Chapter Five Fallacies Addis PDF

CHAPTER FIVE 5. INFORMAL FALLACIES ❑ Brainstorming Questions What is fallacy in human reasoning process? What are the causes of fallacies in arguments? What is Formal and Informal fallacies in argument? What and how Formal fallacies are committed? What and how Informal fallacies...

CHAPTER FIVE 5. INFORMAL FALLACIES ❑ Brainstorming Questions What is fallacy in human reasoning process? What are the causes of fallacies in arguments? What is Formal and Informal fallacies in argument? What and how Formal fallacies are committed? What and how Informal fallacies are committed? Can we argue fallacy free argument in reasoning? If ‘Yes’ How and If ‘No’ why?  What is Fallacy in argument?  A fallacy is logically invalid reasoning in all forms of human communication. It is generally defined as a deficiency or logical problem that occurs in an argument for various reasons and this involves; 1. Fallacious Arguments; an argument that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form. 2. Fallacious Reasoning; using erroneous thinking in evaluating or creating an argument, claim, proposition or belief. 3. Fallacious Tactics; deliberately trying to get your opponent or audience to use fallacious reasoning in accepting the truth claims of your argument.  Moreover, the term ‘fallacy’ in ordinary language is often used broadly to imply a mistaken or false belief. And a fallacy, according to logician usage, is defined as a mistake in reasoning or an error in reasoning  How Fallacy committed in argument?  Fallacies can be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, unintentionally due to human limitations such as carelessness, ,,,  It can be committed in different ways either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.  In general, fallacy is a violation of standard argumentative rules or criteria, thus, fallacy is committed due to violation of criteria of principles of good argument. This is, therefore, the causes of fallacies, among others, includes; ◦ the failure to provide relevant premises for the conclusion; ◦ the failure to provide premises that provide good support of the conclusion; ◦ the failure to address the most important or relevant aspects of the issues.  Both types of arguments – deductive and inductive arguments – may commit fallacies. ❑ Types of Fallacies ▪ Depending on the kind of the problems or defects they contain fallacies are divided into two groups: Formal and informal fallacies.,. ❑ Formal Fallacy: ► Formal fallacies are those fallacies that arise from an error or a mistake in the form of an argument. ► This kinds of fallacies are committed due to a structural defect that identified through inspection of the form or structure of argument. ► They are mistakes or errors arise from carelessness with respect to the clarity and consistency of one’s language in deductive arguments ► Different syllogistic arguments, such as categorical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism commit formal fallacies. 5 ❑ Example; ▪ All lions are animals. ▪ All birds are animals. ▪ Therefore, all lions are birds. This argument has the following form representing “lions”, “animals” and “birds” by A, B, and C respectively: o All A are B o All C are B o Therefore, all A are C. Through the study or examination of this form, one can easily understand that the above argument has an invalid form. This is because of the fact that the validity or invalidity of an argument depends up on its form 6 ❑ Informal Fallacies ❑ What is Informal Fallacies? Informal fallacies are logical errors or mistakes committed due to a defect identified through a detail analysis of the content of an argument. Informal fallacies are defects found in the content of the argument, which could be inductive or deductive argument Unlike formal fallacies, informal fallacies seems valid which comes from the rhetoric and psychological aspect that the arguer intentionally or unintentionally brings in his argument. All informal fallacies try to make a bad argument appear good by a certain intention by the individual who presents or provides an argument. 7 Example: ▪ Informal fallacies; ▪ All factories are plants. ▪ All plants are things that contain chlorophyll. ▪ Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll. ▪ An analysis of the content- that is, the meaning of the words- reveals the source of fallacy. The word ‘‘plants’’ is used in two different senses. ▪ In the first premise it means a building where something is manufactured, and in the second it means a life form. 8 ❑ Types of Informal Fallacies  There are many types of informal fallacies and since the time of Aristotle, logicians have attempted to classify the various informal fallacies.  Generally, there are five groups of informal fallacies. This includes: A) Fallacies of Relevance B) Fallacies of Weak induction C) Fallacies of Presumption D) Fallacies of Ambiguity E) Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy. A. Fallacies of Relevance ▬ What Fallacies of Relevance is committed? ◦ Fallacies of Relevance are those fallacies that fail to provide relevant and acceptable premises to their conclusion. ◦ These fallacies are committed when an argument provide premises that are logically irrelevant to their conclusions. ◦ Thus, fallacies of Relevance is committed where the argument premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion. ◦ It is types of fallacy caused when an argument fail to provide relevant and acceptable premises to their conclusion. ◦ This fallacies are classified as fallacies involving irrelevant premises and there are (8) eight informal fallacies which are considered as instances of this general class fallacy -Fallacies of Relevance. 