Zaid Ali Alsagoff

zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com

Module 4:Module 4:Fallacies Fallacies

Man or Woman?Man or Woman?

Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/manwoman.htm

How many legs does this elephant have? How many legs does this elephant have?

Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/elephantlegs.htm

Which officer is the tallest? Which officer is the tallest?

Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/giant_man.htm

Is this wave moving? Is this wave moving?

Source: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/oblong_wave/

AirAsia + Girls = Fun

Analyze Analyze + +

EvaluateEvaluate= =

Your Opinion?Your Opinion?Target Audience?Target Audience?

Module 4: FallaciesModule 4: Fallacies

1. Fallacies of Relevance

2. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

What mistake!!!

4.0 What is a Fallacy?4.0 What is a Fallacy?

A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a contains a mistake in reasoningmistake in reasoning.

Fallacies can be divided into two general types:

Fallacies of RelevanceFallacies of Relevance Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Fallacies of Insufficient EvidenceFallacies 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

4.1 Fallacies of Relevance4.1 Fallacies of Relevance

A statement is RELEVANTRELEVANT 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.

4.1 Fallacies of Relevance4.1 Fallacies of Relevance

Personal AttackPersonal Attack Appeal to PityAppeal to Pity

Attacking the MotiveAttacking the Motive Bandwagon Bandwagon ArgumentArgument

Look Who’s TalkingLook Who’s Talking Straw ManStraw Man

Begging the QuestionBegging the Question Red HerringRed Herring

Scare TacticsScare Tactics EquivocationEquivocation

Two Wrongs Make a RightTwo Wrongs Make a Right

4.1.1 Personal Attack4.1.1 Personal Attack

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.

Personal AttackPersonal AttackWhen 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.

Personal AttackPersonal AttackWhen 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.

1. X is a 1. X is a bad person.bad person.2. Therefore X's 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.argument must be bad.1. X is a 1. X is a bad person.bad person.2. Therefore X's 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.argument must be bad.

Pattern

4.1.2 Attacking the Motive4.1.2 Attacking the Motive

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.

Attacking the MotiveAttacking the Motive When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather thanexamining the worth of the argument or claim itself.

Attacking the MotiveAttacking the Motive When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather thanexamining the worth of the argument or claim itself.

1.1. XX has biased or has questionable motives. has biased or has questionable motives.2.2. Therefore, Therefore, X’sX’s arguments or claim should be rejected arguments or claim should be rejected.1.1. XX has biased or has questionable motives. has biased or has questionable motives.2.2. Therefore, Therefore, X’sX’s arguments or claim should be rejected arguments or claim should be rejected.Patter

n

4.1.3 Look Who’s Talking4.1.3 Look Who’s Talking

Example:

Doctor: You should quite smoking.

Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack!

Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) When an arguer rejects another person’s argument

or claim because that person is a hypocrite.

Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) When an arguer rejects another person’s argument

or claim because that person is a hypocrite.

1.1. X X fails to follow his or her own advice.fails to follow his or her own advice.2.2. Therefore, Therefore, X’X’s claim or argument should be rejected.s claim or argument should be rejected.1.1. X X fails to follow his or her own advice.fails to follow his or her own advice.2.2. Therefore, Therefore, X’X’s claim or argument should be rejected.s claim or argument should be rejected.Patter

n

4.1.4 Two Wrongs Make a Right4.1.4 Two Wrongs Make a Right

Examples:1. “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the

class cheats on his quiz.”

2. “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”

Two Wrongs Make a RightTwo Wrongs Make a RightWhen an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act

by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.

Two Wrongs Make a RightTwo Wrongs Make a RightWhen an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act

by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.

1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified. 1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified. Patter

n

4.1.5 Scare Tactics4.1.5 Scare Tactics

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.

Scare TacticsScare TacticsWhen an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener

and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

Scare TacticsScare TacticsWhen an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener

and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

Fear is a powerful motivatorFear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to think and behave irrationally.Fear is a powerful motivatorFear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to think and behave irrationally.Rememb

er

4.1.6 Appeal to Pity4.1.6 Appeal to Pity

Example:

Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my quizzes and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend told me she has found someone else. With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really deserve an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a D?

Appeal to PityAppeal to PityWhen an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

compassion, where such feelings, however understandable,are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

Appeal to PityAppeal to PityWhen an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

compassion, where such feelings, however understandable,are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

1.1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C is true.2. Therefore claim C is true. 1.1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C is true.2. Therefore claim C is true. Patter

n

4.1.7 Bandwagon Argument 4.1.7 Bandwagon Argument

Example:

All the really cool UNITAR students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too.

Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)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.

Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)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.

1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.Patter

n

4.1.8 Straw Man4.1.8 Straw Man

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."

Straw ManStraw ManWhen an arguer misrepresents another person’s

position to make it easier to attack.

Straw ManStraw ManWhen an arguer misrepresents another person’s

position to make it easier to attack.

1. 1. Person A has position X. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

1. 1. Person A has position X. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Pattern

4.1.9 Red Herring4.1.9 Red Herring

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."

Red HerringRed HerringWhen 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.

