This document discusses different types of fallacies, which are deceptive arguments that seem valid but are not actually conclusive. It begins by defining a fallacy and explaining their purpose and effects. It then describes several categories of fallacies: 1) Fallacies of language, which involve ambiguous or equivocal uses of language. Examples given are equivocation, amphiboly, composition, and division. 2) Fallacies not of language, which involve confusion about things spoken of. Examples are accident and converse accident. 3) Examples are provided for many of the different types of fallacies to illustrate how they work. Understanding fallacies is important for correctly applying logic, avoiding deception, and strengthening one's

1. LOGIC
Fallacies

2. Fallacies A fallacy is derived from the Latin word “fallo”,
which means “I deceive”. It is a deceptive
argument that seems to be conclusive but is actually
not conclusive. Either its sequence seems to be
valid but is actually invalid, or else its premise
seems to be true but is actually false. An
appearance of validity and truth is essential to a
fallacy, for it would deceive no one unless it at least
seemed to be valid or true.
An intended fallacy is called “Sophism”. It gets this
name because it was a favorite device of the ancient
Greek sophists, who claimed to be able to prove
either side of any question.

3. The term “fallacy” is sometimes applied to ambiguous statements that
are not actually parts of an argument. The reason for this is that they
might be understood in a sense in which they are not true and thus be
an occasion of deception.
Cause of Fallacies
Many fallacies arise from the matter of inference rather from
defective form and might consequently seem to lie outside the
scope of logic. Since the time of Aristotle, treatises on logic have
always included a discussion of fallacies.

4. Effects/Importance to Knowledge of Fallacies
1.) Correct forms of interference are often best illustrated and explained
by contrasting them with incorrect forms. You cannot know the correct
forms of thought without simultaneously knowing the incorrect form.
You cannot think correctly unless you avoid thinking incorrectly; and
you can neither avoid incorrect thinking nor detect incorrect thinking
unless you are skilled in recognizing incorrect thinking.
2.) The study of fallacies will serve as a review of much of what we
have already seen. You should not consider fallacies in isolation from
the other parts of logic, but intimately connected with them.
3.) Readiness in recognizing fallacies will help you apply the principles
of logic to everything you read or hear and put you on your guard
against the more common sources of deception.
4.) Finally, the ability to call a fallacy by name will give you a great
advantage over an opponent in discussion and debate.

5. 1. Fallacies of Language Aristotle lists six fallacies of language. The
first five are various kinds of ambiguity and
consist of using an expression in different
senses in different parts of an argument but
proceeding as though it were used in the
same sense.
A. Equivocation consists in using a word that has the same
spelling or sound, but a different meaning, in
different parts of an argument. The word
need not be an equivocal term in the strict
sense the ambiguous use of an analogous
term or a change in the way a term is used
(that is, an illegitimate shift of supposition)
can suffice.

6. Example (the equivocal use of the word “natural”
What is natural is good;
but to make mistakes is natural;
therefore to make mistakes is good
In its first occurrence, the word “natural” means “constituting or perfecting a
nature”; in its second occurrence, it means “due to the limitations of nature”.
Only in the first sense of the word is it true that what is natural is good. (this
syllogism also incurs the fallacy of four terms).

7. Example: the equivocal use of ‘violate of law” and of “man”
He who violates the law should be punished;
but when we illustrate fallacies we violate many laws;
therefore when we illustrate fallacies we should be punished.
He who violates a moral law perhaps should be punished but hardly
one who violates a law of logic.
“Man” can be predicted of many;
but you are a man;
therefore you can predicted by many.
The concept “man” can be predicted of many; however, you are not
the concept “man” but a real man.

8. B. Amphiboly is syntactical ambiguity. It consists in using a
phrase whose individual words are univocal but
whose meaning is ambiguous because the
grammatical construction can be interpreted in
various ways.
When king Pyrrhus asked the oracle whether he would conquer
the Romans, the oracle answered in the following Latin
hexameter:
Aio te, Aeacide, Romanosvincer posse.
(Pyrrhus the Romans can, I say, subdue.)
Who was to conquer whom? King Pyrrus made the disastrous
mistake of thinking that he was to conquer the Romans rather
than the Romans were to conquer him.

