Addis Ababa University
College of Social Science and Humanities
Department of Philosophy
Group Assignment
Fallacy of Relevance
Group members
ID. NO
1. Dagim Asnake
UGR/2281/15
2. Eyasu Yitagesu
UGR/8168/15
3. Kalkidan Amenu
UGR/0543/15
4. Lidiya Tefera
UGR/5907/15
5. Nahom Niguse
UGR/9984/15
6. Nebiyu Esayas
UGR/3781/15
7. Shalom Badeg
UGR/5371/15
8. Sofoniyas Getahun
UGR/6876/15
9. Wuberst Alebachew
UGR/3257/15
10. Yordanos Zewge
UGR/5072/15
Submitted to: Instructor Eden
Submission date: May 4, 2023
Content
Page
Acknowledgement……………..……………..…………….....…I
Fallacy……………..……………..……………..…………….....1
Fallacy of relevance……………..……………..………………..1
Appeal to Force……………..……………..……………..……...3
Appeal to Pity……………..……………..……………....…..…..5
Appeal to the People……………..……………..………………..7
Argument against the Person……………..……………..………10
Accident……………..……………..……………..……………..13
Straw man……………..……………..……………....…..…..….14
Missing the point……………..……………..……………....…..17
Red Herring……………..……………..……………....…..……20
Conclusion……………..……………..……………..…………..23
Reference ……………..……………..……………....…..…..….24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, we would like to praise and thank God, the almighty, who has
granted us countless blessing, knowledge, and opportunity, so that we have been
finally able to accomplish this assignment.
Secondly, we pay our humble regard and gratitude to our Instructor Eden who gave
us this opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic of Fallacy of
Relevance which has allowed us to do a lot researches and came to know about
various things.
Lastly, it is our pleasure to acknowledge our parents and fellow group members for
cooperating throughout this project. It wouldn’t have been possible without the
persistent effort.
Fallacy
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of
an argument which may appear to be a well-reasoned argument if unnoticed.
Fallacies may be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception,
unintentionally because of human limitations such as carelessness, cognitive or
social biases and ignorance, or potentially due to the limitations of language and
understanding of language. These delineations include not only the ignorance of
the right reasoning standard, but also the ignorance of relevant properties of
the context. For instance, the soundness of legal arguments depends on the context
in which the arguments are made.
Fallacies are commonly divided into formal and informal. Formal fallacy is a
deductive argument that is invalid. It’s a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong.
Formal fallacy always has a flaw in its logical structure. Therefore, we also call it
as logical fallacy. In formal fallacy, the conclusion is not supported by
the premises. The deduction is wrong, so there is no logical argument.
An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning found in the content of the argument.
Unlike in formal fallacy, the error in informal fallacy is not in the form or logic of
the argument. Informal fallacies often involve using irrelevant information in
arguments or information based on assumptions that later prove to be false. They
are widespread in everyday conversations and can take many forms. We can
observe informal fallacies in political speeches, advertisements, newspaper articles,
internet forums, and social networking sites. They are often dependent on misuse
of language and misuse of evidence.
Fallacy of Relevance
All Fallacies of Relevance share the common problem of appealing to features that
are irrelevant for the evaluation of a line of reasoning or evidence they appeal to
factors that do not speak to the truth of a position or the quality of evidence for it.
Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so the conclusion may seem to
follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.
1
Such arguments are often called non sequiturs, which means that the conclusion
does not seem to follow from the premises. They are also sometime called
argumentative leaps, which suggest that since no connection is seen between the
premises and the conclusion. To identify a fallacy of relevance, therefore, one must
be able to distinguish genuine evidence from various forms of emotional appeal.
There are eight fallacies of relevance: Appeal to force, Appeal to pity, Appeal to
people, Argument against the person, Accident, Straw man, Missing the point, and
Red Herring.
2
1. Appeal to Force
It is first type of fallacy of relevance. And also known as argumentum ad
baculum and appeal to the stick. Furthermore, it is a type of appeal to
consequence: the truthfulness of the conclusion is decided by the consequences.
