both arguments contain rhetorical phraseology (“hateful and inhuman,”
“simple reason,” and “could not possibly”) that help effect the illusion.
• The first argument begs the question, “How do you know that capital
punishment really is legitimate and appropriate?” and the second beg the
question, “How do you know that people who preach revolution really do
have a vision of the future?”
• The third form of petito principii involves circular reasoning in a
chain of inferences having a first premise that is possibly false. Here
is an example:
Harar brewery clearly produces the finest beer in Ethiopia. We know
they produce the finest beer because they have the best chemist. This
is because they can afford to pay them more than other brewery.
Obviously they can afford to pay them more because they produce
the finest beer in the country.
• Upon encountering this argument, the attentive reader is inclined to
ask, “Where does this reasoning begin? What is its source?” Since
the argument goes in a circle, it has no beginning or source, and as a
result it proves nothing. Of course, in this example the circularity is
rather apparent, so the argument is not likely to convince anyone.
• Cases in which circular reasoning may convince involve long and
complex arguments having premises that depend on one another in
subtle ways and a possibly false key premise that depends on the
conclusion.
 16. Complex Question

• The fallacy of complex question is committed when

two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a
single question and a single answer is then given to
both of them.
• Every complex question presumes the existence of a
certain condition. When the respondent’s answer is
added to the complex question, an argument
emerges that establishes the presumed condition.
• Thus, although not an argument as such, a complex
question involves an implicit argument. This
argument is usually intended to trap the respondent
into acknowledging something that he or she might
otherwise not want to acknowledge.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed?
• Let us suppose the respondent answers “yes” to the first question and
“under the bed” to the second. The following arguments emerge:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You
answered “yes.” Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past.
You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed. You
replied “under the bed.” It follows that you were in fact killed the person.
• On the other hand, let us suppose that the respondent answers “no” to
the first question and “nowhere” to the second. We then have the
following arguments:
You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. You
answered “no.” Therefore, you continue to cheat.
You were asked where you hide the body of the person you killed. You
answered “nowhere.”It follows that you have destroyed the corpse.
• Obviously, each of the questions is really two questions:
Did you cheat on exams in the past? If you did cheat in the past, have you stopped
now?
Where did you hide the corpse of the person you killed? If you were killed it, where
did you hide it?
• If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when
one is put to them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a
conclusion that is supported by no evidence at all; or, they may be tricked into
providing the evidence themselves. The correct response lies in resolving the
complex question into its component questions and answering each separately.
• The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from another kind of
question known in law as a leading question.
• A leading question is one in which the answer is in some way suggested in the
question. Whether or not a question is a leading one is important in the direct
examination of a witness by counsel. Example:
Tell us, on April 9, did you see the defendant shoot the deceased?
• Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical
fallacies—that is, they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting
something he or she does not want to admit. To distinguish the two, however, it
is sometimes necessary to know whether prior questions have been asked.
 17. False Dichotomy

• The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (“either

. . . or . . .”)premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were
the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the
undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Such an argument is clearly valid, but since the disjunctive premise is
false, or at least probably false, the argument is typically unsound. The
fallacy is often committed by children when arguing with their parents,
by advertisers, and by adults generally. Here are three examples:
Classical democracy is originated either from the Gada System or from
Athens.
Classical democracy did not originated from ancient Athens
Thus, it must originate from the Gada System.

Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you.
You do not want me divorce you.
Thus, you have to buy me a new car.
• The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the illusion created by the
arguer that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives. If
it did, the premise would be true of necessity.
• For example, the statement “Either Awash River is in Afar, or it is not in Afar”
presents jointly exhaustive alternatives and is true of necessity. But in the
fallacy of false dichotomy, the two alternatives not only fail to be jointly
exhaustive, but they are not even likely. As a result, the disjunctive premise is
false, or at least probably false. Thus, the fallacy amounts to making a false
or probably false premise appear true. If one of the alternatives in the
disjunctive premise is true, then fallacy is not committed. For example, the
following argument is valid and sound:
Either Abay River is in Ethiopia or it is in South Africa.
River Abay is not in South Africa.
Therefore, River Abay is in Ethiopia.

