Faulty Reasonings

Defective Arguments
 Argument is meant to prove a point and provide good
reasons for accepting a claim
 But when the argument do not succeed , the problem
lies with false premises, faulty reasoning or both
 Countless ways an argument can be defective
 Some types of defective arguments that occur so
frequently that they are given names
 These common flawed arguments are called fallacies
 In good arguments, premises must be both relevant
and acceptable. In fallacious arguments, at least one
of these requirements is not met.
Two main categories of fallacious
arguments
 Fallacies are divided into two broad categories
 That have irrelevant premises (Irrelevant
premises have no bearing on truth of the
conclusion or reasons have nothing to do with
conclusion)
 That have unacceptable premises,
(Unacceptable premises relevant to the
conclusion but are nonetheless dubious some
way or premises related to conclusion but do
not adequately support conclusion)
Formal and informal fallacy

 A formal fallacy is a an argument with error

in the form of the argument
 An informal fallacy is a argument with error in

the content of the argument

Irrelevant Premises
 Genetic fallacy
◦ claim is true or false solely because of its origin.
 These arguments fail because they reject a
claim based solely on where it comes from,
not on its merits
 Source of the idea is irrelevant to the truth.
Examples
1. You cannot believe Bob’s idea because it
came from his dream.
2. The psychologist says Tim believes in God
because Tim lost his father at a young age.
So, God doesn’t exist.
3. That is not possible because he got the idea
from a science fiction film.
4. Volkswagons are poor cars because the
Nazis created them.
Example
 You can safely dismiss that energy
conservation plan. It's the brainchild of a
liberal think tank in Washington. We should
reject that proposal for solving the current
welfare mess. It comes straight from the
Republican party. Russell's idea about tax
hikes came to him in a dream, so it must be
bunk.
Irrelevant Premises

 Composition
◦ The fallacy of composition is arguing that what is true of
the 'parts must be true of the whole.
◦ an informal fallacy that arises when we assume that
some whole has the same properties as its parts
 The error here is thinking that the characteristics
of the parts are somehow transferred to the
whole, something that is not always the case.
 This error is committed whenever we assume
that what's true of a member of a group is true of
the group as a whole.
Examples

1. Each brick in that building weighs less than a

pound.  Therefore, the building weighs less
than a pound.
2. Hydrogen is not wet.  Oxygen is not wet. 
Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
3. Every part of this motorcycle is lightweight;
therefore, the whole motorcycle is
lightweight.
Irrelevant Premises
 Division
◦ The flip side of the fallacy of composition is the
fallacy of division
◦ what is true of the whole must be true of the parts
◦ the informal fallacy that arises when we assume
that the parts of some whole must have the same
properties as the whole they make up. 
Examples
1. The 2nd grade at my elementary school buys
the most popsicles at lunch. Your brother is
in 2nd grade at my school, so he must like to
eat a lot of popsicles
2. The boys in my neighborhood like to play
basketball after school. So my new neighbor,
Kevin, will like to play basketball with them.
Irrelevant Premises
 Appeal to the Person
 The fallacy of appeal to the person(or ad

hominem, meaning "to the man") is rejecting

a claim by criticizing the person who makes it
rather than the claim itself.
 This fallacy attempts to discredit a claim by

appealing to something that's almost always

irrelevant to it: a person's character, motives,
or personal circumstances.
Examples
 Jones has argued for a ban on government-
sanctioned prayer in schools and at school-
sponsored events. But he's a rabid atheist
without morals of any kind. Anything he has
to say on the issue is bound to be a
perversion of the truth.
 We should reject Chen's argument for life on

other planets. He dabbles in the paranormal.

 You can't believe anything Morris says about

welfare reform. He's a bleeding heart liberal.

