Task 4 - Fallacies

Question 1

Fallacy

Answer 1

a defect in an argument that arises from either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of the illusion that makes a bad argument appear good

Question 2

Fallacy divided into two groups

Answer 2

1. Formal fallacy

2. Informal fallacy

Question 3

1. Formal Fallacy

Answer 3

one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument. These fallacies are found only in deductive argument that have identifiable forms (e.g. categorical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism).

Question 4

2. Informal Fallacy

Answer 4

one that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument

Question 5

Fallacies of relevance (def.)

Answer 5

share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion

Question 6

Appeal to Force/Argumentum ad Baculum

Answer 6

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

• involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader

Question 7

Appeal to Pity/Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Answer 7

occurs when an arguer attempt to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

• directed toward the arguer or some third party

(Arguments from compassion - some arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic feelings from the reader or listener are not fallacious)

Question 8

Appeal to the People/Argumentum ad Populum

two approaches involved

Answer 8

uses the desire to be loved, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion

two approaches involved:

1. Direct approach
   1a. appeal to fear
2. Indirect approach
   2a. Bandwagon argument
   2b. Appeal to vanity
   2c. Appeal to snobbery
   2d. Appeal to tradition

Question 9

Direct Approach

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Appeal to fear

Answer 10

a variety of the direct form of the appeal to the people that occurs when an arguer trumps up fear of something in the mind of the crowd and then uses that fear as a premise for some conclusion

Question 11

Indirect approach

Answer 11

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 those individuals’ relationship to the crowd

Question 12

Bandwagon argument

Answer 12

has the general structure of “everybody believes this, therefore, you should believe this too”. The idea behind this is that you want to fit in with the crowd and not stick out like a sore thumb

Question 13

Appeal to vanity

Answer 13

often involves linking the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of. The idea is that if you succeed in becoming like the famous figure, then you will win the love and approval of the crowd; but to become like them you must buy the advertised product

Question 14

Appeal to snobbery

Answer 14

the crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way. As the argument goes, if the listener wants to be part of this group, then he or she will do a certain thing, think in a certain way, or buy a certain product

Question 15

Appeal to tradition

Answer 15

occurs when the arguer cites the fact that something has come a tradition as grounds for some conclusion. The claim that something is a tradition is basically synonymous with the claim that a lot of people have done it that way for a long time

Question 16

Argument Against the Person/Argumentum ad Hominem

three types

Answer 16

• always involves two arguers
• One of them advances a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the person himself
• The purpose of an ad hominem argument is to discredit another person’s argument by placing its author in a bad light

1. Ad hominem abusive
2. Ad hominem circumstantial
3. Tu Quoque

Question 17

1. Ad hominem abusive

Answer 17

the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person
- directly to the person

Question 18

2. Ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 18

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
- indirect

Question 19

3. Tu Quoque (you also)

Answer 19

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 behaviour of the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion
– hypocritical

Question 20

Accident

Answer 20

committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Typically, the general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion

Question 21

Straw man

Answer 21

• 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 doing so, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real “man” has been knocked down as well
• Straw man, along with argument against the person, are called refutational fallacies because they involve one arguer refuting another

Question 22

Missing the Point/Ignoratio Elenchi

Answer 22

Missing the point illustrates a special form of irrelevance. This fallacy 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

Question 23

Red Herring

Answer 23

(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

two ways to switch topics:

1. switch to subtly related to the original subject
2. switch to a flashy, eye-catching topic

Question 24

Both the straw man and the red herring are susceptible of being confused with missing the point, because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this confusion, one should …

Answer 24

… note that both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises, whereas missing the point does not

Question 25

further differences between missing the point, red herring and straw man

Answer 25

Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument

• -> and red herring draws one from new premises obtained by changing the subject
• -> Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion form the original premises.

Also, in the red herring and straw man, the conclusion 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

Question 26

Fallacies of weak induction (def.)

