Comprehensive Guide to Logical Fallacies: Formal and Informal Argumentation

Course Overview and Learning Objectives

• Course Code and Title: FOUN 1004: An Introduction to Argument
• Instructor: KAGWelch
• Primary Learning Objectives:
  • Define fallacies.
  • Distinguish between different types and categories of fallacies.
  • Identify fallacies within argumentative contexts.

Fundamentals of Fallacies

• Definition of a Fallacy:
  • An unsound argument containing flaws in logic.
  • Arguments that, at first glance, may appear sound in both form and content.
  • Fundamentally defined as an error in reasoning or logic.

Formal Fallacies

• Nomenclature and Alternate Terminology:
  • Deductive fallacy
  • Logical fallacy
  • Non sequitur
• Structural Characteristics:
  • Defined by an invalid structure or form.
  • Composed of premises and conclusions.
• Mechanism of Error:
  • Occurs when the logical relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up.
  • Occurs when the foundational premises are unsound.

Overview of Informal Fallacies

• Nature and Definition:
  • Arguments that are unsound in their content rather than their form or structure.
  • Rely on ambiguous reasoning that blurs the core issue.
  • Frequently appeal to human weaknesses, such as feelings of fear, pity, and related emotions.
  • Dependent upon the misuse of language or evidence.
• Tripartite Classification of Informal Fallacies:
  • Fallacies of Ambiguity:
  • Evaluative question: Is what the argument asserts clear?
  • Core mechanism: The multiple meanings of a word cause the fallacy.
  • Fallacies of Relevance:
  • Evaluative question: Is the reasoning in the argument valid or strong?
  • Core mechanism: Irrelevant language is deployed to support an emotional appeal rather than a logical appeal.
  • Fallacies of Presumption:
  • Evaluative question: Are the facts in the argument correctly presented?
  • Core mechanism: The arguments are phrased or worded to resemble correct arguments, leading the listener or reader to presume that the reasoning must be correct.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

• Equivocation:
  • Definition: A fallacy caused by a shift between two legitimate meanings of a single term.
  • Example: "Since criminals break the law, criminal lawyers also break the law."
• Hypostatization:
  • Definition: Treating an abstract word as though it were a concrete entity; involves the ascription of humanlike properties to abstractions (similar to personification).
  • Example: "Even when he was home, the job would call to him seductively, asserting its dominance, luring him back to its embrace."
• Division:
  • Definition: The assumption that what is true of the whole, or what is true of a group, must necessarily be true of the parts or individual members (attempting to divide what belongs to the whole among its components).
  • Example 1: "The USA is a very rich country so everyone there has lots of money."
  • Example 2: "Hot dogs are a best-seller at Campus Mart. Toya is going to Campus Mart after class so she must like hot dogs."
• Composition:
  • Definition: The assumption that what is true of a part of a whole, or true of an individual member of a group, must necessarily be true of the whole or the group (attempting to compose the character of the whole out of its parts).
  • Example 1: "Each member of the chorale is a gifted singer. Therefore, the chorale will sound good."
  • Example 2: "All of those soldiers are fit and alert. They will be a good fighting unit when we need them."