10 1. Appeal to Force fallacy ◦ Generally, appeal to force fallacy provides a prudential reason to believe or accept one’s claim without providing evidences that are logically reliable. ◦ When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in attempt to justify a conclusion. ◦ The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader. In such cases, the arguer uses threat instead of evidence to force the listener to accept the conclusion ◦ Argument Form: If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you. Example: 1. Student to Teacher: I deserve an A grade for this course. You should know that my father is a good friend of College Principal. 2. Secretary to boss: I deserve a raise in salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want her to find out what’s been going on between you and female client.11 2. Appeal to Pity fallacy ▪ In the premises of the appeal to pity fallacy the arguer presents different problems to win the help of his readers or listeners. ▪ In this fallacy, therefore, the feelings of pity and sympathy are substituted for evidence and this fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener. Example: Taxpayer to judge: ▪ Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely I am not guilty. 12 3. Appeal to the People ▪ Fallacy of appeal to the people is occur when the arguer tries to convince the reader or listeners about a certain issue on the ground that most people approve it or most people have favorable emotions towards the issue being in question. ▪ Appeal to people fallacy is common and can be quite an effective persuasive device particularly in different political speeches, demagogues, preachers, advertisement and so forth. ▪ Argument Form: ▪ Everybody is doing X. Therefore, X must be the right thing to do. There are three varieties of indirect approach ad populum fallacy. These are Appeal to Bandwagon, Appeal to Vanity and Appeal to Snobbery. 13 3. Appeal to the People ❑ Bandwagon fallacy: The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one’s peers or peer pressure is substituted for evidence in an ‘argument’. This kind of reasoning is “fallacious” because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim. It is related cognitive bias that demonstrates people tend to believe and do things because many other people do as well. Example. ▪ Of course you want to buy Zing toothpaste. Why, 90 percent of America brushes with Zing 14 II. Appeal to Vanity ▪ Appeal to Vanity, in different advertisements, often associates the product with certain celebrity who is admired and pursued; and if others use the product they will be admired and pursued because they bought a product which is used by celebrities. Example. ▪ Who is going to buy this new fashion Shoes, a shoe used by the famous Muhammed Salah. III. Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy: ▪ The fallacy of appeal to snobbery is occurred when an arguer associates a product with a selected few persons that have an exaggerated social respect for social position, wealth and some other qualities. Example: ▪ Look at the mark of this cell phone – it is Apple is not for everyone. Buy Apple and join the select few. 15 4. Argument Against the Person ▪ The arguer attacks his/her opponent’s character instead of his/her argument. Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. ▪ The reason why argument against the person is fallacious is that the character, circumstances or actions of a person don’t have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. ▪ This fallacy occurs in three different forms. These forms include: ▪ Ad Hominem Abusive ▪ Ad Hominem Circumstantial ▪ Ad Hominem Tu Quoque ( ‘You Too’ fallacy) 16 I. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy ▪ Ad hominem abusive is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence while attacking or responding to the argument. This fallacy is occurred when the second person, the person who responds to a claim, verbally abuses the first arguer instead of attacking the argument. Example: ▪ Poet Wole Soyinka has argued in favor of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature. But Wole Soyinka’s argument is nothing but trash, Soyinka, you know, is a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture. 17 II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy Verbally abuse your opponent based on her background. ▪ Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid. ◦ E.g: His words should not be taken because he is gay. III. Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy: ▪ This fallacy occurred when the second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter’s conclusion Example: ▪ Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette because you yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is smoking? 18 5. Fallacy of accident ◦ The fallacy of Accident is occurred when a general rule is mistakenly applied to a specific case, a case the rule cannot cover. ◦ The general rule is implied in the premises and this general rule is erroneously or wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion Logical Form:  X is a common and accepted rule.  Therefore, there are no exceptions to X. Example: 1) Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken sailor, who is fighting with his opponents at the pool table, lent you his pistol, and now he wants it back. Therefore, you should return to him now. 2) People have the right to express their political opinion. A judge is therefore justified in using the court room to express his own political opinion. 19 6. Straw Man Fallacy  The straw man fallacy is committed when an individual simply ignores the arguer’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, or misrepresented version of the argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.  