Irrelevant Premises
 The fallacy of appeal to the person comes in
several varieties.
1. One is the personal attack (mentioned
earlier), often simply consisting of insults.
 Example :Reject X's claims, ideas, or theories because
X is a radical, reactionary, extremist, right-winger,
left-winger, fool, bonehead, moron, nutbar, or scum of
the earth.
Irrelevant Premises
2. Another form of this fallacy emphasizes not
a person's character but his or her
circumstances.
 Example: Edgar asserts that evolution is true,

but he's an ordained minister in

fundamentalist church that has taken a firm
stand against evolution. So he can‘t accept
this theory; he must reject it.
Irrelevant Premises
3.When such arguments are put forth as
charges of hypocrisy, we get another ad
hominem fallacy known as tu quoque (or
"you're another").
 Example: A lot of Hollywood liberals tell us

that we shouldn't drive SUVs because the cars

use too much gas and are bad for the
environment. But they drive SUVs themselves.
What hypocrites! I think we can safely reject
their stupid pronouncements.
Irrelevant Premises
4. In another variation of circumstantial ad
hominem reasoning, someone might deduce
that a claim is false because the person
making it, given his or her circumstances,
would be expected to make it.
◦ Example
◦ Wilson claims that the political system in Cuba is
exemplary. But he has to say that. He's a card-
carrying communist. So forget what he says.
Irrelevant Premises
 5. Finally, we have the ad hominem tactic
known as "poisoning the well."
 In this one, someone argues like this: X has

no regard for the truth or has non-rational

motives for espousing a claim, so nothing
that X says should be believe including the
claim in question.
 you can't get safe water out of a poisoned

well, you can‘t reliable claims out of a

discredited claimant.
Irrelevant Premises
 Equivocation (the use of ambiguous language
to conceal the truth)
 The fallacy of equivocation is the use of a

word in two different senses in an argument

 The fallacy of equivocation occurs whenever a

word has one meaning in one premise and

another meaning in another premise or the
conclusion.
 This switch of senses always invalidates the

argument.
Examples
1. The end of everything is its perfection.
The end of life is death.
Therefore, death is the perfection of life.
2. Only man is rational.
No woman is a man.
Therefore, no woman is rational.
Irrelevant Premises
 Appeal to Popularity
 The fallacy of the appeal to popularity (or to

the masses) is arguing that a claim must be

true merely because a substantial number of
people believe it.
Examples
 Most people approve of the government's
new security measures, even though innocent
people's privacy is sometimes violated. So I
guess the measures must be okay.
 Of course the war is justified. Everyone

believes that it's justified. The vast majority

of Americans believe that there's a supreme
being, so how could you doubt it?
Irrelevant Premises
 Appeal to Tradition
◦ The appeal to tradition is arguing that a claim must
be true just because it's part of a tradition.
◦ Such appeals are fallacious because tradition, like
the masses, can be wrong.
◦ A tradition should be neither accepted nor rejected
without good reason.
Examples
 Acupuncture has been used for a thousand
years in China. It must work.
 Dave: For five generations, the men in our

family went to Stanford and became doctors,

while the women got married and raised
children.  Therefore, it is my duty to become
a doctor. Kaitlin: Do you want to become a
doctor? Dave: It doesn’t matter -- it is our
family tradition.  Who am I to break it?
Irrelevant Premises
 The appeal to ignorance is arguing that a lack of
evidence proves something.
 Appeals to ignorance involve the notion of burden

of proofs which is the weight of evidence or

argument required by one side in a debate or
disagree. Problems arise when the burden of proof
is placed on the wrong side.
1. In one type of this fallacy, the problem arises by
thinking that a claim must be true because it hasn't
been shown to be false.
◦ Example : No one has shown that ghosts aren't real, so
they must be real.
Irrelevant Premises
 2. In another variation of this fallacy is that
the claim must be false because it hasn't
been proved to be true.
◦ Example : No one has shown that ghosts are real,
so they must not exist.
Irrelevant Premises
 Appeal to emotion
 The fallacy of the appeal to emotion is the

use of emotions as premises in an argument.

