The document discusses different types of fallacies, or flawed arguments. It begins by defining a fallacy as an argument that uses poor reasoning, whether or not the conclusion is true. Fallacies can be formal, stemming from logical flaws, or informal. The document then examines different types of formal and informal fallacies identified by Aristotle, Richard Whately, and others. It provides examples of intentional and unintentional fallacies, as well as deductive fallacies. Specific fallacies like appeal to pity, scare tactics, and two wrongs making a right are explored in more depth.

1. FALLACIES
Kavosa Assava

2. • A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning.
• An argument can be fallacious whether or not its
conclusion is true.
• A fallacy can be either formal or informal.
• An error that stems from a poor logical form is
sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid
argument.
• An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does
not originate in improper logical form.
• Arguments committing informal fallacies may be
formally valid, but still fallacious.

3. TYPES OF FALLACIES
• Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by
assuming the conclusion in the proof.
• Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion
with insufficient evidence.
• Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with
irrelevant evidence, like emotion.
• Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due
to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[5]
• Some fallacies are committed intentionally to
manipulate or persuade by deception, others
unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

4. FORMAL FALLACY
• A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always
wrong.
• This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument
which renders the argument invalid.
• The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument
does not imply anything about the argument's premises or
its conclusion.
• Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as
a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still
invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the
premises in the manner described.
• By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even
if the argument is not a deductive one

5. ARISTOTLE
• Aristotle was the first to systematize
logical errors into a list.
• Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" (De
Sophisticis Elenchis) identifies thirteen
fallacies.
• He divided them up into two major types,
1.
2.
those depending on language and
those not depending on language.
• These fallacies are called verbal fallacies
and material fallacies, respectively.
• A material fallacy is an error in what the
arguer is talking about, while a verbal
fallacy is an error in how the arguer is
talking.
• Verbal fallacies are those in which a
conclusion is obtained by improper or
ambiguous use of words.[7]

6. RICHARD WHATELY
• Richard Whately divided fallacies into two groups:
• logical
• material.
• According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where
the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
• Material fallacies are not logical errors because the
conclusion does follow from the premises.
• He then divided the logical group into two groups:
• purely logical and
• semi-logical.
• The semi-logical group included all of
Aristotle's sophisms except:ignoratio elenchi, petitio
principii, and non causa pro causa, which are in the material
group.[8]

7. INTENTIONAL FALLACIES
• Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally.
• In any context, including academic debate, a conversation
among friends, political discourse, or advertising, the arguer
may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener
or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence,
that the conclusion is true.
• For instance, the speaker or writer might divert the
argument to unrelated issues using a red herring;
• insult someone's character (argumentum ad hominem),
assume they are right by "begging the question" (petitio
principi);
• make jumps in logic non-sequitur;
• identify a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc);

8. • assert that everyone agrees, the bandwagoning;
• create a "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in
which the situation is oversimplified;
• selectively use facts or "card-stacking";
• make false or misleading comparisons with "false
equivalence", and "false analogy";
• generalize quickly and sloppily with a "false
generalization"; and many more.

9. DEDUCTIVE FALLACY
• In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to
a formal fallacy:
• a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which
renders the argument invalid.
• Logic is the use of valid reasoning;
• A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning.
• Therefore, the clause is contradictory... However, the
same terms are used in informal discourse to mean an
argument which is problematic for any reason.

10. • A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any
particular conjunction of meaningful propositions.
• Logical form alone can guarantee that given true
premises, a true conclusion must follow.
• However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any
premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or
false.
• Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates
the deductive guarantee. The so-called fallacy is a
failure to understand that all bets are off unless the
argument is formally flawless and all premises are true.

11. QUINCY
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERECORDIAM
APPEAL TO PITY/ MISERY
This strategy is an attempt to persuade
someone to agree with you or give you
what you want by making them pity or
feel sorry for you. This fallacy can
make the other person seem cruel or
insensitive if they do not comply.
It is an attempt to distract from the
truth of the conclusion by the use of
pity.

12. •
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’
emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.
More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the
substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in
place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions
associated with X influence the person to accept X as true
because they “ feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey to
the fallacy.
•
The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get
people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for
someone.
•
Its mostly evident in politics(where it has been proven to be
counter productive) and T.V commercials

13. JUSTIFIED ARGUMENTS EVOKING PITY
• This fallacy should not be confused with a justified
argument that evokes pity. An example is when a
student argues that he or she should be excused for
being absent because he or she was hit by a lorry on
that day
• This argument may evoke pity but it is justified.
• Whoever the student is appealing to would be
justified in excusing the student because being hit by
a lorry is a good enough reason to miss class

14. An example of a typical appeal to pity fallacy would
be when a student argues that he or she should get an
A because he or she spent 8 straight hours doing the
assignment
Regardless of whether the statement is true or not it
does not determine the quality of the work done

15. Realistic manifestations of this fallacy
Very common and the most persuasive Tactic used
by street dwellers, they would come to the street
with their children , send the children to borrow
because one would be emotionally inclined to feel
pity for the child and part away with some money.
However if one was to think critically about what
would help this kids.one would realize that giving
them money is what keeps them on the street
because to the mothers or guardians who put them
there this is one of the easiest way of making
money hence we fall prey to this fallacy. Thus if we
really feel pity for them we should either take them
to a children’s home where they are assured of 3
meals a day and education or better yet report
them to the relevant authorities

16. POLITICS
Hillary Clinton spoke of trying to break into
the "boys' club" when the male candidates
were attacking her. The statement, made to
a women's group, quickly got out; in today's
world, after all, no statement by a public
figure can be expected to be private, much
less one made on a campaign stop.
However she intended it (most likely as a
catch-phrase to pander to women who feel
underrepresented in politics), the
interpretation that emerged was that people
should vote for Clinton because she is a
solitary woman dealing with all the nasty
men campaigning against her.