It occurs whenever an arguer presents a conclusion to another person and tells that
person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he
or she does not accept the conclusion. Behind this threat is often the belief that in
the end, “Might makes right.”
 Generally occurs when a person uses force or a threat of force to make someone
accept their conclusion. In essence, it states that “accept my argument, or I will
punish you.”
 It is based upon the appeal to force or threat in order to bring about the
acceptance of a conclusion.
Often the informal schema of the argumentum ad baculum fallacy is structured as
one of the following:
 If statement p or argument a is accepted,
then logically irrelevant event x will happen.
 Event x is harmful, dangerous, or threatening.
∴ Statement p is not true or argument a is not sound.
 If
action A is
done,
then logically
irrelevant event x will happen.
 Event x is harmful, dangerous, or threatening.
∴ Action A is to be rejected.
Examples of ad baculum fallacies:
1. If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade
of F for this course.
3
Explanation: This is a fallacious argument; the arguer is threatening the
listener to agree with his political opinions. You can see that the conclusion is
supported by force. The threat is ‘you will receive a grade of F’.
2. Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization.
Think of all the money you will lose from broken windows, overturned
trucks, and damaged merchandise in the event of your not joining.
3. “China has threatened to restrict drug exports to the U.S. following
President Trump's accusation that the regime withheld news of the
[COVID-19] virus, which surfaced in Wuhan last December.”
Analysis: This passage is a descriptive report of a threat by China which is not
logically relevant to the U.S. accusation of withholding information which would
be useful for the prevention of future cases. The structure of the implicit argument
is as follows:
 If the U.S. continues to accuse China of withholding coronavirus
information, then China will restrict drug imports to the U.S.
 The U.S. continues to accuse China of withholding coronavirus
information.
∴ China will restrict drug imports to the U.S
Note that this argument is formally valid — it is an example of Modus Ponens:
If p then q.
p
∴ q.
the threat as presented in informal logic commits the ad baculum fallacy, since the
US accusing China of withholding coronavirus information is not evidentially
relevant to China's restriction of drug imports.
Case at which threats cannot be considered as ad baculum fallacies:
A. Threats presented simply as alternative statements are not arguments and so
are not fallacies.
4
Example: “It is necessary to sleep at least eight hours or your work will
suffer”
It would not be fallacious for two reasons:
(1) Alternative statements are not by themselves arguments.
(2) The connection between the two statements of the disjunction suggest a
causal or decisional
relation of relevancy — not a semantic or logical
relation.
Reflection
Whether we know it or not, we encounter fallacies in our daily lives. Appeal to
force is one such claim that "not accepting the conclusion would result in
psychological or physical harm."
Example: conversation between me and my little brother
"I'll tell our mother that you broke the glass if you don't make my bed."
As demonstrated in the above case, I threatened my brother with consequences if
he didn't make my bed. It is a type of appeal to force.
2. Appeal to Pity
An appeal to pity (Ad Misericordiam fallacy) is a specific type of emotional
appeal. An appeal to pity manipulates someone's feelings of pity or guilt in order to
get them to support a point of view. This type of appeal is a fallacy-an illogical
reasoning pattern. One's emotions have nothing to do with an idea's correctness or
a product's value. Still, argumentative writing and speaking often appeal to our
emotions, such as pity.
An appeal to pity fallacy is committed when the arguer attempts to influence the
listener not by providing good reasons for the conclusion, but by mentioning sad or
difficult circumstances irrelevant to the issue.
5
Example 1:
Professor Taye, I know I bombed the midterm, but surely I deserve to pass
the class. My grandmother died, my car broke down, and my dog got hit by
a truck. I can't control things like this!!
Example 2:
When you did not finish an assignment on time, you tell your teacher about
how your printer was out of ink, but that you didn't want to ask your mom to
go to the store because she works nights, doesn't get much sleep, and she
was sleeping.