Answer 26

occur because the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

Question 27

Fallacies of relevance (list)

Answer 27

1. Appeal to Force
2. Appeal to Pity
3. Appeal to the People
4. Argument Against the Person
5. Accident
6. Straw Man
7. Missing the Point
8. Red Herring

Question 28

Fallacies of Weak Induction (list)

Answer 28

1. Appeal to unqualified authority
2. Appeal to Ignorance
3. Hasty Generalization
   False Cause
4. Slippery Slope
5. Weak Analogy

Question 29

Appeal to unqualified authority

Answer 29

this fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

when deciding whether a person is qualified authority:

1. person might be an authority in more than one field
2. there are some areas in which practically no one can be considered an authority

Question 30

Appeal to Ignorance / Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Answer 30

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. This usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved

two exceptions:

1. stems from the fact that if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range os expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question. It is not necessary, however, that the investigators have special qualifications. The kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation
2. it is related to courtroom procedure

Question 31

Hasty Generalization

Answer 31

• 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 a likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected

aka “converse accident” because it proceeds in a direction opposite to that of accident

Question 32

False Cause

four sub …

Answer 32

occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
2. Non causa pro causa
3. Oversimplified cause
4. Gambler’s fallacy

Question 33

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Answer 33

“after this, therefore on account of this”

• this variety of the fallacy supposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second

Question 34

2. Non causa pro causa

Answer 34

“not the cause for the cause”

• this variety is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession

Question 35

3. Oversimplified cause

Answer 35

when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause

Question 36

4. Gambler’s fallacy

Answer 36

committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related. For the gambler’s fallacy to be committed, the event must be independent or nearly independent

Question 37

Slippery Slope

Answer 37

• a variety of the false cause fallacy
• It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place

Question 38

Weak Analogy

Answer 38

• affects inductive arguments from analogy
• An argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or situations
• The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

evaluating an argument having this form:

1. Identify the attributes a, b, c, … the the two entities A and B share
2. determine how the attribute z, mentioned in the conclusion, related to the attributes a, b, c, …
   - -> If some causal or systematic relation exists between z and a, b, c, the argument is strong; otherwise it is weak

Question 39

Fallacies of presumption (def.)

Answer 39

the 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

Question 40

Fallacies of presumption (list)

Answer 40

1. Begging the question
2. Complex question
3. False dichotomy
4. Suppressed evidence

Question 41

Begging the question / Petitio Principii

Answer 41

committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle

three ways of committing the fallacy:

1. by leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion
2. 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, and the conclusion tends to reinforce the premise
3. involves circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first premise that is possibly false

Question 42

Complex question

Answer 42

committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is given to both of them. Every complex question presumes the existence of a certain condition

The fallacy of complex question should be distinguished from a leading question. A leading question is one in which the answer is in some way suggested in the question. Leading questions differ from complex questions in that they involve no logical fallacies

Question 43

False dichotomy

Answer 43

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

other names:

• “false bifurcation”
• “either-or fallacy”

Question 44

Suppressed evidence

Answer 44

it ignores the evidence

Question 45

Fallacies of ambiguity (def.)

Answer 45

arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both)

Question 46

Fallacies of ambiguity (list)

Answer 46

1. Equivocation

2. Amphiboly

Question 47

Equivocation

Answer 47

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depend on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument

Question 48

Amphiboly

Answer 48

occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation
(ambiguity arises through wrong punctuation or grammar – syntactical ambiguities)

Question 49

Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways

Answer 49

1st. equivocation is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of a word or phrase, whereas amphiboly involves a syntactical ambiguity in a statement
2nd. 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

Question 50

Fallacies of illicit transference (def.)

Answer 50

involve the incorrect transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, or from the hole onto the parts

Question 51

Fallacies of illicit transference (list)

Answer 51

1. Composition

2. Division

Question 52

Composition

Answer 52

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, too, and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole

Question 53

Division

Answer 53

• exact reverse of composition –> 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).