Fallacies of Relevance

• Genetic Fallacy:
  • Definition: Attacking a thesis, institution, or idea by condemning its background, source, or origin.
  • Example: "That radio won’t last very long if it was made in China."
• Ad Hominem (To the Man):
  • Definition: Attacking the personal character of the opposing speaker rather than refuting their thesis.
  • Example: "I cannot agree with the political philosophy of a man who has been twice divorced and remarried, especially when there are children involved."
• Mob Appeal / Ad Populum (To the People):
  • Definition: Utilizing emotion-laden terminology to sway individuals or groups en masse.
  • Example: "I appeal to you as the most downtrodden and abused people on this earth. Rise up and follow me!"
• Tu Quoque:
  • Definition: Attempting to discredit an opponent's argument by asserting that the opponent does not act in accordance with their own thesis.
  • Example: "How can she tell me to exercise more when I know that all she does is sit behind a desk all day and lie down watching television all night?"
• Appeal to Pity:
  • Definition: Seeking to persuade an audience not by presenting valid evidence, but by arousing sympathy or pity.
  • Example: "Please, officer, don’t give me a ticket. My parents will take the car away from me and my life will be miserable."
• Appeal to Ignorance:
  • Definition: Emphasizing the lack of evidence against a thesis rather than presenting affirmative evidence for it.
  • Example: "There must be extraterrestrial life. No one has proven there isn’t."
• Appeal to Fear:
  • Definition: Seeking to persuade an audience by instilling fear.
  • Example: "Zara, if you don’t go to bed right now, Santa Claus will not bring you presents."
• Appeal to Authority:
  • Definition: Seeking to persuade not through the provision of substantive evidence, but merely by citing an authority figure, institution, or consensus.
  • Four Structural Subtypes:
  • Appeal to One: Persuading by citing a single figure.
    • Example: "Peace is the best strategy because Einstein said so."
  • Appeal to the Many: Persuading through consensus or popular behavior.
    • Example: "Everybody’s wearing it."
  • Appeal to the Select Few: Persuading via elitism or exclusivity.
    • Example: "The Lancia concept. To set you apart from the crowd."
  • Appeal to Tradition: Persuading on the grounds of historical longevity.
    • Example: "The institution of marriage is as old as human history and thus must be considered sacred."

Fallacies of Presumption

• Sweeping Generalization:
  • Definition: Applying a fair generalization—one that is usually true—to an exceptional case by completely ignoring the peculiarities and unique circumstances of that case.
  • Example: "Since horseback riding is healthy exercise, Harry Brown ought to do more of it because it will be good for his heart condition."
• Hasty Generalization:
  • Definition: Reaching a widely general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence or an isolated, unrepresentative example.
  • Example: "Mary had a bad time with her former husband. From that she learned that all men are no good."
• Bifurcation / Either/Or / False Dilemma / False Dichotomy:
  • Definition: Considering a classification or distinction to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive when alternative options or intermediate possibilities exist.
  • Example 1: "You’re either for me or against me."
  • Example 2: "You can’t have it both ways: killing is either right or wrong."
• False Analogy / Weak Analogy:
  • Definition: Drawing a conclusion by comparing or likening two cases that are significantly incomparable or structurally disparate.
  • Example: "How can you tell your children not to take money from others when the government they live under does it all the time?"
• Begging the Question:
  • Definition: Presupposing the truth of the conclusion within the premises. Occurs in three distinct structural forms:
  • Form 1 (Simple Restatement):
    • Offering a simple restatement of the desired conclusion as a premise ($A$ because of $B$, where $B$ is functionally identical to $A$).
    • Example: "Miracles are impossible ($A$) because they cannot happen ($B$)."
  • Form 2 (Circular Argument):
    • A circular chain of reasoning, structurally more complex than Form 1, that eventually justifies the premise with the conclusion itself ($A$ because of $B$, where $B$ is fundamentally dependent on $A$).
    • Example: "God exists ($A$) because the Bible says so ($B$) and we should believe it because the Bible is the Word of God ($A$)."
  • Form 3 (Problematic Generalization):
    • Subsuming a suspect particular premise under a broad generalization that is even more controversial and problematic ($A$ because of $B$, where $B$ is even more suspect than $A$).
    • Example: "Clearly, he’s an atheist ($A$); he’s a philosopher, isn’t he ($B$)?"
• False Cause / Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:
  • Definition: Inferring a causal relationship between two sequential events when no genuine causal connection has been demonstrated (temporal sequence alone is never proof of consequence).
  • Example 1: "Have you noticed how the sales went up after we instituted our new advertising campaign? Our success is obvious."
  • Example 2: A mother in Belize stated: "This year I sent my son at Cave Hill more money than last year and his marks are lower. Therefore, I shouldn’t send him extra money since it makes him idle."
• Special Pleading:
  • Definition: Applying an unjustified double standard that is subtly embedded within the chosen phrasing or loaded vocabulary.
  • Example: "Horses sweat, men perspire, women glow."
• Slippery Slope:
  • Definition: Assuming, without justification, that taking a proposed initial step will trigger an inevitable, uncontrollable chain reaction leading to disastrous or undesirable consequences.
  • Example: "Today it is abortion, but tomorrow it will be the mentally ill, and then the infirmed and the aged – or anyone else considered undesirable."