Red HerringRed HerringWhen 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.

1. Topic 1. Topic AA is under discussion. is under discussion. 2. Topic 2. Topic BB is introduced under the guise of being relevant is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic 3. Topic A A is abandoned.is abandoned.

1. Topic 1. Topic AA is under discussion. is under discussion. 2. Topic 2. Topic BB is introduced under the guise of being relevant is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic 3. Topic A A is abandoned.is abandoned.

Pattern

4.1.10 Equivocation 4.1.10 Equivocation

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.

EquivocationEquivocationWhen an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two

(or more) different senses.

EquivocationEquivocationWhen an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two

(or more) different senses.

Fallacies of Equivocation Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot becausethey often appear valid, but they aren’t.Fallacies of Equivocation Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot becausethey often appear valid, but they aren’t.Rememb

er

4.1.11 Begging the Question 4.1.11 Begging the Question

Example:

I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say whatever I please.

Begging the QuestionBegging the QuestionWhen an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)

the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.

Begging the QuestionBegging the QuestionWhen an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)

the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.

Arguing in a circleArguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.Arguing in a circleArguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.Reason

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?Which fallacy?

A)A) Loaded QuestionLoaded QuestionB)B) Personal AttackPersonal AttackC)C) Bandwagon ArgumentBandwagon ArgumentD)D) Scare TacticsScare Tactics

4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 14.1 Mini Quiz – Question 1

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?Which fallacy?

A)A) Bandwagon ArgumentBandwagon ArgumentB)B) Personal AttackPersonal AttackC)C) Straw ManStraw ManD)D) Scare TacticsScare Tactics

4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 24.1 Mini Quiz – Question 2

“The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion.”

- James Russell Lowell

4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Arguments in which the Arguments in which the premises, though logically premises, though logically

relevant to the conclusion, relevant to the conclusion, fail fail to provide sufficient evidenceto provide sufficient evidence to to

support the conclusion.support the conclusion.

Arguments in which the Arguments in which the premises, though logically premises, though logically

relevant to the conclusion, relevant to the conclusion, fail fail to provide sufficient evidenceto provide sufficient evidence to to

support the conclusion.support the conclusion.

4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Inappropriate Appeal Inappropriate Appeal to Authorityto Authority

Questionable CauseQuestionable Cause

Appeal to IgnoranceAppeal to Ignorance Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope

False Alternatives False Alternatives Weak AnalogyWeak Analogy

Loaded QuestionLoaded Question InconsistencyInconsistency

Hasty Generalizations Hasty Generalizations

4.2.1 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority 4.2.1 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority

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.

Inappropriate Appeal to AuthorityInappropriate Appeal to AuthorityCiting a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.

Inappropriate Appeal to AuthorityInappropriate Appeal to AuthorityCiting a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.

Authority AssessmentAuthority Assessment1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?2. Is the source biased?3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?5. Has the source been cited correctly?6. Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?7. Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion?8. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?

Authority AssessmentAuthority Assessment1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?2. Is the source biased?3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?5. Has the source been cited correctly?6. Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?7. Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion?8. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?Tips

4.2.2 Appeal to Ignorance 4.2.2 Appeal to Ignorance

Example:

Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he doesn’t exist.

Appeal to IgnoranceAppeal to IgnoranceClaiming that something is true because no one has

proven it false or vice versa.

Appeal to IgnoranceAppeal to IgnoranceClaiming that something is true because no one has

proven it false or vice versa.

““Not proven, therefore false”Not proven, therefore false”If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almostany conclusion.

““Not proven, therefore false”Not proven, therefore false”If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almostany conclusion.

Remember

AgreAgree I e I do!do!

4.2.3 False Alternatives4.2.3 False Alternatives

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.

False AlternativesFalse AlternativesPosing a false either/or choice.

False AlternativesFalse AlternativesPosing a false either/or choice.

Fallacy of false alternatives Fallacy of false alternatives can involve more thanmore thantwo (2) alternativestwo (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a conditional (i (if-thenf-then) ) statement.

Fallacy of false alternatives Fallacy of false alternatives can involve more thanmore thantwo (2) alternativestwo (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a conditional (i (if-thenf-then) ) statement.Rememb

er

4.2.4 Loaded Question4.2.4 Loaded Question

Example:

Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard?

Ali: Yes.

Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.

Loaded QuestionLoaded QuestionPosing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

presupposition.

Loaded QuestionLoaded QuestionPosing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

presupposition.

To respond to a loaded question effectivelyTo respond to a loaded question effectively, , one mustdistinguish the different questions being asked and respondto each individually.

To respond to a loaded question effectivelyTo respond to a loaded question effectively, , one mustdistinguish the different questions being asked and respondto each individually.

Tip

4.2.5 Questionable Cause4.2.5 Questionable Cause

Example:

Sarah gets a chain letter that threatens her with dire consequences if she breaks the chain. She laughs at it and throws it in the garbage. On her way to work she slips and breaks his arm. When she gets back from the hospital she sends out 200 copies of the chain letter, hoping to avoid further accidents.

Questionable CauseQuestionable CauseClaiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing

is the cause of something else.