9. Similar to this is the response that the oracle gave to King
Croesus when he was planning a war against the Persians.
If Croesus wages war against the Persians,
he will destroy a mighty kingdom
Whose kingdom? His own? Or the Persians? The oracle did not
say, but the event proved that it was to be his own.

10. c. Composition consists in taking words or phrases as a unit
when they should be taken separately.
Cajus falls into this fallacy when he admits that thieves and
murderers are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, but then
denies that he himself is excluded since he is only a thief but not
a murderer.

11. d. Division is the converse of the fallacy of composition and consists
in taking separately what should be taken together as a
unit.
You fall into this fallacy when you argue;
All in this room weigh about two tons;
but Mary Alice in in this room;
therefore Mary Alice weighs about two tons.
“ All in this room” is to be understood collectively in the major
premise; but in the conclusion you proceed as though it had been
taken distributively; you divide, or separate, what is true only
when taken together as a unit.

12. e. Accent consists in the ambiguous use of a word that has different
meanings when it is accented differently. This fallacy is
the same as equivocation except that, strictly speaking,
words having different accents are not the same words.
Example:
“John is not a depraved murderer” -
emphasizing “depraved”, you deny that john is depraved without
stating whether or not ha is a murderer; if you emphasized
“murderer”, you deny that he is a murderer without, however,
stating whether or not he is depraved.
“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor”
If you emphasized “shall not bear”, you suggest the one should
not tolerate false witness; if you emphasized “false” you hint
that it is all right to say evil things about your neighbor.

13. f. Figures of Speech is a special type of false analogy that consists in
wrongly inferring similarity of meaning from
similarity of word structure.
Example: Note the words “immaterial”, “insoluble” and “inflammable”
What is immaterial is not material
and what is insoluble is not soluble;
therefore what is inflammable is not flammable.
In “immaterial” and “insoluble” the prefix “im-” or “in” is a negative
particle; but in “inflammable” it is an intensive particle.

14. Famous example of fallacy in Mill’s Utilitarianism:
The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is
that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is
audible is because people hear it,; and so of the other sources of
our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it
is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people
do actually desire it.
This fallacy rests on the false assumption that, in the word “desirable”,
that suffix “ible” (or “-able”) must mean “capable being…” since it
has this meaning in “visible and Audible”

15. 2. Fallacies not of Language Aristotle lists seven fallacies not of language.
They have this in common, that all of them
arise from some kind of confusion about the
things that are spoken of. Either what is
essential to a thing is confused with what is
merely accidental.
a. Accident consists in affirming or denying of a thing what has been
affirmed or denied only of some accidental modification or
condition of the thing, or vice versa.
The sophist’s dialogue with the acquaintance of Coriscus illustrates
this fallacy.
“Do you know Coriscus?”
“Yes”
“Do you Know the man who is approaching with his face muffled?”
“No.”
“But he is Coriscus; you have both affirmed and denied that you know
Coriscus.”

16. To have his face muffled is an accident in Coriscus; it is possible to know
Coriscus without knowing him according to this particular accidental
condition. ( you can know him without always recognizing him.) you
illustrate the same fallacy when you argue:
“ You say that you ate what you brought;
but you brought raw meat;
therefore you must have eaten raw meat.”
You did not intended to assert a complete identity between what you ate and
what you brought. All you wanted to say is that they were substantially the
same; you did not intend to deny that the accidental condition of the meat
was change by cooking.

17. A conditional form of this fallacy consist in arguing that a thing itself should be
forbidden or destroyed because its use sometimes leads to abuse. The abuse
should be eliminated, of course; but it does not fallow from this that the use
should also be eliminated.
Alcoholic drinks lead to drunkenness
and should therefore be forbidden.
You can construct a parallel argument which is obviously absurd.
Good food leads to overeating
and should therefore be forbidden
You might have a valid argument, through, if you show that the use of a thing is
inseparable from its abuse and that the abuse always has serious evil
consequences.