These two examples attempt to influence the listener's decision by evoking feelings
of pity and guilt. The conclusion in both examples is not logically relevant to the
pathetic condition of the arguer though they do psychologically. It may be pitiful to
see people under these conditions, but this does not mean that such conditions are
logically relevant in every situation to decide. The pieces of evidence depicted in
both examples are invalid because they are logically irrelevant to their arguments.
There are arguments from pity, which are reasonable and plausible. There are
situations where compassion or sympathy could be a legitimate response for some
situations.
Example 3:
Due to the current civil unrest, many people have been displaced from their
hometowns. Shortage of food and water is intensifying the problem. It is
imperative that we provide aid and assistance for these people.
Here we have an argument based on compassion in which the conclusion is derived
from sympathy. Pity and compassion are natural responses that are legitimate and
reasonable. Special consideration or compassion should be shown to these people;
they deserve the community's assistance.
Most society values helping people in time of danger; showing compassion and
sympathy is a natural response in some situation. If some group of people are in
danger, helping out may require appealing to the compassion or pity of other
6
people. This may be attributed to the fact that their circumstances were beyond
their control. Their situation is not their fault. Therefore, it is reasonable and
sensible to show compassion to them.
Reflection
Traffic Police: Can I see your driver's license, please?
Mom: Here you go.
Traffic Police: Do you know have fast you were driving?
Mom: Yes. I apologize. My son at home is very sick. I was nervous. That is why I
was speeding.
Traffic Police: I'm going to have to write you a ticket.
Mom: Sorry. I apologize. I promise I will not repeat this mistake again.
Traffic Police: I can't accept that Miss. Here is your ticket.
Mom: Fine. Give me the ticket.
In this conversation, the mom is trying to convince the traffic police by exploiting
his feelings of pity or guilt. Even though the mom was rushing to go home to her
sick child, she likely might have caused an accident on her way home. The traffic
rules must be respected and followed accordingly for many reasons.
Because the way we feel about an argument does not make it any more or less true,
this line of reasoning is fallacious, just like other emotional appeals; The factual
evidence that backs it up is what makes it so.
3. Appeal to the People
The appeal to the people (ad populum fallacy) is an attempt to persuade a person or
group by appealing to the desire to be accepted or valued by others. (Populum is
Latin for “people” or “nation.)
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and
accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or
listener to accept a conclusion. Two approaches are involved: one of them direct,
the other indirect.
7
1. Direct Approach
The direct strategy takes place when an arguer, addressing a giant team of people,
excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her
conclusion. The objective is to arouse a form of mob mentality. This is the strategy
used through almost each and every propagandist and demagogue. Adolf Hitler
used to be a grasp of the techniques, but speech makers at Democratic and
Republican country wide conventions also use it with some measure of success.
Example
On the 2016 election the famous politician once said " when we say we Will
make America great again we are counting on the brave patriots of our
generation, there is nothing to stand on our way to success if we the people
come together. " the people who voted for this famous politician was excited
and initiated by his speech instead of being reasonable to rationally analyze his
idea.
2. Indirect Approach
In the indirect approach the arguer aims his or her appeal not at the crowd as a
whole but at one or more individuals separately, focusing on some aspect of their
relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the
bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, and the appeal to snobbery. All are
standard techniques of the advertising industry.
I.
The Bandwagon Fallacy
The bandwagon fallacy is the belief that something is true or good simply because
many people believe or do it. An example of this fallacy would be a person saying,
"Everyone is using this new app, so it must be good." This argument relies on the
emotional appeal of wanting to be part of the majority, rather than on any evidence
or reasoning to support the argument.
Example
John loves the planet and wants to vote for a political party whose main goal
is to prevent global warming. His entire neighborhood is voting for a party
8
and so he decides that this party must be the correct choice, even though
climate change is not on their agenda.
II.
The Appeal to Vanity Fallacy
Appeal to vanity fallacy is the belief that something is true or good because it
makes a person feel good about themselves. An example of this fallacy would be a
person saying, "This luxury car will make you look successful and important." This
argument relies on the emotional appeal of wanting to feel good about oneself,
rather than on any evidence or reasoning to support the argument.
