Prepared by Ace S.

Gutierrez
Media and Information Literacy
 Aristotle not only showed what arguments are valid,
but he also showed invalid arguments that he called
contentious or sophistical arguments. Sophistical
arguments are arguments that only establish a
conclusion that takes the form of an argument that is
apparent but not genuine, or an argument that is
simply not acceptable. When arguments appear
apparent but are not genuine, they are deceiving and
invalid. In contrast, arguments that are not acceptable
are so because they are a matter or opinion or belief.
 For example, the argument of "Whatever you have not lost,
you have. You have not lost horns. Therefore, you still have
horns" is not accepted by a reader and is therefore a
sophistical argument (Smith, 2011).
 In his Sophistical Refutations (de Sophisticis Elenchis),
Aristotle identified thirteen logical fallacies where logic is
invalid. His linguistic fallacies include Accent, Amphiboly,
Equivocation, Composition, Division, and Figure of
Speech, while his non-linguistic fallacies include Accident,
Affirming the Consequent, In a Certain Respect and
Simply, Ignorance of Refutation, Begging the Question,
False Cause, and Many Questions ("Aristotle's 13 fallacies";
"Aristotle's 13 fallacies", 2009).
 Fallacies dependent on Language (De Soph Elen 4,
165b24-166b28)
 Accent
 Amphiboly (or Ambiguity)
 Composition (or Combination)
 Division
 Equivocation (or Homonymy)
 Figure of Speech (or Form of expression)
 Fallacies outside of language (De Soph Elen 5, 166b28-
168a18)
 Accident
 Affirming the Consequent
 The use of words absolutely or in a certain respect
 Ignorance of refutation (Misconception of refutation)
 Begging the question
 Non causa pro causa (False Cause)
 Complex question (or Many questions)
 The Accent fallacy is where a rhetorician places an accent, or
emphasis, in a statement that gives a different meaning than if
the word were used alone. In this case, the emphasis puts a
spotlight on a word to direct attention to it, implying
importance. The Accent fallacy can be unintentional because of
dialect's emphasis on words, but it can be intentional to show a
rhetorician’s true intentions of selecting a certain word.
 For example, "I wonder if you really want to do this."
 The accent on “want” suggests that the individual in question
wants to do the activity in question (“Aristotle's 13 fallacies”). In
Greek especially, the Accent fallacy was very important because
written words with the same spelling could have more than one
way to pronounce them and, in turn, more than one meaning
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies", 2009).
 The Amphiboly fallacy is where a rhetorician composes a
sentence that has multiple meanings where the meaning
that the rhetorician intends is not clear.
 For example, "young men and women" used in a sentence
does not specify if the rhetorician is talking about young
men, young women, or both young men and young women.
 This causes confusion in the reader. When used
intentionally, however, it may be incorporated to make the
reader confused and to suggest something subconsciously
(“Aristotle's 13 fallacies”).
 The Composition fallacy is where a rhetorician groups
unrelated items as being related with general attributes
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”). In essence, when a writer guesses
that something is true of the whole when it is true of only
part of the whole (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009).
 For example, "A car creates less pollution than a bus.
Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than
buses"(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies", 2009).
 In the Composition fallacy, induction is used inaccurately
to generalize when there is no logical rationale for doing so.
Often, the Composition fallacy roots from stereotyping
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The Division fallacy is when a rhetorician makes a general
assumption that all parts of a system have what the whole system
has simply because they are part of the whole system.
 For example, "Cars go fast. A seat is part of a car, so seats go
fast."
 In the Division fallacy, the characteristics assumed of the group
may not be true or applicable for all parts of the group. Similar to
the Composition fallacy, the Division fallacy is much like a
stereotype of generalizations that cannot be logically proven.
However, where the Composition fallacy uses induction
inaccurately, the Division fallacy uses deduction inaccurately
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same
name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a
particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an
argument leading to a false conclusion. (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”,
2009).
 Since only man [human] is rational, and no woman is a man [male],
therefore, no woman is rational.
 A feather is light [not heavy]. What is light [bright] cannot be
dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In the above example, distinct meanings of the word "light" are
implied in contexts of the first and second statements.
 All jackasses have long ears. Carl is a jackass. Therefore, Carl
has long ears.
Here, the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to
imply a simple-minded or obnoxious person instead of a male
donkey.