Questionable CauseQuestionable CauseClaiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing

is the cause of something else.

1. 1. A and B are associated on a regular basis. A and B are associated on a regular basis. 2. Therefore A is the cause of B.2. Therefore A is the cause of B. 1. 1. A and B are associated on a regular basis. A and B are associated on a regular basis. 2. Therefore A is the cause of B.2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

Pattern

4.2.6 Hasty Generalization4.2.6 Hasty Generalization

Example:

Norwegians are lazy. I have two friends who are from there, and both of them never prepare for class, or do their homework.

Hasty GeneralizationHasty GeneralizationDrawing a general conclusion from a sample that

is biased or too small.

Hasty GeneralizationHasty GeneralizationDrawing a general conclusion from a sample that

is biased or too small.

1. A biasedbiased sample is one that is not representative of the target population. 2. The target populationtarget population is the group of people or things that the generalization is about. 3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypesstereotypes.

1. A biasedbiased sample is one that is not representative of the target population. 2. The target populationtarget population is the group of people or things that the generalization is about. 3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypesstereotypes.

Pattern

4.2.7 Slippery Slope4.2.7 Slippery Slope

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."

Slippery SlopeSlippery SlopeClaiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly

harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrousoutcome.

Slippery SlopeSlippery SlopeClaiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly

harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrousoutcome.

1.1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, 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.is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.

2.2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be permitted.not be permitted.

3.3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to D.lead to D.

1.1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, 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.is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.

2.2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be permitted.not be permitted.

3.3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to D.lead to D.

Pattern

4.2.8 Weak Analogy4.2.8 Weak Analogy

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?

Weak AnalogyWeak AnalogyComparing things that aren’t really comparable.

Weak AnalogyWeak AnalogyComparing things that aren’t really comparable.

1. List all important similaritiesimportant similarities between the two cases.2. List all important dissimilaritiesimportant dissimilarities between the two cases.3. Decide Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are more important.

1. List all important similaritiesimportant similarities between the two cases.2. List all important dissimilaritiesimportant dissimilarities between the two cases.3. Decide Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are more important.

Tip

4.2.9 Inconsistency 4.2.9 Inconsistency

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?

Inconsistency Inconsistency Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.

Inconsistency Inconsistency Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.

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 = LearningOpen-minded to new ideas = Learning

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 = LearningOpen-minded to new ideas = LearningRemember

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?Which fallacy?

A)A) Questionable CauseQuestionable CauseB)B) Hasty GeneralizationHasty GeneralizationC)C) Slippery SlopeSlippery SlopeD)D) Weak AnalogyWeak Analogy

4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 14.2 Mini Quiz – Question 1

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?Which fallacy?

A)A) Inappropriate Appeal to AuthorityInappropriate Appeal to AuthorityB)B) Appeal to IgnoranceAppeal to IgnoranceC)C) False AlternativesFalse AlternativesD)D) Loaded QuestionLoaded Question

4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 24.2 Mini Quiz – Question 2

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?Which fallacy?

A)A) Loaded QuestionLoaded QuestionB)B) Hasty GeneralizationHasty GeneralizationC)C) Slippery SlopeSlippery SlopeD)D) Weak AnalogyWeak Analogy

4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 34.2 Mini Quiz – Question 3

Group ActivityGroup Activity

Break into groups of 4 - 6, and construct five (5) fallacious construct five (5) fallacious arguments.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.

Summary – 20 Common FallaciesSummary – 20 Common FallaciesFallacyFallacy

An argument that contains a mistake in reasoningcontains a mistake in reasoning. Fallacies of RelevanceFallacies of Relevance

Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Fallacies of Insufficient EvidenceFallacies of Insufficient EvidenceArguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to

provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

Personal AttackPersonal Attack Attacking the Motive Attacking the Motive Look Who’s TalkingLook Who’s Talking Two Wrongs Make a RightTwo Wrongs Make a Right Scare TacticsScare Tactics Appeal to PityAppeal to Pity Bandwagon ArgumentBandwagon Argument Straw ManStraw Man Red HerringRed Herring EquivocationEquivocation Begging the QuestionBegging the Question

Inappropriate Appeal to AuthorityInappropriate Appeal to Authority

Appeal to IgnoranceAppeal to Ignorance

False AlternativesFalse Alternatives

Loaded QuestionLoaded Question

Questionable CauseQuestionable Cause

Hasty GeneralizationHasty Generalization

Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope

Weak AnalogyWeak Analogy

Inconsistency Inconsistency

Any Questions? Any Questions?

The EndThe End

ReferencesReferences

BookBook

Chapter 5 (Logical Fallacies -1) & 6 (Logical Fallacies -2): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007

Online ResourcesOnline Resources

Fallacies (The Nizkor Project): http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Cool Optical Illusions: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/

Contact DetailsContact Details

Zaid Ali AlsagoffZaid Ali Alsagoff

UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK 16-5, Jalan SS 6/1247301 Kelana Jaya

Selangor Darul EhsanMalaysia

E-mail: zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com    

Tel: 603-7627 7238 Fax: 603-7627 7246