Example
The advertisement might feature Ronaldo wearing the watch with a caption
saying "Elevate your style like the king of the field, Cristiano Ronaldo, with
this exclusive luxury watch." The focus is on the idea that wearing this
watch will make you feel as stylish and sophisticated as Ronaldo.
III.
Appeal to Snobbery Fallacy
The appeal to snobbery fallacy is the belief that something is true or good because
it is exclusive or only available to a select group of people. An example of this
fallacy would be a person saying, "Only the elite can afford this designer clothing,
so it must be of high quality." This argument relies on the emotional appeal of
wanting to be part of an exclusive group, rather than on any evidence or reasoning
to support the argument.
Example
"Only these with a sophisticated taste in music can in reality appreciate the
genius of this vague indie band. If you're nevertheless listening to
mainstream pop, you are truly now not on our level." This announcement
appeals to snobbery via implying that solely a choose few who possess a
certain degree of sophistication and taste can recognize the track of this
band, whilst pushing aside those who pay attention to popular tune as
inferior or unsophisticated.
9
Reflection
Personally I used to experience all of these fallacies in my day to day life till now I
haven’t thought it was fallacious For example, I have bought a book just because
many people bought it and I was also deceived by advertisements which was made
by the people I look up to and I used to think I was rational, but not anymore ‼
4. Argument against the Person
We often hear or read different arguments in our daily lives. After analyzing the
argument, or even without analyzing the argument, it is possible to put forward
another argument that seems to oppose the first argument. While doing that,
instead of criticizing an argument, it is possible to attack the arguer rather than the
argument for its intended purpose. Such kind of fallacious "arguments" are called
argument against a person or Argumentum Ad Hominem.
Argumentum Ad Hominem is a Latin term for "to the person," is a type of argument
that tends to attack a person making an argument by using character, motive, and
circumstances to make the case that the argument of that individual is invalid
instead of making a case to disprove the argument.
Argument against the person is a type of relevance fallacy in which an argument
seems to have some relevance to the argument that another person is stating
because they compare and attack the characteristics of the individual, which
sometimes oppose the argument they are making, and this leads to a more
emotional conclusion that the argument is invalid.
This type of fallacy is characterized by having two people, one of whom is
opposing a given argument; commit an argument against another person. In this
particular case, a person committing a fallacy will attack the individual's
personality, behavior, and activities.
There are three forms in which arguments against the person could occur those are
ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and tu quoque.
10
I.
Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy
In the ad hominem abusive fallacy, the second person responds to a given
argument by verbally abusing the first person. This is fallacious because instead of
criticizing or attacking someone’s argument, it attacks the person who provided the
first argument, in which the personal characteristics have no relevance to the
argument that has been made.
In the ad hominem abusive fallacy, the respondent presents the first person as a bad
person and uses that to disprove his argument, which is irrelevant when it comes to
disproving his statements. It generally has the following structure:
Anything that a person with characteristics A, B and C says, believes, or
advocates is false [regardless of their argument].
Person XYZ has characteristics A, B, and C and advocates the argument P.
Therefore, argument P is false.
II.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy
In this case, the respondent is not verbally attacking his argument, but he is trying
to relate the argument given to the person's special beliefs, lifestyle, or
circumstances surrounding that person, which might render the argument invalid.
For example
Let arguer 1 present the following argument:
Premise 1: Gasoline cars generate carbon dioxide and other chemicals.
Premise 2: Carbon dioxide and other chemicals pollute the environment.
Conclusion: Gasoline cars will pollute the environment.
Arguer 2 could say:
But you [arguer 1] work for an electric car company.
In the above case, arguer number uses the circumstance of arguer one to attack his
argument; even though the circumstance of that person seems like a conflict of
11
interest, it doesn’t make the argument presented invalid or the ad hominem
circumstantial argument valid.
III.
