Fallacies of Relevance

Informal Fallacies
Assessing the legitimacy of arguments embedded in ordinary language is rather like diagnosing whether a living human
being has any broken bones. Only the internal structure matters, but it is difficult to see through the layers of flesh that
cover it. Soon we'll begin to develop methods, like the tools of radiology, that enable us to see the skeletal form of an
argument beneath the language that expresses it. But compound fractures are usually evident to the most casual
observer, and some logical defects are equally apparent.
The informal fallacies considered here are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect. The fallacies of relevance,
for example, clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often
used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to
be fooled by their illegitimate appeals. Many of them were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin
names for them have passed into common use. It's worthwhile to consider the structure, offer an example, and point out
the invalidity of each of them in turn.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone
who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might
propose:

If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.

I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could neverthelss be false. Since that is
possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to
pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.
Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will
otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.

If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.

Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so the
argument is fallacious.
Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that
may lead an audience to accept its conclusion:

As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public
education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of
concern for children.

Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of
its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the truth of a
proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority, the opinion of someone
famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for
example:

Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.

Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual (however talented
or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities
could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a
conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.
Ad Hominem Argument
The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject a
proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can happen in several
different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who believes it to be true:

Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.

But we all know that Harold . . .

. . . dresses funny and smells bad.

or

. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally

. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18

. . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.

or
or

Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no better reason
than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the intended
conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a
common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.
Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)
An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Thus,
for example:

No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could
nevertheless be so.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Ambiguous Language
In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns
of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguousword, phrase, or sentence is one that
has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will
be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all
involve a confusion of two or more different senses.

Equivocation
An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of
an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

Really exciting novels are rare.

But rare books are expensive.

Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.

Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link they seem to establish
between the terms of the conclusion is spurious. In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability
of otherwise valid deductive arguments.

Amphiboly
An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence
creates its own ambiguity.

A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup
truck.

Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.

In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different ways, creating the
possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.
Accent
The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example:

Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.

Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply
the truth of the conclusion.

Composition

The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class
(or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).

Every course I took in college was well-organized.

Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so
this reasoning is defective.
Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific
case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of
composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not
follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.
Division
Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to
the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).

Ocelots are now dying out.

Sparky is an ocelot.

Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any
of its individual members.
Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical
specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health").
The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not
follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.
Fallacies of Presumption
The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these
instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth
is uncertain or implausible. Again, we'll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted
assumption upon which it is based.

Accident (Sweeping generalization)

The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying
this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.

Oprah Winfrey is a woman.

Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal statement that
"Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves
plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.
Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)

The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way, and then errs by
deriving from this case the truth of a general rule.

Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.

Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general principle. Since it's easy
for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.

False Cause (Non Causa Pro causa)

The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connection simply because events appear to occur in correlation
or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I overslept.

Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal relationshipdoes exist, but
these fallacies clearly are not enough.

Begging the Question (petitio principii)

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own
support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals have hair.

Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.

But all animals that bear live young are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is
formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid
argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.
Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of
the issue to be considered:

Have you tried to stop watching too much television?

If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.

If not, then you must still be watching too much television.

Therefore, you watch too much television.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that
actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

All children should have ample attention from their parents.

Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.

Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth of a
conclusion focussed on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in
distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.