 The Figure of Speech fallacy is when a rhetorician includes
different words, specifically crucial in Greek or Latin, that
have different cases or genders although the endings are of
the same case or gender (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009).
 For example, "Since the opposite of immobile is mobile, then
the opposite of inflammable is flammable.'
 In this case, the word structures are similar because they
are synonymous. Despite this, they are not the opposites
and are thus invalid (Hughes, 2011).
 The Accident fallacy is when a rhetorician uses a general
rule to explain a specific case where such a rule is not
applicable in the case.
 For example, " You can't go there, Mr. President. Nobody is
allowed in."
 In the Accident fallacy, a general rule is assumed to have a
broader scope than reasonable or the rule is mismatched
with the case (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The Affirming the Consequent fallacy is when a rhetorician
tries to argue backwards from a valid conclusion and to the
truth to one of the propositions in the valid conclusion
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009).
 For example, "If you are cheating on me, you will be out of the
house a lot. You are out of the house a lot, so you must be
cheating on me."
 In the Affirming the Consequent fallacy, it is assumed that
"If A, then B" and vice versa (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The In a Certain Respect and Simply fallacy is when a
rhetorician uses a characteristic or aspect relative to a
certain area, assumes that it can be applied to a larger area,
and then applies it to such wrongly.
 For example, "There is money in my pocket, so there is always
money in my pocket."
 Assumptions are typically made of things in context, but in
this fallacy, such assumptions go beyond the area
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The Ignorance of Refutation fallacy is when a rhetorician
strays from his or her conclusion. They give a valid
argument and conclusion, but the conclusion they come to
is not relevant to their argument.
 For example, "There has been an increase in burglary in the
area. It must be because there are more people moving into
the area."
 Often, those who want to prove an argument but do not
know how to use this fallacy to come to their destined
conclusion, where passion and authority strengthen the
effectiveness towards an audience when they are not closely
following the argument (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The Begging the Question fallacy is when a rhetorician
assumes that the truth of a topic within the premise of such
a topic and never proves the topic in the argument. It can
occur through a statement or set of statements that circle
around to "prove" the statement true. A common variant of
Begging the Question is that if a topic is not wrong, then it
is right.
 For example, "You are not bad. Therefore, you must be good."
 The Begging the Question fallacy takes the form of an
unproven position to try to prove the position stated and is
rooted in assumptions that are never quite proven
(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
 The False Cause fallacy is when a rhetorician states that one
thing causes another thing when there is either no
correlation between the two things or a very faint
correlation. The False Cause fallacy is just that - a mistaken
false cause.
 For example, "It is dark now, which makes it very dangerous."
 In this case, the darkness is not the thing that causes
danger. While cause-and-effect reasoning can lead a
rhetorician to a valid argument, that is only if the causal
relationship is found and argued correctly. Correlation, on
the contrary, is fallacious because it does not necessarily
mean that it is the cause of something (“Aristotle’s 13
fallacies”).
 The Many Questions fallacy is when a rhetorician asks multiple
questions either connected to the argument or completely
unrelated.
 For example, "When and where will you expect me to be and
how often do you want this to happen and what will be the
time of day and which weeks?"
 Since listeners have a limited capacity for understanding
complex or multiple questions at once, the Many Questions
fallacy causes confusion in the reader, prompting them to either
answer nothing or answer partially, which lets the rhetorician
answer the question in the way they wish or simply move on.
 With disconnected questions, the reader not only tries to
remember them but also tries to understand them so they can
connect them to the broader theme of the argument.
 A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is
flawed, essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not
the entire argument, invalid.
 Flaws in an argument
 An inconsistency in your logical appeal (logos)
 Lowers your credibility (ethos)
 Ethos is an appeal to ethics, and it is a means of convincing
someone of the character or credibility of the persuader.
 Pathos is an appeal to emotion, and is a way of convincing an
audience of an argument by creating an emotional response.
 Logos is an appeal to logic, and is a way of persuading an audience
by reason.
 You often times see logical fallacies used in politics and
advertising and sometimes in everyday conversations.
 In using reasoning as support for a claim in an argument, a
fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect,
which undermines an argument's logical validity and leads
to a recognition of an argument being unsound.
 Regardless of their lack of soundness, all registers and
manners of speech can demonstrate the usage of fallacies.
 Hasty Generalization
(also Faulty Syllogism)
 Drawing conclusion on the basis of insufficient or
unrepresented evidence.