Tu Quoque Fallacy
The term tu quoque is a Latin term with the same origin and translates as "you
too". As we can understand from the definition of the term tu quoque fallacy,"
these are arguments in which a person who is putting forward an argument acts
inconsistently with that argument, and the second person uses that to prove that
person's argument by revealing his action.
If we look at the example of the ad hominem circumstance fallacy, if arguer 2
presents the following argument:
Arguer 2: You say gasoline cars pollute the environment, but you also use a
gasoline car.
The argument that arguer 2 is making is what we call the "tu quotque fallacy." In
this case, the second arguer uses the "you too" method to invalidate the first
arguer's point by stating that the person lives or acts in a way opposing their
argument. It could be the case that a person will act in opposition to their
argument, but pointing out that is not sufficient to prove their argument is invalid,
because the person has to provide another argument against the given argument
rather than only criticizing the individual act.
Finally, argumentum ad hominem is one type of relevance fallacy that attacks the
person providing an argument rather than the argument itself. This kind of fallacy
is common in debates and political elections, and such fallacies might lead to
incorrect conclusions if they aren’t analyzed carefully.
Reflection
Students might say that we have to come to school early before the class begins,
and other students might oppose this argument by saying that those students who
say "we have to come early" mostly didn’t come to school early, so we don’t have
to come to school early.
12
The above example is a real-life example of the Tu Quoque fallacy. As described
(tu quotque fallacy), the earlier conclusion of the student is invalid because it has
no relevance to the argument that has been made.
5. Accident
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter
ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy and a deductively valid however
unsound argument happening in a statistical syllogism (an argument primarily
based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb is not noted.
The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental
features of the specific case make it an
exception to the rule. It involves making
hasty generalizations and applying broad
assumptions to situations where they do
not fit.
The fallacy of accident is a logical error that occurs when a general rule or
principle is applied in a situation where it does not hold true. It involves incorrectly
assuming that a generalization is always true, regardless of the particularities of
each case.
This fallacy may take place when limited generalizations (some, sometimes and
somewhere) are blended with A-type categorical statements (all, always and
everywhere), regularly when no quantifiers like "some" or "many"
or qualifiers such as "rarely" are used to mark off what is or may additionally be
accepted in the generalization. Simple we can say "No rule is so general, which
admits not some exception."
Example:
A person who thrusts a knife into another person's body is guilty of a crime
and should be punished. Surgeons thrust knives into other people's bodies.
Therefore, surgeons are criminals and should be punished.
13
The argument in the above example may be interpreted in two ways. We can
consider the first premises as a general rule (namely thrusting a knife without any
further qualification ) and the second as a more restricted case (thrusting a knife
with the intention of curing). Under this interpretation, the inference moves from a
broader to a more restricted case, and the argument is a case of the fallacy of
accident because the general rule is used to cover the specific one but there is
legally acceptance.
Reflection
Everybody is equal in the eyes of the law, including all people men, women and
disabled people should be given the same opportunity. So giving affirmative action
for women and disabled people is not right.
In this argument we can see that it concludes affirmative action is not right, based
on the general idea of ‘everybody being equal in the eyes of the law’ but it doesn’t
take into account of the exception which is caused by the past injustices and
physical limitation.
6. Straw Man
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of
refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not
recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
It is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of
more easily attacking it, demolishes the
distorted then concludes that the opponent's
real argument has been demolished. By
doing so, arguer is said to have set up a straw
man and knocked it down, only to conclude
that the real man (opposing argument) has
been knocked down as well.
14
Strawman Fallacy Examples:
Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools Obviously Mr.
Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in
Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement
of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I
hardly think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg's argument is nonsense.
Like the argument against the person fallacy,
the straw man fallacy involves two arguers.
Mr. Goldberg, who is the first arguer, has
presented an argument against prayer in the
public schools, The second arguer then attacks
Goldberg's argument by equating it with an
argument for atheism. He then attacks atheism
and concludes that Goldberg's argument is
nonsense. Since Goldberg's argument had
nothing to do with atheism, the second argument commits the straw man fallacy.