17. IN COURT
During the trial of a self confessed
plotter of 911 a Mr Zacarius Mouassoi
The prosecutors showed the jury photos
Of charred victims of the 911 saga in orde
To appeal to the jury’s emotion so that
They may recommend the ultimate
Death Penalty.

18. INTERNATIONAL MEDIA;
SYRIA CRISIS
•
Youtube’s policy for videos is that graphic and brutal content will not be allowed to stay
because it is disturbing, however with regards to the Syrian crisis, someone somewhere
with the influence over youtube administrators pulled the necessary strings and made
youtube allow the oncoming video to be viewed by the world so that it can appeal to our
emotions (and not the true facts regarding the conflict) which would then change our
world opinion against syria’s army so that the much needed and ILLEGAL ‘Nato
intervention’ would be warranted or seem as the most relevant humanitarian thing to do.
•
If one was to closely investigate the Syria crisis one would find out that its actually not the
military killing its own citizens but hired mercenaries because the people support
president Bashir al Assad (the same happened in Libya under colonel Gaddafi)
•
The coming video might be tragic but believe you me its on youtube ( the last place it
should be given their stringent policies on graphic and disturbing content)

19. SYRIA CRISIS

20. SCARE TACTICS/
APPEAL TO FEAR
THIS IS A LOGICAL ERROR IN REASONING THAT DWELLS ON
SOMEONE FEAR IN ORDER TO ALTER THEIR REASONING, IT
SUBSTITUTES FEAR FOR EVIDENCE THEREBY TRYING TO ALTER
THAT THE CLAIM IS TRUE.
THIS LINE OF "REASONING" IS FALLACIOUS BECAUSE CREATING
FEAR IN PEOPLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.

21. • AN APPEAL TO FEAR (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD
METUM OR ARGUMENTUM IN TERROREM) IS A FALLACY IN
WHICH A PERSON ATTEMPTS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR
AN IDEA BY USING DECEPTION AND PROPAGANDA IN
ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE FEAR AND PREJUDICE TOWARD
A COMPETITOR. THE APPEAL TO FEAR IS COMMON
IN MARKETING AND POLITICS.

22. MOST FAITHS APPEAL TO OUR
FEAR OF BEING ANNIHILATED
OR PUNISHED OR SUFFERING
IN ORDER TO GET US TO DO
GOOD, FOR INSTANCE IN
CHRISTIANITY (NO OFFENCE) IF
YOU DO NOT DO GOOD YOU
WILL BURN IN HELL FOR
ETERNITY. THUS AS MUCH AS
THIS CLAIM MAY BE TRUE IT
HAS APPEALED TO OUR FEAR.
AND IF YOU DO GOOD IN ALL
YOUR WAYS YOU’LL MAKE IT TO
HEAVEN.
AN INTELLIGENT MAN DOES
NOT NEED THE PROMISE OF
HEAVEN TO DO GOOD

23. • TEACHERS IN SCHOOL
GENERALLY HIGH SCHOOL AND
PRIMARY SCHOOL ALWAYS
THREATEN STUDENTS THAT IF
THEY DO NOT READ HARD THEY
WILL NEVER MAKE IT IN LIFE,
YOU WILL GET A MEAGRE JOB
AND THIS MIGHT LEAD TO YOU
GETTING INVOLVED IN CRIME
SO AS TO SUSTAIN A BETTER
LIVING. WHEREAS EDUCATION
IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO
MAKING IT IN LIFE ITS JUST AN
EASIER AVENUE BECAUSE WE
HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
EXPLORED ON THEIR TALENTS
AND HAVE MADE IT IN LIFE,
SOCCER STARS & MUSICIANS
ARTISTS E.T.C

24. • THE APPEAL TO FEAR CAN BE VALID IF BASED ON GOOD
EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTION CAN LEAD TO FRIGHTENING
CONSEQUENCES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARGUMENT THAT
ALCOHOL DRINKING OVER – A LONG PERIOD – CAN LEAD
TO LIVER FAILURE AND CONSEQUENTLY DEATH IS BASED
ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. THE ONCOMING VIDEO
EMPHASIZES MORE

26. TWO WRONGS MAKE
A RIGHT?

27. DEFINITION
• Two wrongs make a right is the name given to a type of
fallacy wherein a person seeks to justify their own or
{someone they support's behavior} by deflecting
attention onto the wrongdoing of others, often their
accusers.

28. EXAMPLE ONE
• Bob took shots of tequila and got a hangover the next
day. Millo asked Bob why she took the shots. Bob
shouted at Millo saying “ you took shots of Tequila as
well!”
• Bob tries to justify her wrong action by Highlighting that
Millo too partook in the shot taking as well.

29. EXAMPLE TWO
• This fallacy is often committed by children.
An example:
• Parent: Laquisha, why did you pull your sister's hair, don't
you know that's wrong.
• Laquisha: I know, but she pinched me first.
• To this, the parent may respond, "two wrongs don't make
a right".

30. EXAMPLE THREE
• Capital punishment: in the case of murder.
• It justifies the notion that since the persons committed
murder in the first place, we are then justified to kill them
as well.
• The law tries to justify the taking of human life by
claiming that the defendants took human life in the first
place.

31. CREATIVE ACTIVITY
• Watch and learn!!!! 