 Trying to persuade someone of a conclusion

solely by arousing his or her feelings rather

than presenting relevant reasons.
 This type use of emotions is an example of

rhetoric, the use of non-argumentative,

emotional words and phrases to persuade or
influence an audience.
Example
 You should hire me for this network analyst
position . I'm the best person for the job. If I
don't get a job soon my wife will leave me,
and I wont have enough money to pay for my
mother's heart operation. Come on, give me a
break.
Irrelevant Premises
 Fallacy of irrelevance is the red herring, the
deliberate rising of an irrelevant issue during
an argument.
 The basic pattern is to put forth a claim and

then couple it with additional that may seem

to support it but in fact are mere distractions
Examples
 The legislators should vote for the three-
strikes-and-you're-out crime control
measure. I'm telling you, crime is a terrible
thing when it happens to you. It causes
death, pain, and fear. And I wouldn't want to
wish these things on anyone.
Irrelevant Premises
 Straw Man is fallacy of - distorting,
weakening, or oversimplifying of someone's
position so it can be more easily attacked or
refuted.
Example
 Senator Kennedy is opposed to the military
spending bill, saying that it's too costly. Why
does he always want to slash everything to
the bone? He wants a pint-sized military that
couldn't fight off a crazed band of terrorists,
let alone a rogue nation
Revision of concepts

Genetic Fallacy: Arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its Origin
Composition :Arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole
Division: Arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts or
that is true of a group is true of individuals in the group
Appeal to the person: Rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it
rather than the claim itself
Equivocation: The use of a word in two different senses in an argument
Appeal l to popularity: Arguing that a claim must be true merely because
substantial number of people believe it
Appeal to tradition: Arguing that a claim must be true or good just because it's
part of a tradition
Appeal to ignorance: Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something
Appeal to emotion: The use of emotions as premises in an argument
Red herring: The deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument
Straw man: The distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone‘s
position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted
Unacceptable Premises
 Begging the Question
 The fallacy of begging the question (or

arguing in a circle) is the attempt to establish

the conclusion of an argument by using that
conclusion as a premise. To beg the question
is to argue that a proposition is true because
the very same proposition supports it
Example
 The Bible says that God exists. The Bible is
true because God wrote it. Therefore, God
exists.
Or
P
Therefore P
Example

 It is in every case immoral to lie to someone,

even if the lie could save a life. Even in
extreme circumstances a lie is still a lie. All
lies are immoral because the very act of
prevarication in all circumstances is contrary
to ethical principles
Unacceptable Premises
 False Dilemma is a fallacy is asserting that
there are only two alternatives to consider
when there are actually more than two.
 At first glance, these two alternatives may

seem to exhaust the possibilities, but the

argument does not work because it fails to
consider this possibility.
Examples

 Look, either you support the war or you are a

traitor to your country. You don‘t support the
war. So you're a traitor.
 Either those lights you saw in the night sky

were alien spacecraft (UFOs), or you were

hallucinating. You obviously weren't
hallucinating. So they had to be UFOs
Unacceptable Premises
 The fallacy of slippery slope is arguing,
without good reasons, that taking a particular
step will inevitably lead to a further,
undesirable step (or steps). The idea behind
the metaphor, of course, is that if you take
the first step on a slippery slope, you will
have to take others because, welt the slope is
slippery.
Example
 We absolutely must not lose the war in
Vietnam. If South Vietnam falls to the
communists, then Thailand will fall to them. If
Thailand falls to them, then South Korea will
fall to them. And before you know it, all of
Southeast Asia will be under communist
control.
Unacceptable Premises
 we are guilty of hasty generalization when we
draw a conclusion about a whole group based
on an inadequate sample of the group.
 The fallacy known as hasty generalization is a

genuine fallacy of unacceptable premises

because the premises stating the sample size
are relevant to the conclusion, but they
provide inadequate evidence.
Example
 You should buy a Dell computer. They're
great. I bought one last year, and it has given
me nothing but flawless performance.
 Psychology majors are incredibly ignorant

about human psychology. Believe me, I know

what I'm talking about: My best friend is a
psych major. What an ignoramus!
Unacceptable Premises
 Faulty Analog involving unacceptable
premises, an argument by analogy reasons
this way, because two or more things are
similar in several respects, they must be
similar in some further respect.
 An analogy is a comparison of two Or more

things alike in specific respects.

Example
 In the Vietnam War, the United States had not
articulated a clear rationale for fighting there,
and the United States lost. Likewise, in the
present war the United States has not
articulated a clear rationale for fighting.
Therefore, the United States will lose this war
too.