UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

Bel 313

Assignment 2

Fallacies
Prepared by: Nur Nadhirah bt Maskor 2007103387
: Muhammad Hariz Akram b. Othman 2008407614

Group :ACD5A3

Prepared for: Sir Md Ikram Mahadzir

Part 1

1. Swedes eat millions pounds of cheese per year. Lars is a Swede, so Lars eats millions
of pounds of cheese a year.

Fallacy = Hasty Generalization

Explanation = The writer only making assumptions about a whole group or range of
cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too
small). It also stereotypes about people ("librarians are shy and smart," "wealthy
people are snobs," etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty
generalization. He says that Swedes eat millions pounds of cheese a year, so he
assumes that who just so happens to be Swedish eats millions pounds of cheese a year
as well and the writer not specify the real person that eat millions pounds of cheese a
year.

2. When you have cancer in your body, you get it removed if you can, or you kill it with
radiation or drugs. Well, criminals are just like a cancer in the body of the state. So we
should treat criminals just as we would treat any cancer, by killing them.

Fallacy = Weak analogy

Explanation = Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects,
ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the
relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it
commits the fallacy of weak analogy. The analogy is weak, and so is the argument
based on it. Cancer is a sickness associated with the reproduction of fatal cells. Killing
these cells is a term not to be taken for what it is. Killing means getting rid of or in a
more medical term cure it. But to suddenly compare killing cancer and killing
criminals is not exactly accurate. It is heavily biased comparison that can be seen as a
weak analogy.
3. You say that I should cut down on my smoking. But you smoke much more heavily
than I. Your whole family smokes more than I do.

Fallacy = Straw man

Explanation = One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and
respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man
fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score
points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a
scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents'
argument isn't very impressive either. The writer was told to cut down on his smoking
and instead of trying to defend himself, he just points a finger at the opponent and tries
to make the opponent look bad.

4. Some people argue that guns cause accidental deaths and wounding in private homes.
This is certainly true. But stairways, defective flooring, power tools, lawn mowers, gas
stoves, axes, and heaters are just like guns; they cause accidental deaths and injuries,
too. And no one would think of suggesting that these things be banned from people’s
homes. So it seems to me that persons who wish to assume the risk of having guns in
their homes ought to be permitted to do so.

Fallacy = Weak analogy

Explanation = The reason for this is because the writer is comparing two or more
objects that are not really alike in the relevant respects therefore the analogy is the
weak one. He says that guns cause accidental deaths and wounding in private homes,
but then he compares it with stairways defective flooring, power tools, lawn mowers,
gas stoves, axes, and heaters. This comparison is not relevant with each other.
5. You often hear people say that drugs are bad. But where do you draw the line?
Caffeine is a drug, and so is sugar. So it’s pointless to argue against drugs.

Fallacy = Weak Analogy

Explanation = Any arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas,
or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the
relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it
commits the fallacy of weak analogy. He is comparing drugs which are basically bad
with caffeine and sugar, which is irrelevant to each other.

6. The Ministry of Health recently issued a report arguing that one third of the cancer
fatalities in the country can be attributed to smoking. But this claim is ridiculous.
Malaysians have been smoking for years and a great deal of enjoyment has resulted.
What would life be like if you cant enjoy something once in a while? Certain people
are that way. The Boyans, for example… no booze, no dancing, no gambling. Those
people must be bored and crazy.

Fallacy = Missing the point

Explanation = The premises of an argument do not support a particular conclusion
that the arguer actually draws. He says that one third of the cancer fatalities in the
country can be attributed to smoking but in the end he speaks of Boyans and accused
them of being bored and crazy.
7. You should always tell the truth, so when my girlfriend asks if that outfit makes her
look fat, I’ll have to say yes,

Fallacy = Post Hoc (False cause)

Explanation = Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Sometimes one
event really does cause another one that comes later but sometimes two events that
seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't
the same thing as causation. The writer assumes that just because people should
always tell the truth, then he has no choice but to say yes to his girlfriend’s question
about her looking fat in that outfit.

8. In every marriage either the man or the woman must dominate. So, honey, who’s it
going to be- you or me?

Fallacy = Begging the question

Explanation = It is complicated fallacy it comes in several forms and can be harder to
detect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basically, an argument that
begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing
real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the
conclusion (which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular
reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the
argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of
general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons
for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here. In this
statement, the writer merely asks a question that’s already been answered by himself.
He already states that it’s either the man or the woman must dominate, so it is
redundant to ask again.
9. Strenuous exercise is good for people. Therefore, it would be a good idea for Mr.
Bean, who just had a heart attack, to go run a marathon.

Fallacy = Hasty generalization

Explanation = It just an assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on
a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). It also
stereotypes about people ("librarians are shy and smart," "wealthy people are snobs,"
etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. The
reason for this is because the writer says that exercises are good for people in general,
so he assumes that Mr. Bean who just a heart attack to run a marathon.

10. It would not be a good idea to appoint Mahmud Agus to the office of city mayor. As
city mayor, En. Mahmud would control the city’s finances. En. Mahmud is a well-
known businessman, he has managed five different businesses, and all of then have
declared bankruptcy.