This kind of “reasoning “has the fallowing pattern: ◦ Person ‘A’ provides a certain argument-X. ◦ Person ‘B’ presents position ‘Y’, which is a distorted version of argument-X. ◦ Person ‘B’ attacks position ‘Y’. ◦ Therefore, argument X is incorrect or flawed..  Example: ◦ Mr. Belay believes that ethnic federalism has just destroyed the country and thus it should be replaced by geographical federalism. But we should not accept his proposal. He just wants to take the country back to the previous regime. Geographical federalism was the kind of state structure during Derg and monarchical regime. We do not want to go back to the past. Thus, we should reject Mr. Belay’s proposal. 20 Straw Man Fallacy  When one side argues, "Some X are Y," this view can easily be distorted as "All X are Y." Example: A: Smoking is bad to your health. One of ten deaths is caused by diseases related to smoking. B: That cannot be true. My grandfather has smoked since he was sixteen, and he is still very healthy. ▪ When the fallacy of straw man occurs readers should keep in mind two things. First, they have to try to identify the original argument, which is misrepresented by the critic. Second, they should look for what gone wrong in the misrepresentation of the argument. 21 7. Fallacy of missing the point (ignoratio elenchi) ▪ This happens when the premises of an argument lead, or seem to lead, to one conclusion and then a completely different conclusion is drawn. ▪ It 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. The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely.  Example: 1) Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penalty immediately. 2) Our university has lots of problems. Student services and facilities are inadequate. Also, there is no sufficient human resources the intake capacity of the university is high and learners have no access to get learning resources. So, to overcome these problems the university should be closed. 22 Fallacy of missing the point ▪ Generally, the fallacy of missing the point is called Ignoratio Elenchii. Ignoratio Elenchii means “ignorance of the proof.” That means the arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses the point entirely. Example; ▪ Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our only alternative is to abolish the system altogether. o In this argument the premises logically suggest some systematic effort to eliminate the cheaters rather than eliminating the system altogether. 23 8. Red Herring Fallacy  A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue in question. The basic idea is to win an argument by leading attention a way from the argument to another topic or subject.  This fallacy 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. To use the red herring fallacy effectively, the arguer must change the original subject of the argument without the reader or listener noticing it. Example: ◦ Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater caution. 24 Straw Man & Red Herring fallacy  The red herring fallacy can be confused with the straw man fallacy because both have the effect of drawing the reader/listener off the track.  In the straw man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument.  In the red herring, on the other hand, the arguer ignores the opponent’s argument and subtly changes the subject. ►Straw Man: Arguer has distorted the opponent's argument. ►Red Herring: Arguer simply diverts to a new subject. ▪ Thus, to distinguish the two fallacies, one should attempt to determine whether the arguer has knocked down a distorted argument or simply changed the subject. 25 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction ▬Fallacies of Weak-Induction: Causes and Types of fallacy? ❑What do we mean by ‘Fallacies of weak induction? ❑What is the causes of fallacies of weak induction? ❑Which fallacies can be considered as instances of fallacies of weak induction? ❑Which types of argument is highly affected by the fallacies of weak induction? 26 ❑How Fallacy of Weak Induction is committed? ◦ Fallacies of weak induction are typically an instance of inductive arguments that based on prediction, sign, analogy, generalization, authority and causal inference forms of argumentation. ◦ Fallacies of weak induction is committed, when the arguer made a mistakes or errors in these form of argumentation. ◦ The fallacy of weak induction violates the principles of sufficiency, whenever a person who argue for or against a position, fail to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the acceptance of the conclusion. ◦ Thus, fallacy of Weak Induction is committed when the connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. 27 ❑ Typologies of Weak Induction Fallacy  An inductive argument forms commit fallacies of weak induction if the arguer intentionally or unintentionally makes error or mistake in his or her arguments.  There are different kinds of fallacies of weak induction and the following are the most important ones: 1) Appeal to Unqualified Authority, 2) Hasty Generalization, 3) False Cause, 4) Weak Analogy, 5) Slippery Slope, and 6) Appeal to Ignorance. 