Atelier No.0, article 21
40 Types of Informal Fallacies
Definition: fallacy – An argument that is misleading in the sense that it is incorrect but may, or is used to, convince people of its correctness.
Three categories of Informal fallacies: (1) Material Fallacies have to do with facts (the matter, the content) of the argument in question. [Two subcategories of material fallacies are: (a) fallacies of evidence, not providing required factual support; and (b) fallacies of irrelevance (or relevance) using supporting statements that are irrelevant to the conclusion and therefore cannot establish the truth of that conclusion.] (2) Linguistic Fallacies have to do with defects in arguments such as ambiguity (in which careless shifts of meaning or linguistic imprecisions lead to erroneous conclusions), vagueness, incorrect use of words, lack of clarity, linguistic inconsistencies, circularities. (3) Fallacies of Irrelevant Emotional Appeal have to do with affecting behavior (responses, attitudes). That is, arguments are presented in such a way as to appeal to one’s prejudices, biases, loyalty, dedication, fear, guilt, and so no. They persuade, cajole, threaten, or confuse in order to win assent to an argument.
10. Fallacy of accident. Also called by its Latin name dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid. (a) Applying a general rule or principle to a particular instance whose circumstances by “accident” do not allow the proper application of that generalization. Example: “It is a general truth that no one should lie. Therefore, no one should lie if a murderer at the point of a knife asks you for information you know would lead to further murder.” (b) The error in argumentation of applying a general statement to a situation to which it cannot, and was not necessarily intended to be applied.
11. Fallacy of ambiguity. An argument that has at least one ambiguous word or
statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.
12. Fallacy of amphiboly. Arguing to conclusions from statements that are
amphibolous –ambiguous because of their syntax (grammatical construction). Sometimes classified as a fallacy of ambiguity.
13. Fallacy of begging the question. (a) Arriving at a conclusion from statements that
themselves are questionable and have to be proved but are assumed true. Example: The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a beginner. Therefore the universe has a beginner called God. This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner. (b) Assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. Sometimes called circular reasoning, vicious circularity, vicious circle fallacy. Example “Everything has a cause. The universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause.” (See Petitio Principii.) (c) Arguing in a circle. One statement is supported by reference to another statement which statement itself is supported by reference to the first statement. Example: “Aristocracy is the best form of government because the best form of government is that which has strong aristocratic leadership.”
14. Fallacy of complex question (or loaded question). (a) Asking questions for which
either a yes or a no answer will incriminate the respondent. The desired answer is already tacitly assumed in the question and no qualification of the simple answer is allowed. Example: “Have you discounted the use of opiates?” (b) Asking questions that are based on unstated attitudes or questionable (or unjustified) assumptions. These questions are often asked rhetorically of the respondent in such a way as to elicit an agreement with those attitudes or assumptions from others. Example: “How long are you going to put up with this brutality?”
15. Fallacy of composition. Arguing (a) that what is true of each part of a whole is also
(necessarily) true of the whole itself, or (b) that what is true of some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself. Example: “Each member (or some members) of the team is married; therefore the team also has (must have) a wife.” Inferring that a collection has certain characteristics merely on the basis that its parts have them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection Distributively to regarding it Collectively.
16. Fallacy of consensus gentium. Arguing that an idea is true on the basis (a) that the
majority of people believe it and/or (b) that it has been universally held by all men at all times. Example: “God exists because all cultures have had some concept of a God.”
17. Fallacy of converse accident. Sometimes converse fallacy of accident. Also called by
its Latin name a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional instances. Example: “A shot of warm brandy each night helps order people relax and sleep better. People in general ought to drink warm brandy to relieve their tensions ands sleep better.”
18. Fallacy of division. Arguing that what is true of a whole is (a) also (necessarily) true
of its parts and/or (b) also true of some of its parts. Example: “The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is (must be) extremely wealthy (or therefor4e Adam, who lives there, is (must be) extremely wealthy).” Inferring that the parts of a collection have certain characteristics merely on the basis that their collection has them erroneously proceeds form regarding the collection collectively to regarding it distributively.
19. Fallacy of equivocation. An argument in which a word is used with one meaning (or
sense) in one part of the argument and with another meaning in another part. A common example: “The end of a thing is its perfection; death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.”
20. Fallacy of non causa pro causa. The Latin may be translated as “there is no cause of
the sort which has been given as the cause.” (a) Believing that something is the cause of an effect when in reality it is not. Example” “My incantations caused it to rain.” (b) Arguing so that a statement appears unacceptable because it implies another statement that is false (but in reality is not).
21. Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Latin means “after this therefore the
consequences (effect) of this,” or “after this therefore because of this.” Sometimes simply fallacy of false cause. Concluding that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes it in time. A confusion between the concept of succession and that of causation. Example: “A black cat ran across my path. Ten minutes later I was hit by a truck. Therefore, the cat’s running across my path was the cause of my being hit by a truck.”