• False dichotomy is otherwise called “false bifurcation” and the “either-or

fallacy.” Also, in most cases the arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise
and leaves it to the reader or listener to supply the missing statements.
 18. Suppressed Evidence

• The requirement of true premises includes the

proviso that the premises not ignore some important
piece of evidence that outweighs the presented
evidence and entails a very different conclusion.
• If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such
evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of
suppressed evidence. Consider the following
argument:
Somalia is a good place for investment for the following
reasons. First there are cheap raw materials. Second
there is cheap labor. Third there is good market for our
product. Forth there is a port that helps us to export our
product. Thus we have to consider investing in Somalia.
• If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia
then the argument commits a suppressed evidence fallacy. This fallacy is
classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the
presumption that the premises are both true and complete when in fact
they are not.
• Perhaps the most common occurrence of the suppressed evidence fallacy
appears in inferences based on advertisements. Nearly every advertising
neglect to mention certain negative features of the product advertised. As a
result, an observer who sees or hears an advertisement and then draws a
conclusion from it may commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
Example:
The advertise for Kentucky Fried Chicken says, “Buy a bucket of chicken and
have a barrel of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a bucket of that chicken, we will be
guaranteed to have lots of fun.
• The advertise fails to state that the fun does not come packaged with the
chicken but must be supplied by the buyer. Also, of course, the advertise
fails to state that the chicken is loaded with fat and that the buyer’s
resultant weight gain may not amount to a barrel of fun. By ignoring these
• Another way that an arguer can commit the suppressed
evidence fallacy is by ignoring important events that
have occurred with the passage of time that render an
inductive conclusion improbable. Here is an example:
During the past fifty years, Poland has enjoyed a rather low
standard of living. Therefore, Poland will probably have a
low standard of living for the next fifty years.
• This argument ignores the fact that Poland was part of
the Soviet bloc during most of the past fifty years, and
this fact accounts for its rather low standard of living.
However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union,
Poland became an independent nation, and its economy
is expected to improve steadily during the next fifty
years.
 5.5. Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
• The fallacies of ambiguity includes equivocation
and amphiboly.
• These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some
form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both). An expression is ambiguous
if it is susceptible to different interpretations in a
given context.
• When the conclusion of an argument depends on
a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or
phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an
ambiguous statement, the argument commits a
fallacy of ambiguity.
• The fallacies of grammatical analogy include
composition and division.
• Arguments that commit these fallacies are
grammatically analogous to other arguments that
are good in every respect. Because of this
similarity in linguistic structure, such fallacious
arguments may appear good yet be bad. In this
lesson, we will discuss the four fallacies.
 5.5.1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
• These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some
form of ambiguity in either the premises or the
conclusion (or both).
• An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to
different interpretations in a given context. When
the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift
in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or on
the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous
statement, the argument commits a fallacy of
ambiguity.
 19. Equivocation
• The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used,
either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the
argument. Such arguments are either invalid or have a false
premise, and in either case they are unsound.
• Examples:
Some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is obtuse is ignorant. Therefore,
some triangles are ignorant.

Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of
gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the
legislative authority.

We have a duty to do what is right. We have a right to speak out in

defence of the innocent.
Therefore, we have a duty to speak out in defence of the innocent
• In the first argument, “obtuse” is used in two different senses.
• In the first premise it describes a certain kind of angle, while in the second it
means dull or stupid. The second argument equivocates on the word “law.”
• In the first premise it means statutory law, and in the second it means law of
nature.
• The third argument uses “right” in two senses. In the first premise
“right” means morally correct, but in the second it means a just claim or
power.
• To be convincing, an argument that commits an equivocation must use
the equivocal word in ways that are subtly related. Of the three
examples given above, only the third might fulfill this requirement. Since
both uses of the word “right” are related to ethics, the unalert observer
may not notice the shift in meaning. Another technique is to spread the
shift in meaning out over the course of a lengthy argument.
• Political speechmakers often use phrases such as “equal opportunity,”
“gun control,” “national security,” and “environmental protection” in one
way at the beginning of a speech and in quite another way at the end.
 20. Amphiboly