18. b. Confusion of Absolute and Qualified Statement
Under this heading we shall treat of two distinct but closely related fallacies.
The first of these consist in using a principle that is restricted in its
applicability as thought it were an absolutely universal principle, and thus
applying it to cases for which it was not intended. What is true only with
qualification or limitation is taken to be true absolutely or without any
qualification or limitation. We illustrate this fallacy when we argue:
Water boils at 212 Fahrenheit;
therefore water boils at 212 Fahrenheit on the top of mount Everest.
The premise is not true absolutely but only with the limitations “under an
atmospheric pressure corresponding to 760 mm.of mercury.” hence, when
we use this premise to infer that water boils at 212 Fahrenheit on the top of
mount Everest, we are applying a principle to a case that nit was not
intended to cover. We do the same when we argues

19. Germans are good musicians; therefore this
Germans is a good musician.
The premise is true of Germans as a group or in general, but not of each
individual Germans ( this example, if expressed in a complete syllogism,
would incur the fallacy of undistributed middle since the middle term
“German” would be particular in each occurrence.)_
The other form of this fallacy consist in assuming that an absolute statement
is implied in a qualified, or limited, statement when it is actually not implied
therein. Compare the following propositions:
1. John is as good doctor;
therefore John is a doctor .
2. He gave me $1000 of counterfeit money;
therefore he gave me $ 1000.
“John is a good doctor” implied the absolute statement that John is a doctor;
but “ He gave me $1000 of counterfeit money” does not implied the
absolute statement that he gave me $1000.

20. c. Ignoratio Elenchi The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi consist in providing a
conclusion other than the one that should be proved.
It is called by various names; for instance, “ the
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.” “ ignorance of the
question.” “ Ignoring the issue,” “ missing the point,”
and so on.
The fallacy gets it’s a name from the Latinized form
of the Greek word elenchos, which means
“refutation.” in order to refute a statement, you must
establish its contradictory of the statement to be
refuted, you are said to be “ignorant of the
refutation.”
Suppose, for instance, that someone uses the
following argument to refute the Catholic claim that
the pope is infallible.

21. There have been bad popes;
therefore the pope is not infallible.
Suppose, too, that this opponent of papal infallibility has proven that
there were a few bad popes. The question is, is the fact that there have
been a few bad popes really inconsistent with the popes infallibility?
The fact proves that the popes is not impeccable; as in many others, an
ignoratio elenchi could have been avoided by clarifying the exact
point at issue through precise definition.
The following argument of the young lad who denied the guilt of his adult
friend who had been sent to prison for murdering his wife also incurs an
ignoratio elenchi;
He wasn’t guilty. He was nice to all the kids and very athletic.
We played basketball and water skied with him and had
wonderful times.
He’d do anything for anybody.

22. Ignoration elinchi is very common and assumes many minor forms.
The following are the most common:
1.) Argumentum ad Hominem – ignores the issue and attacks the
person of an opponent instead. It includes such things as personal
abuse, attack on man’s character or nationality or religion, “mud
slinging,” “name calling,” charges of inconsistency, retorting an
argument and so on.
2.) Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the people) – is an appeal
to popular prejudices rather than to reason. Every election year
supplies altogether too many examples of this fallacy.
3.) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) – ignores the
point at issue and appeals, instead, to our instinct to have
conpassion on the unfortunate.

23. 4.) Argumentum ad Verecundiam – is an appeal to misplaced
authority. It aims at overawing people by appealing to the
misplaced authority or to the dignity of those who hold an opinion
rather than to their special competence in matter under discussion.
5.) Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – is an appeal to
physical force or moral pressure.

24. d. Begging the Question The fallacy of begging the question, or petitio
principii, consist in assuming under some form or
other the conclusion that should be proved and
using it as a premise to prove the very same
conclusion. This fallacy occur in two forms.
The first form consist in using the same or an equivalent
proposition as both premise and conclusion,as in the following
examples,
Whiskey causes drunkenness because it is intoxicating
the soul is immortal because it cannot die
morphine induces sleep because it has soporific effects.
Both the premise (the “because” clauses) and the conclusions
state exactly the same thing and differ from one another only
verbally.

25. The second form consist in using a premise that cannot be
known to be true unless the conclusion is first known to be true,
as in the following example:
All in this room are wearing shoes;
but Martha is in this room;
therefore Martha is wearing shoes.
The major premise is an enumerative universal and cannot be
known to be true unless the conclusion is first to be true. You
cannot know that all in this room are wearing shoes unless you
first know that Martha is wearing them.

