Dialogue
Education
2009
THIS CD HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR TEACHERS TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS A CONDITION OF THE USE OF THIS
CD THAT IT BE USED ONLY BY THE PEOPLE FROM SCHOOLS THAT HAVE PURCHASED THE CD ROM FROM DIALOGUE
EDUCATION. (THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE ON A SCHOOL’S INTRANET).
Analyze
+
Evaluate
=
Your Opinion?
Target Audience?
AirAsia + Girls =
Fun
1. Fallacies
of Relevance
What
mistake!!!
2. Fallacies of
Insufficient
Evidence

A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains
a mistake in reasoning.

Fallacies can be divided into two general
types:
◦ Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
◦ Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though
logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to
provide sufficient evidence for the
conclusion.
“There
is nothing so stupid as an educated man,
if you get him off the thing he was educated in”
- Will Rogers


A statement is RELEVANT to another statement
if it provides at least some reason for thinking
that the second statement is true or false.
There are three ways in which a statement can
be relevant or irrelevant to another:
◦ A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it
provides at least some reason for thinking that the second
statement is true.
◦ A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it
provides at least some reason for thinking that the second
statement is false.
◦ A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it
provides no reason for thinking that the second statement is
either true or false.
Personal Attack
Appeal to Pity
Attacking the Motive
Non Sequitur
Bandwagon
Argument
Straw Man
Begging the Question
Red Herring
Scare Tactics
Equivocation
Two Wrongs Make a
Right
Genetic Fallacy
Personal Attack
When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim
by attacking the person’s character rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
Example:
Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis
on music in our F2F classes to facilitate
creativity. But Doogie is a selfish bigheaded fool.
I absolutely refuse to listen to him.
Pattern
1. X is a bad person.
2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.
Attacking the Motive
When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
Example:
Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But
Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll
make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus.
Obviously, Trump’s argument is a lot of self-serving nonsense.
Pattern
1. X has biased or has questionable motives.
2. Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected.
Non Sequitur
When an arguer makes a comment which, due to its lack of meaning
relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the
point of being humorous or confusing.
Example:
"If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.“
"Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags."
(Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent are both
Examples of Non Sequitur )
Pattern
1.
If A then %
Two Wrongs Make a Right
When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.
Examples:
1.
2.
“I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz.
Half the class cheats on his quiz.”
“Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”
Pattern
1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts.
2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.
Scare Tactics
When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener
and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of
the arguer’s conclusion.
Example:
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the
rightful rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had
to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our
claim.
Remember
Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often
causes us to think and behave irrationally.
Definist Fallacy
This involves the confusion between two notions
by defining one in terms of the other.


It is in fact unclear that the definist fallacy is fallacious, as the fact that there is
always an open question merely reflects the fact that it makes sense to ask
whether two things that may be identical in fact are. Thus, even if the good is
identical to what is pleasurable, it makes sense to ask whether it is; the answer
will be "yes", but the question was legitimate. That is, Moore can't deny that, for
example, it makes sense to ask whether Hesperus is the same heavenly body as
Phosphorus, even though we know that it is. Moore seems to be implying that it
might not be, that the answer to "are they the same" might be "no" — but that is
to beg the question against their identification.
Pattern
A = B One idea is defined by another idea.
Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)
When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular,
accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant
reasons or evidence.
Example:
All the really cool UNITAR students smoke
cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too.
Pattern
1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.
2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.
Straw Man
When an arguer misrepresents another person’s
position to make it easier to attack.
Example:
Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
 Suzie: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy.“
 Singh: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
 Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."
Pattern
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Red Herring
When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising
an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original
issue has been effectively settled by the
irrelevant diversion.
Example:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for
the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too.
After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our
salaries affected."
Pattern
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant
to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
Equivocation
When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two
(or more) different senses.
Example:
In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed
almost very night. To be bombed is to be
intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940,
Londoners were intoxicated almost every night.
Remember
Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot because
they often appear valid, but they aren’t.
Begging the Question
When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)
the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.
Example:
I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I
have a right to say whatever I please.
Reason
Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.
Genetic Fallacy
To attack the argument not in terms of its content but in terms of its origins.
Example:
All claims of the Freemasons can be safely
ignored. The Freemasons are just an ancient
trade union movement warmed up for modern
times.
Reason
Arguing with – A is wrong because it has origins which
Should be ignored. No reason is given.
I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself
as a security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in
this area. I can only come up with two solutions. One, he is
either a member of the criminal element, or two, he is a
frustrated security guard who can never make it as a police
officer and figures he can take cheap shots at cops through
the newspaper (adapted from a newspaper call-in column).
Which fallacy?
A)
B)
C)
D)
Loaded Question
Personal Attack/Ad Hominim
Bandwagon Argument
Scare Tactics
The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of
the suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What do they want the
U.S. to do with them, put them on the beaches
of Florida for a vacation or take them skiing in
the Rockies? Come on, let's worry about the
Americans. (adapted from a newspaper call-in
column)
Which fallacy?
A)
B)
C)
D)
Bandwagon Argument
Personal Attack/Ad Hominim
Straw Man
Scare Tactics
“The
foolish and the dead alone
never change their opinion.”
- James Russell Lowell
Arguments in which the
premises, though logically
relevant to the conclusion, fail
to provide sufficient evidence
to support the conclusion.
Argument from
Irrelevant Authority
Argument from
Ignorance
False Dichotomy
Confusion of
Correlation and
Causation
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
Loaded Question
Inconsistency
Post hoc ergo
prompter hoc
Hasty Generalizations
Argument from an Irrelevent Authority
Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Example:
My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of
Atlantis. So, it’s reasonable to believe that aliens
did build the lost city of Atlantis.
Authority Assessment
Tips
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
Is the source biased?
Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
Has the source been cited correctly?
Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?
Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion?
Is the claim highly improbable on its face?
Argument from Ignorance
Claiming that something is true because no one has
proven it false or vice versa.
Example:
Yoda must exist. No one has proved that
he doesn’t exist.
Agree
I do!
Remember
“Not proven, therefore false”
If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almost
any conclusion.
False Dichotomy
Posing a false either/or choice.
Example:
The choice in this MPM election is clear: Either we
elect Zubaidah as our next president, or we
watch our MPM unity slide into anarchy and
frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that to
happen. Therefore, we should elect Zubaidah as
our next president.
Remember
Fallacy of false dichotomy usually involve s
two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
conditional (if-then) statement.
Loaded Question
Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition.
Example:
Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard?
Ali: Yes.
Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.
Tip
To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must
distinguish the different questions being asked and respond
to each individually.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc
Since that event followed this one, that
event must have been caused by this one.
Example:
More young people are attending private schools today than ever
before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation
among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are
being corrupted by private school education.
Pattern
1. A occurred, then B occurred.
2. Therefore, A caused B.
Confusion of Correlation or Causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc )
Where two events that occur together are necessarily claimed to
have a cause-and-effect relationship.
Example:
With a decrease in the number of pirates we have seen an increase
in global warming over the same time period. Therefore, global
warming is caused by a lack of pirates
Pattern
1. A occurs in correlation with B.
2.
Therefore, A causes B.
Slippery Slope
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly
harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous
outcome.
Examples:

“The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other
countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will
then send in thousands to die."
1.
2.
Pattern
3.
The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A,
is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.
The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should
not be permitted.
In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually
lead to D.
Weak Analogy
Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.
Example:
Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for
a test drive. Why then shouldn’t two mature
UNITAR students live together before they
decide whether to get married?
Tip
1. List all important similarities between the two cases.
2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are
more important.
Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
Example:
Note found in a Forest Service Suggestion box:
Park visitors need to know how important it is to
keep this wilderness area completely pristine
and undisturbed. So why not put up a few signs
to remind people of this fact?
Remember
It is also a mistake to cling stubbornly to an old idea when new
information suggests that the idea is false.
Open-minded to new ideas = Learning
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that
is biased or too small.
Example:
Norwegians are lazy. I have two friends who are
from there, and both of them never prepare for
class, or do their homework.
Pattern
1. A biased sample is one that is not representative of the target population.
2. The target population is the group of people or things that the
generalization is about.
3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes.
What's to say against [cigars]? They killed George
Burns at 100. If he hadn't smoked them, he'd
have died at 75. (Bert Sugar, quoted in New York
Times, September 20, 2002)
Which fallacy?
A)
B)
C)
D)
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
According to North Korea's official state-run news agency, "a
war between North Korea and the United States will end with
the delightful victory of North Korea, a newly emerging
military power, in 100 hours. . . . The U. S. [will] be
enveloped in flames. . . and the arrogant empire of the devil
will breathe its last". Given that this prediction comes from
the official North Korean news agency, it is probably true.
(Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, "Empire of the Devil,"
New York Times, April 4, 2003)
Which fallacy?
A)
B)
C)
D)
Argument from Irrelevant Authority
Argument from Ignorance
False Dichotomy
Loaded Question
Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award judgments so large
that they put tobacco companies out of business. Respecting
the right of tobacco companies to stay in business is akin to
saying there are "two sides" to slavery...
(Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in George F. Will, "Court Ruling
Expresses Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy," Wilkes-Barre Times
Leader, May 25, 2003)
Which fallacy?
A)
B)
C)
D)
Loaded Question
Hasty Generalization
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy



Break into groups of 4 - 6, and construct five (5)
fallacious arguments.
Each group can choose any of the 20 fallacies
discussed, but must construct at least two
fallacious arguments of each category: Fallacies
of Relevance & Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence).
The constructed fallacious arguments must
discuss the topics specified in the template
provided (Business, Education, Information
Technology, Environment, and Tourism).
20 min
Construct 5 fallacious arguments.
5 min
Document constructed arguments into the template provided.
15 min
Group presentation & discussion.
The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the
lecturer before or during the next class.


Click on the
image to the
left. You will
need to be
connected to
the internet to
view this
presentation.
Enlarge to full
screen
Fallacy
An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.










Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Arguments in which the premises, though
logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to
provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.
Personal Attack
Attacking the Motive
Look Who’s Talking
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Scare Tactics
Appeal to Pity
Bandwagon Argument
Straw Man
Red Herring
Equivocation
 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
 Appeal to Ignorance
 False Alternatives
 Loaded Question
 Questionable Cause
 Hasty Generalization
 Slippery Slope
 Weak Analogy
 Inconsistency

















Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi.
William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca. 1323) Part III.4.
John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning
The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff.
The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten - The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), by
Arthur Schopenhauer (also known as "Schopenhauers 38 stratagems")
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic - Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of
Confusion.
C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies. Methuen London, 1970.
Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.
Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York:
Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks,
1970.
Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A
Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1992.
Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.
T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Edition, Wadsworth, 2005. ISBN 0-53460516-8
Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark". Ballantine Books,
March 1997 ISBN 0-345-40946-9. 480 pgs. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, ISBN 0394-53512-X, xv+457 pages plus addenda insert (some printings). Ch.12.
Wikipedia-Fallacies-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies
Zaid Ali Allsagoff- Fallacies - http://www.slideshare.net/zaid/fallacies-304448/