As this example illustrates, the kind of distortion the second arguer resorts to its
often an attempt to exaggerate the first person's argument or make it look more
extreme than it really is.
Here are more examples:
 The garment workers have signed a petition arguing for better ventilation on
the work premises. Unfortunately, air conditioning is expensive Air ducts
would have to be run throughout the factory, and a massive heat exchange
unit installed on the roof. Also, the cost of operating such a system during
the summer would be astronomical. In view of these considerations the
petition must be rejected.
 The student status committee has presented us with an argument favoring
alcohol privileges on campus. What do the students want? Is it their
intention to stay boozed up from the day they enter as freshmen till the day
they graduate? Do they expect us to open a bar for them? Or maybe a chain
of bars all over campus? Such a proposal is ridiculous!
15
 “Person A has presented arguments for the existence of God using the fine
tuning of the universe and it supports life. This is absurd, because the
universe is full of things that want us dead. If God existed we wouldn’t have
had so many inflictions and sufferings in this world. There are a lot of
children dying to preventable diseases all over the world, children that
couldn’t get food for their mouth. Therefore God doesn’t exist.
In the first argument, the petition is merely for better ventilation in the factory-maybe a fan in the window during the summer. The arguer exaggerates this request
to mean an elaborate air conditioning system installed throughout the building He
then points is out that this too expensive and concludes by rejecting the petition. A
similar strategy is used in the second argument. The arguer distorts the request for
alcohol privileges to mean a chain of bars all over campus. Such an idea is so
patently outlandish that no further argument is necessary. This is the same with the
third as he misrepresents the whole argument
In order to attack this kind of fallacious arguments we need to first realize the
strawman. Then try to tell the person he is using a strawman argument and not
addressing what we are saying. Refer back to our argument.
Reflection
These kind of fallacious arguments are heard in everyday life. For example it could
happen in conversations between parents and a child. This are some from
experience;Case 1: A child wanted to go out and hangout with his friends and gives his
reasoning on why he needs to go with his friends.
Child: I need to meet with my friends because today is the only day where they are
free. They are flying abroad tomorrow. So I need to go.
Parents: You might go abroad too someday. You just need to work hard, use every
opportunities. Anyone who works hard will reach to big places. So you can't go.
The reasoning the child gave and the response of the parents doesn’t address the
fact that his friends are flying tomorrow so it’s a strawman argument.
16
Case 2: A child asks his parents for a new Laptop.
Child: My old PC hasn’t been working properly, I had a hard time doing my
assignments and sending files in due time because its constantly crashing. So I
need a new Laptop.
Parent: What else do you want? A car as well? Do you know how expensive a
laptop is this days, due to the inflation everything is expensive now. You should
stop asking me for a laptop.
In this case the parent exaggerated the child’s request, maybe a low version
inexpensive laptop would have sufficed but the parent started to talk about how
things are expensive due to the inflation, which doesn’t deal with the premises of
the child for getting a new laptop.
7. Missing the point
Missing the point is one of the fallacy of relevance category and it’s an irrelevant
conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi In Latin, it means ignoring of proof,
implies that The argument has a problem of logical implication of the premise is
the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically
valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question.
In short missing the point is Draw the conclusion that which is not the right
conclusion based on the information given in the premise.
The model is first a view point is reflected in the premise then the conclusion
misses the point stated in the premise. In an argument, you will often hear someone
say, "But you're missing the point!" What does this really mean, though? There are
so many good points to be made, and they all are relevant in some way, right? Well
not exactly. Arguments that are missing the point are not relevant to the argument
at hand, which is a big deal. There are many examples of how one can miss the
point, and many ways that such flaws can be avoided and also fixed.
So let us see brief example:
17
Example 1,
All apples are fruit
This is an apple
Therefore, this is a Vegetable.
So what do you think in this example?
Do the premises support the conclusion?
Why Missing the Point is a Fallacy?