28 1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority The fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority is committed when; Unqualified persons or not legitimate authority on the subject or the issue he or she is arguing about or cited authority or witness lacks credibility. An unqualified individuals to make a reliable claim on certain subject by not a legitimate authority in a particular context or subject. ▪ To identify whether a certain passage commits the fallacy of unqualified authority we have to look at the following important points: a) The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. b) The claim being made by the arguer is within his or her areas of expertise. c) Degree of agreement among the other expertise on the subject in question. d) The person in question is not significantly biased 29 Example: o Meron and Chaltu are arguing about the morality of abortion: Meron: “I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body.” Chaltu: “I disagree completely. Dr. Temasgen says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field.” Meron: “I have never heared of Dr. Temasgen. Who is he?” Chaltu: “He is the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on Astrophysics.” Meron: “I see; does he have any expertise in morality or Ethics?” Chaltu: “I do not know. But he is a world famous expert, so, I believe him.” 30 2. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy  When 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, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance.  This fallacy is committed either by arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false or by arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. ▪ Logical Form: X is true, because you cannot prove that X is false. X is false, because you cannot prove that X is true. ▪ Example: ◦ People have been trying for centuries to prove the existence of God. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist. ◦ Noting is known with certainty about the existence of devil. Therefore, devil does not exist. 31 ❑ Exception to appeal to ignorance fallacy  However, this is not always necessary, that the investigators have special qualifications and the kinds of qualifications needed depend on the situation.  For instance, there is an exception relates to courtroom procedure when a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the court.  In formal courtroom if the prosecutor in a criminal trial fails to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, counsel for the defense may justifiably argue that his or her client is not guilty. Example: ◦ Members of the jury, you have heard the prosecution present its case against the defendant. Nothing, however, has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, under the law, the defendant is not guilty.  This argument commits no fallacy because “not guilty” means, in the legal sense, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has not been proved. 32 3. Hasty Generalization ▪ Hasty generalization fallacy is committed when an argument proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. ▪ It is occurred in ones argument when the arguer draws a conclusion about the whole class based on a sample which is not enough or adequate to represent the whole. Thus, this fallacy is committed when a sample taken are not sufficient to support a general conclusion. ▪ Logical Form: Sample S is taken from population P. Sample S is a very small part of population P. Conclusion C is drawn from sample S. ▪ Examples: ▪ Addis Zemen Gazeta carried an interview to young people found out that, among 10 young interviewed, none of them read a book for the last 2 years. The conclusion is obvious: all young people in the country do not have the culture of reading books. 33 ❑ Exception to Hasty generalization fallacy ▪ However, the mere fact that a sample is small, does not necessarily mean that it is atypical and various factors may intervene that render such a sample typical of the larger group. ▪ Examples: ▪ Ten milligrams of substance Z was fed to four mice, and within two minutes all four went into shock and died. Probably substance Z, in this amount, is fatal to mice in general. ▪ In the above argument the fact that the mice died in only two minutes suggests the existence of a causal connection between eating substance Z and death. If there is such a connection, it would hold for other mice as well. 34 4. False Cause Fallacy ◦ This fallacy is occurred when the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection depends on the assumption of a non-existent or minor causal connection. ▪ Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all. ▪ There are three varieties of false cause fallacy: ▪ Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, None Causa Pro causa Fallacy, and Oversimplified Cause Fallacy. 35 A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore on account of this) ▪ This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. ▪ In other words, this fallacy is committed when an arguer concludes that ‘A’ causes or caused ‘B’ simply because ‘A’ occurs before ‘B’ This way of reasoning has the following form: 1. ‘A’ occurs before ‘B’. 2. Therefore ‘A’ is the cause of B o Example: ▪ I do not want to let that black dog to cross my way. Once I let one block dog cross my way and after a few minute my uncle died by a car accident. 36 B. Non Causa pro Causa Fallacy ▪ This fallacy is committed when the arguer considers something as the cause of an effect when in reality it is not; and on the other hand when a kind of confusion occurs between the cause and effect of a certain event. ▪ Example: ▪ Successful business executives are paid salaries in excess of $100,000.Therefore, the best way to ensure that Soressa will become a successful executive is to raise his salary to at least $100,000.. C. Oversimplified Cause fallacy This variety occurs 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. o Example: ▪ The quality of education in this school has been declining for years. Clearly our teachers just are not doing their job these days.. 37 5. Fallacy of slippery slope ◦ This fallacy is occurred when a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without providing any reason for the event in question. ◦ In other words, this fallacy is committed when a certain argument rests on chains of events and the arguer fails to provide sufficient reason why this chain of events occurred. Logical Form: If A, then B, then C,... then ultimately Z!  