Fallacy = Appeal to authority

Explanation = Often add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources
or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If,
however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a
famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.. He says that Mahmud Agus
should not be appointed as the city mayor. He tried to back up his claim by saying that
En. Mahmud is a businessman who has manages five different bankrupt businesses.
11. For several days before the big earthquake in 1989, the weather was unusually hot.
They’re predicting a heat wave next week, so I’m getting ready for another big
earthquake.

Fallacy = Post Hoc (False cause)

Explanation = By assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Sometimes
one event really does cause another one that comes later but sometimes two events that
seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't
the same thing as causation. The reason for this is because the writer assumes that just
because there was a big earthquake several days after unusually hot weather, so he
thinks there is going to be another big earthquake just because there is prediction about
a heat wave happening next week.

12. We must accept the fact that aliens exist, because no one has ever disapprove it.

Fallacy = Appeal to ignorance

Explanation = In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion
on this issue." In this statement the writer is not able to find a conclusive evidence on
the issue at hand therefore he feels that we should accept his conclusion on the issue.
He says that aliens exist, just because no one has ever denied its existence.

13. If there is no fair judge, then our courts are unfair. The good are punished and the
wicked prosper. But the law cannot be unfair; the public wont allow such unfair laws.
Therefore, our judges are fair.

Fallacy = Missing the point

Explanation = The reason for this is because the writer had set up a premise of an
argument that does support a particular conclusion but he does not really support the
argument that was actually drawn. He says that the courts will be unfair if there is no
fair judge, but he concluded it by saying that our judges are fair with no proof to
support that conclusion.
14. Either the sides of this figure are all equal or this figure is not a square. The sides are
not all equal. Therefore, this figure is not a square.

Fallacy = False dichotomy

Explanation = In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there
are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that
we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
But often there are really many different options, not just two and if we thought about
them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends. The writer
tried to set up a situation to make it look like there are two choices. He then eliminates
one of the choices and we are then left to pick the option that the writer wants us to
pick in the first place. Here he says that either the sides of this figure are all equal or
this figure is not a square, in the end he only gave us a choice stating that the figure is
not a square,
Part 2

1. Anomaly

Anomaly can be defined as the deviation or departure from the normal or

common order, form, or rule. Other than that, anomaly can also be defined as one that
is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify. For example, "Both men are
anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a
heavy" (David Pauly). There are many types of Anomaly such as also true anomaly,
eccentric anomaly, mean anomaly, and gravity anomaly. True anomaly is the angle
between a planet, the sun, and the previous perihelion of the planet. Eccentric anomaly
is the angle between the periapsis of a particular point on a circle round the orbit as
seen from the centre of the orbit. This point is obtained by producing a perpendicular
to the major axis of the ellipse through the orbiting body until it reaches the
circumference of the circle. Mean anomaly is the angle between the periapsis of an
orbit and the position of an imaginary body orbiting at a constant angular speed and in
the same period as the real orbiting body. Gravity anomaly is a deviation from the
normal value of gravity at the earth's surface, caused by density differences at depth,
for example those caused by a buried mineral body. The last but not least, Magnetic
anomaly is a magnetic field. For example one produced by a buried mineral body, that
deviates from an expected or standard value, usually that of the earth's magnetic field.

2. Ad hoc Hypothesis

An ad hoc hypothesis is the paranormal and religion, is some idea which is one
created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory. Ad hoc
hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudo scientists
Sometimes an ad hoc hypothesis is very vague, like claiming whenever reality fails to
conform to religious expectations. Other times, an ad hoc hypothesis can be very
specific, like when a psychic claims that an experiment fails because of all of the
"negative energy" being given off by skeptics. Meaning that experiments can only be
performed when the skeptics are gone and true believers remain very convenient.
 For example is extrasensory perception, it is perception occurring
independently of sight, hearing, or other sensory processes, researchers have been
known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing
pointer readings on sensitive instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it
impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. Being able to duplicate an
experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Of course, if this objection is taken
seriously, then no experiment on ESP can ever fail. Whatever the results, one can
always say they were caused by paranormal psychic forces, either the ones being
tested or others not being tested.

3. “seeing is seeing as”

Said to mean that if you see something yourself, you will believe it to exist or be
true, despite the fact that it is extremely unusual or unexpected. In other words, to
recognize something that is not just to have an experience, on whatever means, nor is
it just to have a feeling. It is not just

4. Correct Logic

Correct Logic is the study of arguments which is used in most intellectual

activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and
computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which
forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. Logic is the
study of reasoning --- the nature of good or correct reasoning and of bad or incorrect
reasoning. Its focus is the method or process by which an argument unfolds, not
whether any arbitrary statement or series of statements is true or accurate. Logicians
study and analyze arguments, premises, inferences, propositions, conditional
statements, and symbolic forms.
5. Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon

The hundredth monkey phenomenon refers to a sudden spontaneous and

mysterious leap of consciousness achieved when an allegedly "critical mass" point is
reached. Generally, it means the instant, paranormal spreading of an idea or ability to
the remainder of a population once a certain portion of that population has heard of the
new idea or learned the new ability. For example, one monkey taught another to wash
sweet potatoes who taught another who taught another and soon all the monkeys on
the island were washing potatoes where no monkey had ever washed potatoes before.
When the "hundredth" monkey learned to wash potatoes, suddenly and spontaneously
and mysteriously monkeys on other islands, with no physical contact with the potato-
washing cult, started washing potatoes.