 “Everybody agrees…”
 “nobody like…”
 “most people care…”
 Deaths from drug overdoses in Metropolis have doubled over the last three
years. Therefore, more Americans than ever are dying from drug abuse.
 My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and
lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for
you.
 Non Sequitur
(also Does Not Follow)
 A conclusion that does not follow logically from
preceding statements or that is based on irrelevant data.
 Mary loves children, so she will make an excellent school
teacher.
 People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have
sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great
idea!
 Buddy Burger has the greatest food in town. Buddy Burger was
voted #1 by the local paper. Therefore, Phil, the owner of Buddy
Burger, should run for president of the United States.
 Petitio Principii
(also Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning)
 An argument in which the writer, instead of applying
evidence simply restates the point in other language.
 Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can
only be described as paranormal activity.
 People like to eat because we are biologically influenced to eat.
 Students should not be allowed to park in lots now reserved for
faculty because those lots should be for faculty only.
 Argumentum Ad Populum
(also Bandwagon Fallacy)
 A claim that an idea should be accepted because a large
number of people favor it or believe it to be true.
 How could you not believe in virgin births? Roughly two billion
people believe in them, don’t you think you should reconsider
your position?
 Everyone is saying that this is the right thing to do so I am going
to push it even if it hurts.
 I have seen a number of people lose weight because of this
program. I think it is worth the try.
 Argumentum Ad Hominem
(also Attacking the Person)
 Attacking the person making the argument, rather than
the argument itself, when the attack on the person is
completely irrelevant to the argument the person is
making.
 My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea --
this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s
each night!
 Tony wants us to believe that the origin of life was an
“accident”. Tony is a godless SOB who has spent more time in jail
than in church, so the only information we should consider from
him is the best way to make license plates.
 Argumentum Ad Baculum
(also Appeal to Force)
 The ad baculum fallacy is committed whenever the
proponent of an argument attempts to persuade the
audience to accept the conclusion… by predicting (or
causing) unpleasant consequences if it is not accepted.
 You ought to vote for Senator Gulch, because if you don’t, I’ll
burn your house down.
 Melvin: Boss, why do I have to work weekends when nobody else in the
company does?
 Boss: Am I sensing insubordination? I can find another employee very
quickly, thanks to Craigslist, you know.
 Argumentum Ad Misericordiam
(also Appeal to Pity)
 Ad Misericordiam is an appeal to accept the truth of a
conclusion out of pity for the arguer or some third party.
Either the arguer (or someone else) is already an object
of pity, or they will become one if the conclusion is not
accepted.
 If I don’t get at least a B in this course my GPA will drop below
2.0. If that happens I’ll lose my scholarship and have to quit
school, so I ought to get a B in this course.
 Let's not smack Spot for ransacking the neighbor's kitchen—he's
just too damn cute!
 Cherry Picking
(also Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence)
 When only select evidence is presented in order to
persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence
that would go against the position is withheld. The
stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the
argument.
 My political candidate gives 10% of his income to the needy, goes
to church every Sunday, and volunteers one day a week at a
homeless shelter. Therefore, he is honest and morally straight.
 It says here on your resume that you are a hard worker, you pay
attention to detail, and you don’t mind working long hours.
 Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
(also Appeal to Authority)
 Using an authority as evidence in your argument when
the authority is not really an authority on the facts
relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an
irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being
made.
 My 5th-grade teacher once told me that girls would go crazy for
boys if they learn how to dance. Therefore, if you want to make
the ladies go crazy for you, learn to dance.
 The Pope told me that priests could turn bread and wine into
Jesus’ body and blood. The Pope is not a liar. Therefore, priests
really can do this.
 Tu Quoque
(also “You Too” Fallacy, Hypocrisy)
 Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that
the one making the argument is not acting consistently
with the claims of the argument.
 Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically
proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.
 Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.
 Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet
he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual
immorality is acceptable.
 We are a part of a society that can easily be swayed by
appeals, and often times, we make decisions based on
what appeals to us never minding if they are
argumentatively flawed or biased.
 To become a critical thinker, one must follow the logic of
an argument or a suggestion, analyze them before
making considerations.
 Once you’ve learned to filter valid arguments from
invalid ones, it is easier to make sound judgments and
validate your truth according to that which is logically
acceptable.