Example.  Against cultural, social and norms of Ethiopia, Chinese are started donkey slaughter in Bishoftu. But this should be prohibited immediately. If they continuously slaughter donkey, then Ethiopian who works in the abattoir will start to eat donkey meat. Then members of family these workers will eat donkey meat. This gradually leads their neighbors and the village. Finally, the whole country will follow which in turn leads to the total collapse of Ethiopian food culture. 38 6. Fallacy of Weak Analogy ◦ This fallacy is occurred when analogy between two or more objects or situations in which the conclusion depends on the existence of week analogy. ▪ Or when the two things that are being compared are not really similar in the relevant respects or where one case is held to be similar to another case in a particular respect. ◦ In other words, this fallacy is occurred when the analogy between things that are being compared is not strong enough to support the arguer’s conclusion. This fallacy has the following form:  Entity A has attributes A, B, C, D, and Z.  Entity B has attributes A, B, C, and D.  Therefore, entity B probably has attribute Z too. 39  Weak Analogy ;;;;;; ❑Example 1) If a car breaks down on the highway, a passing mechanic is not obligated to render emergency road service. By the same token, if a person suffers a heart attack on the street, a passing physician is not obligated to render emergency medical assistance. 2) Guns are like hammers – they are both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers – so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous. ◦ These arguments commit the fallacy of weak analogy while guns and hammers do share certain features, in the first argument; these features are not significant in deciding whether to restrict guns. 40 3. Fallacies of Presumption ❑ What is the cause for the fallacy of presumption? ▪ The fallacies of presumption occurred when the arguer provides an argument that have premises try to presume (guess) what it purport to prove. ▪ This fallacy usually contain tricky and confusing phraseologies for the purpose of concealing or hiding the wrong ideas stated in the premise. ▪ Even though the ideas stated in the premises are not supported by logical evidence or proof, the arguer invites readers or listeners to accept his or her argument as it if does not need proof or evidence. ▪ There are four types of fallacies that are considered as fallacies of presumption. ▪ Begging the question; ▪ Complex or loaded question; ▪ False dichotomy and ▪ Suppressed evidence. 41 1. Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning This fallacy is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion (misconception) that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly true key premise, It is sometimes called circular reasoning because the argument relies on a premise that says the something as the conclusion. And this fallacy is occurred when the arguer ignores an important idea or assumption, which is questionable, that he/she already rises in the premises Logical Form: Claim X assumes X is true. Therefore, claim X is true. o Examples: Humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. Just look how similar they are. 42 2. Complex Question  This fallacy is committed when two (more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both and when the respondent’s answer is added to the complex question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed condition. Example: o Where did you hide the money you stole? You were asked where you hide the money you stole. If you replied “in my bag”. It follows that you did in fact steal the money. o You were asked whether you have stopped cheating on exams. If You said “Yes.” Therefore, it follows that you have cheated in the past. o Clearly, the above question is really two questions: Did you steal the money? If you did steal it, where did you hide it? 43 3.False Dichotomy  This fallacy is 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.  A false dichotomy is committed when the arguer presents a pair of alternatives as if they are a pair of dichotomy. This fallacy is often committed by children when arguing with their parents by advertisers, and by adults generally.  The reasoning has the following form: ▪ Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). ▪ Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true.. o Examples: ◦ Either you are going to buy me a new car or I will divorce you. You do not want me divorce you. Thus, you have to buy me a new car. 44 o In general, fallacies of presumption are committed not because argument premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the argument conclusion, rather due to the premises presume (guess) what they purport to prove. o Begging the question presumes that the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not, and o Complex question presumes that a question can be answered by a simple “yes,” “no,” or other brief answer when a more sophisticated answer is needed. o False dichotomy presumes that an “either... or...” statement presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not, and suppressed evidence presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked by the premises when in fact it has 45 4.Suppressed Evidence  This fallacy is committed a person who presents an argument intentionally or unintentionally ignore or hides significant evidence.  