Uploaded on

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Fallacy Part 01
  • 2.
    • Fallacy
    • In  logic  and  rhetoric , a  fallacy  is a misconception resulting from incorrect  reasoning  in  argumentation . By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g.  appeal to emotion ), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g.  argument from authority ). 
  • 3.
    •  Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments
  • 4. Material fallacies
    • The taxonomy of  material fallacies  is widely adopted by modern logicians and is based on that of  Aristotle ,  Organon  ( Sophistici elenchi ). This taxonomy is as follows:
  • 5.
    • Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization : a generalization that disregards exceptions
    • Example
      • Argument:  Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals .
      • Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
      • Argument:  It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
      • Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule;  a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid  (where an accountable exception is ignored).
  • 6.
    • Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization : argues from a special case to a general rule
    • Example
      • Argument:  Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English .
      • Problem: Who one has met is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have met all people.
    • Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception,  a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
  • 7.
    • Irrelevant Conclusion : diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly
    • Example
      • Argument:  Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
      • Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an  appeal to authority .)
  • 8.
    • Affirming the Consequent : draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q
  • 9.
    • Example:
      • Argument:  If people run barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
      • Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.
      • Argument:  If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
      • Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).