If someone misses the point, then they do not address the point. If someone does
not address the point, then they cannot counter the point. If someone cannot
counter the point, then they cannot argue the point. In other words, an argument
that misses the point attempts to counter a point that does not exist, which is
inherently faulty.
Attacking ignoratio elenchi
• Point out the right conclusion that the premise logically implies.
• Show that the stated conclusion requires very different evidences; so as to be
considered as a conclusion.
•
Not to offend the arguer, show him/she politely some of the alternative
conclusions than the wrong conclusion given in the argument
Example 2
Person A: They should keep teaching kids that Pluto is a planet, because
that’s what I was taught when I was their age!
Person B: They teach kids that Pluto is not a planet because the scientific
definition of a planet changed.
It should be obvious that Person B makes a good point. Person B’s counter is a
great example of how a good point can still be fallacious, though, because Person
B also technically misses the point of Person A’s argument. Person A is not
arguing that the change to Pluto’s designation isn’t scientific. Person A is arguing
that the change to Pluto’s designation runs contrary to what they were personally
taught.
18
Now, it might seem silly for Person B to address such a flimsy argument from
Person A. However, if the argument is indeed flimsy, Person B should simply
explain why it is to Person A, in order to educate them.
Here’s what Person B could say instead, in order to counter Person A logically to
stop them missing the point:
Person B: By that logic, we would still be learning that the Sun orbits the Earth,
because hundreds of years ago that was taught as well. What we teach our kids
should not be based on whether something was “taught that way before.” Because
what humans learn is constantly evolving, what we teach our kids should be based
on our best and most recent scientific understanding. Otherwise, there could be no
progress.
Example 3
"The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But
drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So, the
death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving."
Explanation-The argument actually supports several conclusions--The punishment
for drunk driving should be very serious, but it doesn't support the claim thai the
death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
So as a conclusion we can say - Therefore the punishment has to be a good lesson
for other drivers.
Example 4
Addis Ababa University has lots of problems. Student service and facilities
are inadequate. Many of the instructors are inexperienced. It follow that, the
university should be entirely closed.
Explanation-The argument has a problem of logical implication of the premise in
this case the conclusion missing the point.
19
The conclusion should be a solution for the problems in AAU. So as a conclusion
we can say the university should improve the student service and facilities and they
should hire experienced lecturer.
Reflection
From my point of view I believe everyone experiences Argument in their some
part of life or even in day to day life. So if there’s argument there’s fallacy so my
experience according to missing the point I was arguing with my friend about
football trophies and he is a fan of Arsenal F.C the I said “Arsenal doesn’t have
any European trophies” he said “at least we have golden premier league trophy.”
This can be the best example of missing the point especially for football fans.
Explanation: well I was talking about Europeans trophies like champions league,
Europe league or Super cup so my argument was about European trophies not
premier league trophies he can say “we’re going to win this year or something but
he changes the subject (conclusion) so this shows missing the point.
8. Red herring
The red herring fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which an irrelevant or offtopic statement is used to divert attention away from the main issue or argument.
The red herring can be a statement, question, or other tactic that is designed to
mislead or distract the listener or reader, often with the intent of evading or
avoiding a difficult question or argument.
Why is it called the red herring fallacy?
The term "red herring" refers to an old technique for preparing dogs for fox
hunting. The objective is to teach the dogs to follow the fox's scent even when they
come across other scents that might be distracting. In order for the fox to leave a
smell trail, they release it. Then, just before releasing the hounds, they drag a
number of foul red herrings (dried smoked herrings that have been smoked to color
them red) across the fox's route. The dogs are then let go. The stench will divert the
dogs when they reach the herring track, and some of them may choose to go the
herring route instead. In order to prevent the dogs from following the herring, the
trainers try to train them to stay on the fox path.
20
The initial argument or some other point that is at issue in a discussion is
represented by the fox in the metaphor. Anyone interested in and involved in this
debate can be represented by the dog. The red herring is something that diverts
your attention away from the primary point of the argument. It can be a novel and
distinct argument that presents a distinct issue, or it might just be a pointless
remark that detracts from the primary point. It's crucial that it diverts attention
from the fundamental issue and the original argument sufficiently for the audience
to desire to follow this new path.