• The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an

ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this
faulty interpretation.
• The original statement is usually asserted by someone other than
the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in
grammar or punctuation - a missing comma, a dangling modifier, an
ambiguous antecedent of a pronoun, or some other careless
arrangement of words. Because of this ambiguity, the statement
may be understood in two clearly distinguishable ways. The arguer
typically selects the unintended interpretation and proceeds to
draw a conclusion based upon it. Here are some examples:
• The tour guide said that standing in Mesqel Square, the new federal
police building could easily be seen. It follows that the Empire State
Building is in Greenwich Village.
• Habtom told Megeressa that he had made a mistake. It follows that
Habtom has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
• The premise of the first argument contains a dangling modifier. Is it the
observer or the building that is supposed to be standing in Greenwich Village?
The factually correct interpretation is the former.
• In the second argument the pronoun “he” has an ambiguous antecedent; it can
refer either to Habtom or Megressa. Perhaps Habtom told Megressa that
Megreesa had made a mistake. Ambiguities of this sort are called syntactical
ambiguities.
• Two areas where cases of amphiboly cause serious problems involve contracts
and
wills. The drafters of these documents often express their intentions in terms of
ambiguous statements, and alternate interpretations of these statements then
lead to different conclusions.
• Examples:
Mrs. Zenebu stated that in her will that “I leave my house and my clothes to Lemma
and Mengistu.”Therefore, we conclude that Lemma gets the house and Mengistu
gets the car.
• In the first example, the conclusion obviously favors Lemma. Mengistu is almost
certain to argue that the gift of the clothes and the house should be shared
equally by her and Lemma. Mrs. Zenebu could have avoided the dispute by
• Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways. First,
equivocation is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of a word
or phrase, whereas amphiboly involves a syntactical ambiguity in a
statement. The second difference is that amphiboly usually involves a
mistake made by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous statement
made by someone else, whereas the ambiguity in equivocation is
typically the arguer’s own creation. If these distinctions are kept in
mind, it is usually easy to distinguish amphiboly from equivocation.
Occasionally, however, the two fallacies occur together, as the
following example illustrates:
The Great Western Cookbook recommends that we serve the oysters
when thoroughly stewed. Apparently the delicate flavor is enhanced by
the intoxicated condition of the diners.
• First, it is unclear whether ‘‘stewed’’ refers to the oysters or to the
diners, and so the argument commits an amphiboly. But if ‘‘stewed’’
refers to the oysters it means ‘‘cooked,’’ and if it refers to the diners it
means ‘‘intoxicated.’’ Thus, the argument also involves an
equivocation.
 5.5.2. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

21. Composition
• The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute
from the parts of something onto the whole.
• In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the
parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that
attribute too and the situation is such that the attribute in question
cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.
• Examples:
Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the
team as a whole is excellent.

Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is

invisible.
Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly
poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.
• In these arguments, the attributes that are transferred from the parts onto the
whole are designated by the words “excellent,” “invisible” and “deadly
poison,” respectively. In each case the transference is illegitimate, and so the
argument is fallacious.

• Not every such transference is illegitimate, however. Consider the following

arguments:

Every atom in this piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the piece of chalk has mass.

Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is white..
• In each case, an attribute (having mass, being white) is transferred from the
parts onto the whole, but these transferences are quite legitimate. Indeed, the
fact that the atoms have mass is the very reason why the chalk has mass. The
same reasoning extends to the fence. Thus, the acceptability of these
arguments is attributable, at least in part, to the legitimate transference of an
attribute from parts onto the whole.
 22. Division

• The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition.

• As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts.
• The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts
(or members).
• Examples:
Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium
and chlorine, are non-poisonous.

The Royal Society is over 300 years old. General Merid Hussein is a member of
the Royal Society. Therefore, General Merid Hussein is over 300 years old.
• In each case the attribute, designated respectively by the terms “non-
poisonous,” and “over 300 years old,” is illegitimately transferred from the
whole or class onto the parts or members.
• As with the fallacy of composition, however, this kind of transference is not
always illegitimate. The following argument contains no fallacy:
• This piece of chalk has mass. Therefore, the atoms that compose this piece of
chalk have mass.
• Just as composition can sometimes be confused with hasty
generalization (converse accident), division can sometimes
be confused with accident.
• As with composition, this confusion can occur only when
the “whole” is a class. In such a case, division proceeds
from the class to the members, while accident proceeds
from the general to the specific.
• Thus, if a class statement is mistaken for a general
statement, division may be mistaken for accident.
• To avoid such a mistake, one should analyze the premises
of the argument.
• If the premises contain a general statement, the fallacy
committed is accident; but if they contain a class
statement, the fallacy is division.
End of Chapter Five