Therefore this fallacy is occurred when the arguer fails to support his/her position and emphasizes on other reasons that are not as such important to the conclusion of the argument. ❑ Example: ◦ Somalia is a good place for investment for the following reasons. First there are cheap raw materials. Second there is cheap labor. Third there is good market for our product. Forth there is a port that helps us to export our product. Thus we have to consider investing in Somalia. ◦ If the arguer ignores the fact that there is no peace and stability in Somalia then the argument commits a suppressed evidence fallacy. 46 4. Linguistic Fallacy ▬ How and why Linguistic Fallacy is committed? ◦ Linguistic fallacies are occurred because of the incorrect or wrong language usage. Among others, wrong use of words, incorrect construction of grammars; lack of appropriate clarity, vague and ambiguous expressions, and other language problems are considered as the causes of fallacies that are occurred in language usage. ◦ There are two groups of fallacies that are occurred in different languages. These are: 1. Fallacies of Ambiguity and 2. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy 47 1. Fallacies of Ambiguity  How is the fallacy of ambiguity occurring in language? ◦ These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion of an argument. ◦ When conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous statement. ◦ Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect. An expression is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different interpretations in a given context. o There are two types of fallacies of Ambiguity. These are the fallacy of A. Equivocation and B. Amphiboly. 48 A. Equivocation Fallacy  Equivocation fallacy is occurred when the arguer in his or her argument equivocally used two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that in the argument.  And such arguments are either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound. Example 1: 1. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority. 2. Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money. ◦ This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, because the arguer equivocally used the word “right” in two different senses. On the one hand, this word is used in the premise with the meaning “something that is correct or good”. 49 B. Amphiboly Fallacy  The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.  The fallacy of amphiboly, is created when the arguer intentionally or unintentionally provides an argument which involves an ambiguous grammatical construction that can be understood in two ways. ❑ Example: ◦ Our engineering school teaches us how to build a house in three years. ◦ We can interpret this argument in two ways. On the one hand it has a meaning that says “our school teaches us how to build a house in three years teaching period” or on the other hand, it has a meaning that says “our school teaches us how to build a house with in three years construction period”. 50 2. Grammatical Analogy ▪ The fallacies of grammatical analogy are those fallacies that are caused by the wrong association of the attributes of the parts of some thing onto the whole entity. ▪ Thus, these fallacies are caused by the erroneous association of the attributes of the whole entity of something on to its parts. ◦ Arguments that commit these fallacies are grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect. ◦ They usually involve a wrong transference of a characteristic from parts to whole or vice versa. ◦ There are two fallacies that are considered as the fallacies of grammatical Analogy. These includes:  Composition fallacy and  Division fallacy 51 1. Composition Fallacy ◦ It is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. ◦ This fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute, too, and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole ❑Example:  Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.  Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, are both deadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison. 52  ◦ However, don’t confuse it with hasty generalization in which the conclusion is not an assertion about a group taken as a whole (collective predication). ◦ Rather, it is an assertion about all the members of a group (distributive predication).  I.e.: ◦ Hasty Generalization proceeds from the specific to the general. ◦ Composition proceeds from every member to the whole class. 53 ❑ Division Fallacy  The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole to its parts (members). This fallacy is occurred because of the wrong or erroneous transference or association of the attributes of the whole onto its parts.  This fallacy is committed when the arguer infers that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents, without providing any justification for the inference.  Argument form: Because the whole X has the property P, each member or a member of X also has the property P. Examples:  Salt is a non-poisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium and chlorine, are non-poisonous.  These arguments obviously commit the fallacy of division because the arguer, in both arguments, mistakenly associates the attributes of the whole onto their parts. 54  ◦ Again don’t confuse with fallacy of accident in which the inference is from a general assertion (distributive predication) to a specific assertion. ◦ In the fallacy of division the inference is from an assertion about a group taken as a whole (collective predication) to an assertion about the members of the group.  I.e.: ◦ Accident proceeds from the general to specific. ◦ Division proceeds from the whole class to every member. 55