Example of this can be:
Mom: "I'm concerned that you are spending too much time on your phone
and not enough time studying."
You: "Well, what about my friend who spends all his time on a phone and
he's doing just fine in school?"
In this example, you are diverting the conversation away from your mom's valid
concern about your academic performance by bringing up an unrelated example of
someone else. This is an example of a red herring fallacy, because you are
distracting your mom from the original topic by bringing up something else.
In movies, the red herring fallacy can be used as a plot device to mislead the
audience and divert their attention away from the true culprit or solution to a
problem. For example, a character may be introduced as a potential suspect, but
later it is revealed that they were innocent and the real culprit was someone else.
And in politics the red herring fallacy can be used to distract voters from important
issues or to shift blame away from oneself. Politicians may use emotional appeals
or sensationalized stories to draw attention away from their own shortcomings or
to avoid answering difficult questions. It is important to be aware of these tactics
and to seek out reliable sources of information.
How to deal with this fallacy?
One of the best ways to respond to red herrings is to call them out and expose them
for what they are. You can do this by pointing out the irrelevance or the
inconsistency of the statement or the question that is being presented and by
refocusing the attention on the original topic or the main issue. You can also ask
21
for clarification or evidence from the speaker or the writer and challenge them to
justify their argument or their claim. You can also counter their red herring with a
valid and relevant argument or a claim of your own that supports your position or
your perspective.
How to use red herrings ethically?
One of the worst ways to use red herrings is to use them dishonestly or maliciously
to deceive or manipulate others. This can damage your reputation, your credibility,
and your trustworthiness. It can also backfire and make you look foolish, ignorant,
or unethical. However, there are some situations where using red herrings can be
ethical or beneficial. For example, you can use red herrings to create suspense,
humor, or surprise in a story, a joke, or a puzzle. You can also use red herrings to
test the critical thinking and the logical analysis of your audience or your
opponent. You can also use red herrings to protect your privacy, your security, or
your safety by diverting the attention of unwanted or harmful parties.
Reflection
Scenario: My brother and sister are fighting because of the mess in our house.
Sister: you always leave your things all over the place and never clean up!”
Brother: “well, you haven’t done the dishes either!”
My brother’s response has nothing to do with my sister’s statement about him
being messy. Instead, his response about her not doing the dishes is meant to
distract or divert the attention from him, and the main topic that he is messy. Red
herrings are very commonly utilized in personal arguments, but they tend to
escalate the arguments rather than solve them.
22
Conclusion
In conclusion, fallacies of relevance are logical errors that occur when there is a
disconnect between the argument presented and the conclusion drawn. They can
take the form of ad hominem attacks abusing the person verbally or rejecting the
argument based on the persons' situation, appeals to pity, appeal to person, appeal
to force, fallacy of accident, missing the point, red herrings, and straw man
arguments. It is important to be aware of these fallacies when evaluating
arguments, as they can be used to manipulate people and distract from the actual
issues at hand. Although they are not logically relevant to the conclusion they have
impacts on making the argument reasonable as they have emotional, social and
psychological components that are hard to ignore.
We have seen general examples of these kind of fallacious arguments as well as
specific ones that we experienced.
By recognizing and avoiding these fallacies, we can have more productive debates
and arrive at more accurate conclusions.
23
REFERENCE
Hurley, Patrick, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Cengage Learning; 12th Edition,
January 1, 2014
Wikimedia Foundation, "Fallacy", Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy , Accessed 26, April, 2023
"CRITICAL THINKING – Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]", Wireless Philosophy,
https://youtu.be/qBkj-AYYg7w
Dr. Naugle, "Fallacies of Relevance",
https://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/2302_handouts/fallacies_relevance.pdf
Wikimedia Foundation, "Ad hominem", Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem, Accessed 26, April, 2023
24