22. Fallacy of hasty generalization. Sometimes fallacy of hasty induction. An error of
reasoning whereby a general statement is asserted (inferred) based on (a) limited information or (b) inadequate evidence, or (c) an unrepresentative sampling.
23. Fallacy of ingoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). An argument that is irrelevant;
that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at issue. Example: A lawyer in defending his alcoholic client who has murdered three people in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it. Ignoratio Elenchi is something used as a general name for all fallacies that are based on irrelevancy (such as ad baculum, ad hominem, ad misericordiam, ad populum, ad verecundiam, consensus gentium, etc.)
24. Fallacy of inconsistency. Arguing from inconsistent statements, or to conclusions that
are inconsistent with the premises. (See the fallacy of tu quoque below.)
25. Fallacy of irrelevant purpose. Arguing against something on the basis that it has not
fulfilled its purpose (although in fact that was not its intended purpose).
26. Fallacy of “is” to “ought”. Argument from premises that have only descriptive
statements (is) to a conclusion that contains an ought, or a should. (See is/ought Dichotomy.)
27. Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives. The error on insisting without full inquiry or
evidence that the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted and/or are mutually exclusive.
28. Fallacy of many questions. Sometimes fallacy of the false question. Asking a
question for which a single and simple answer is demanded yet the question (a) requires a series of answers, and/or (b) requires answers to a host of other questions, each of w2hich should be answered separately. Example: “have you left school?”
29. Fallacy of misleading context. Arguing by misrepresenting, distorting, omitting, or
quoting something out of context.
30. Fallacy of prejudice. Arguing form a bias or emotional identification or involvement
with an idea (argument, doctrine, institution, etc.).
31. Fallacy of red herring. Ignoring a criticism of an argument by changing attention to
another subject. Example: “You believe in abortion, yet you don’t believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the legislature.”
32. Fallacy of slanting. Deliberately omitting, deemphasizing, or over-emphasizing
certain points to the exclusion of others in order to hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of an argument and that should be taken account of in an argument.
33. Fallacy of special pleading. (a) Accepting an idea or criticism when applied to an
opponent’s argument by rejecting it when applied to one’s own argument, or (b) rejecting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent’s argument but accepting it when applied to one’s own.
34. Fallacy of straw man. Presenting an opponent’s position in as weak or misrepresented
a version as possible so that it can be easily refuted. Example: “Darwinism is in error. It claims that we are all descendants from an apelike creature, from which we evolved according to natural selection. No evidence of such a creature has been found. No adequate and consistent explanation of natural selection has been given. Therefore, evolution according to Darwinism has not taken placer.”
35. Fallacy of the beard. Arguing (a) that small or minor differences do not (or cannot)
make a difference, or are not (or cannot be) significant, or (b) arguing so as to find a definite point at which something can be named. For example, insisting that a few hairs lost here and there do not indicate anything significant about my impending baldness; or trying to determine how many hairs a person must have before he can be called bald (or not bald).
36. Fallacy of tu quoque (you also). (a) Presenting evidence that a person’s actions are
not consistent with that for which he is arguing. Example: “John preaches that we should be kind and loving. He doesn’t practice it. I’ve seen him beat up his kids.” (b) Showing that a person’s views are inconsistent with what he previously believed and therefore (1) he is not to be trusted, and/or (2) his new view is to be rejected. Example: “Judge Egener was against marijuana legislation four years ago when he was running for office. Now he is for it. How can you trust a man who has changed his mind on such an important issue” His present position is inconsistent with his earlier view and therefore should not be accepted.” (c) Sometimes related to the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Example: The Democrats for years used illegal wiretapping; therefore the Republicans should not be condemned for illegal wiretapping.
37. Fallacy of unqualified source. Using as support in an argument a source of authority
that is not qualified to provide evidence.
38. Gambler’s fallacy. (a) Arguing that since, for example, a penny has fallen tails ten
times in a row then it will fall heads the eleventh time or (b) arguing that since, for4 examp0le, an airline has not had an accident for the past ten years, it is then soon due for an accident. The gambler’s fallacy rejects the assumption in probability theory that each event is independent of its previous happening. The chances of an event happening are always the same no matter how many times that event has taken place in the past. Given those events happening over a long enough period of time then their frequency would average out to ½. Sometimes referred to as the Monte Carlo fallacy (a generalized form of the gambler’s fallacy): The error of assuming that because something has happened less frequently than expected in the past, there is an increased chance that it will happen soon.
39. Genetic fallacy. (a) Arguing that the origin of something is identical with that from
which it originates. Example: “Consciousness originates in neural processes. Therefore, consciousness is (nothing but) neural processes.” Sometimes referred to as the nothing-but fallacy, or the Reductive Fallacy. (b) Appraising or explaining something in terms of its origin, or source, or beginnings. (c) Arguing that something is to be rejected because its origins are known and/or are suspicious.
40. Pragmatic fallacy. Arguing that something is true because it has practical effects upon
people; it makes them happier, easier to deal with, more moral, loyal, stable. Example: “An immortal life exists because without such a concept men would have nothing to live for. There would be no meaning or purpose in life and everyone would be immoral.”