26. e. False Cause We must distinguish between the Aristotelian fallacy of
false cause ( non causa pro causa) and the much more
important fallacy to which later logicians give the same
name.
The Aristotelian fallacy of false cause consist in drawing
an absurd conclusion from an assumption that is falsely
imputed to an opponent or wrongly assumed to underlie a
thesis. What is not the cause or reason for a thesis is
assumed to be cause or reason.
Suppose, for example, that a sophist’s opponent has made statement that the
death penalty for murder is just, and the sophist argues as follows:
The claim that the death penalty for murder is just leads to an
absurdity. If the death penalty for murder is just and if ,
moreover, punishment is just precisely insofar as it is an
effective deterrent from crime, it would follow that it would be
equally just to inflict the death penalty for pocket- picking

27. f. Consequent The fallacy of the consequent consist in inferring that an
antecedent is true because its consequent is true, or that a
consequent is false because its antecedent is false. This
fallacy is based on the mistaken opinion that the
relationship of an antecedent and its consequent in regard
to truth and falsity is always reciprocal.
The fallacy of the consequent can also be incurred in
categorical syllogisms. Any notion included in the
comprehension of a concept.
Whether as a constitutive note ( genus and difference) or as
a derived note (logical property) - is a consequent of that
concept, and in relation to its consequent the concept itself
is an antecedent. In this sense the notion “animal” “
organic” “ material, and so on, are consequents of the
antecedent “dog”.

28. In the minor premise of the following syllogism the term “animal”, which is
a consequent of “dog”. Is a predicated of the minor term “Moby Dick” and
in the conclusion its antecedent (“dog”) is the predicated of the same term:
A dog is an animal
but Moby Dick is not a animal
therefore Moby Dfick is not an animal
This example not only incurs the fallacy of positing the consequent but also
the formal fallacy of an undistributed middle term.
In the minor premise of the following syllogism the term “dog” which is an
antecedent of “animal” is denied of the minor term “Moby Dick” and in the
conclusion its consequent is denied of the same term.
A dog is an animal;
but Moby Dick is not a dog;
therefore Moby Dick is not an animal.

29. g. Many Question The fallacy of many question consists in asking either
a multiple question as though it were a single
question- or a question involving a supposition as
though it involving no supposition - and then
demanding a simple yes or no for an answer and thus
tricking someone into making admissions he did not
intent to make.
Consider the following multiple question which is proposed as
though it were a single question.
Is he a democrat with socialistic tendency?
If he is both a democrat and a man of socialistic tendencies, the
answer may be a simple yes but if not a democrat and a
socialistic the answer may be a simple no.

30. h. Other Fallacies The following fallacies are not included in Aristotle’s
list of fallacies, but are important enough to merit a
brief notice.
is the Latin for “it does not follow.” in a sense every
1) Non Sequitur invalid argument is a sequitur, just as every invalid
argument is also an ignoratio elechi; but the name
“non sequitur” is generally restricted to a series of
true but unrelated propositions that simulate the
structure of a syllogism; for instance;
Cows give milk;
but sheep have wool;
therefore goats chew cud.

31. 2) The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam , or Appeal to Ignorance
infers that a statement is false because it cannot be proved , or true
because it cannot be refuted. The assumption that a man is guilty until
he proves himself not guilty is an example of this fallacy.
3) The fallacy of Suppressing the Fact
consists in selection only the fact that favor an opinion and
suppressing, or ignoring, all fact that are against it. By a careful
selection of quotations you can often give the impression that a writer
holds an opinion that is just the opposite of what he really holds
4) The Argument from silence
infers that an alleged fact did not take place because it is not recorded
in writings in which it would surely have been recorded if it had taken
place. This argument can be legitimate, but is often misused. To know
for certain that, if an event had taken place, it would have been
recorded is often difficult and frequently impossible

32. 5) The Fallacy of False Assumption
consists in using a false principle or false statement of fact as an
unexpressed premise (or at least as a presupposition) of an argument.
It is not a fallacy at all in the Aristotelian sense but an error. The
fallacy of false assumption is incurred most frequently in enthymemes
whose unexpressed member is false, as in the following example.
6) Fallacies of Illicit Generalization
consists in masking a generalization on insufficient evident. Those
fallacies are incident to induction.
7) The Fallacy of False Analogy
will be treated in connection with induction. Actually it is an ignoratio
elenchi.