syllogism

(sldzm)
n
1. (Logic) a deductive inference consisting of two premises and a conclusion, all of which are categorial prop
ositions.The subject of the conclusion is the minor term and its predicate the major term; the middle term
occurs in bothpremises but not the conclusion. There are 256 such arguments but only 24 are valid. Some m
en are mortal; somemen are angelic; so some mortals are angelic is invalid, while some temples are in ruins;
all ruins are fascinating; sosome temples are fascinating is valid. Here fascinating, in ruins, and temples are r
espectively major, middle, and minorterms
2. (Logic) a deductive inference of certain other forms with two premises, such as the hypothetical syllogis
m,if Pthen Q; if Q then R; so if P then R
3. (Logic) a piece of deductive reasoning from the general to the particular
4. (Logic) a subtle or deceptive piece of reasoning
[C14: via Latin from Greek sullogismos, from sullogizesthai to reckon together, from sul- syn- + logizesthai to calcul
ate, fromlogos a discourse]

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse
dixit, testimonials [form of])
Definition: 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.
Logical Form:
According to person 1, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
Example #1:
My 5th grade teacher once told me that girls will 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.
Explanation: Even if the 5th grade teacher were an expert on relationships, her belief about what makes
girls go crazy for boys is speculative, or perhaps circumstantial, at best.
Example #2:

The Pope told me that priests can turn bread and wine into Jesus body and blood. The Pope is not a
liar. Therefore, priests really can do this.
Explanation: The Pope may believe what he says, and perhaps the Pope is not a liar, but the Pope is not an
authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed into Jesus body and blood. After all,
how much flesh and blood does this guy Jesus actually have to give?
Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority
on the facts of the argument. In the above example, if Jesus testified that this was actually happening, I
guess wed have to believe him. The above example demonstrates the kind of subtle difference in being an
authority on theidea of transubstantiation vs. the actual effectiveness of transubstantiation.
Tip: Question authority -- or become the authority that people look to for answers.
Variation: Testimonials are statements from, authorities, in the sense that they are said to know about
what they are testifying to. In business, vendor-provided testimonials should not be taken too seriously as
they can easily be exceptions to the norm or just made up -- as in, John G. from Ohio says...

NON SEQUITUR
(also known as: derailment, that does not follow, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support,
argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of])
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be
when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
Logical Form:
Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for Claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:
People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in
homes would be a great idea!
Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the
premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their
homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldnt flood their houses.
Example #2:

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.
Explanation: I bet Phil makes one heck of a burger, but it does not follow that he should be President.
Exception: There really is no exceptions to this rule. Any good argument must have a conclusion that
follows from the premises.
Tip: One of the best ways to expose non sequiturs is by constructing a valid analogy that exposes the
absurdity in the argument.
Variations: There are many forms of non sequiturs including argument by scenario, where an irrelevant
scenario is given in an attempt to support the conclusion. Other forms use different rhetorical devices that
are irrelevant to the conclusion.
False or questionable premises could be seen as errors in facts, but they can also lead to the conclusion not
following, so just keep that in mind, as well.

Irrelevant Conclusion
(ignoratio elenchi )
Definition:
An argument which purports to prove one thing instead proves a different
conclusion.
Examples:
i. You should support the new housing bill. We can't continue to see people
living in the streets; we must have cheaper housing. (We may agree that
housing s important even though we disagree with the housing bill.)
ii. I say we should support affirmative action. White males have run the
country for 500 years. They run most of government and industry today. You
can't deny that this sort of discrimination is intolerable. (The author has
proven that there is discrimination, but not that affirmative action will end
that discrimination.)
Proof:

Show that the conclusion proved by the author is not the conclusion that the
author set out to prove.

I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to

establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.
A.Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the
fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it
occurred after that event.
A.I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal
connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth
in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."
B.Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency;
therefore Republicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental
generalizations need not always be causal relations.
B.Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active
area of inquiry in the philosophy of science.
C.Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy
of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the
general category of "false cause."
II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.
Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.
Event x caused event y.
or
Events of kind x are followed by events of kind y.
Events of kind x cause events of kind y.

III. Examples of false cause:

"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors
beer company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large
quantities of Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so
supposedly non-intoxicating, at his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff
was insidiously marinating his mind; and as a result he has been unable to finish

writing his second novel. The author may have a point. But we have to wonder
whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of product
liability suits." Wall Street Journal (02.14.79).
There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, theJournal's, is tongue-incheek

"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."

(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)

"Dear ABBY: If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her
head, she should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her
head every night. (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her
pillow.) I started losing my hair after the birth of my child. My grandmother gave
me this remedy and it worked. Index Journal (02.01.80).

"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV

crime shows such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for
'diseasing his mind and impairing his behavior controls.' 'Without the influence of
television ... there would not have been any crime,' Rubin argued." Index
Journal (08.13.77).

"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was
an instrument of the devil. But others pointed out that, according to Moslem
doctrine, the devil is incapable of reciting the Koran. When several verses of the
Koran were recited and heard over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the
instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street Journal (11.11.79).

"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are
reports in the media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy
athletes. There are many causes of chest pain in children. The most common
cause is called idiopathic chest pain. Idiopathic means the cause is unknown.

One can only call chest pain idiopathic after they have ruled out other causes."
Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index Journal (n.d.).
Establishing causality in science is difficult. Usually if all A's are followed by B's then
one suspect that A caused B. But even this generalization could be a coincidence. For
the most part, causality is no longer used in science; correlation is sought instead.
I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering certain
exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of
converse accident is the opposite of accident.
A.Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the
basis of only a few examples.
A.E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage drivers
are really pathetic."
B. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view that boys have

greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was four, my father taught

me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled in mathematics ever since.
My conclusion? The males who grew up with a high aptitude for math are
not spending enough time with their daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese,
"Letters," Time 117, No. 1 (January 4, 1981), 6.
B.The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly selected
evidence
A.E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in Greenwood on Friday
night, and they all stated they would rather be there than watching TV. I
conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't like to watch TV on Friday
night."
B.E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had
its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in South Carolina are not
trained to drive very well."
C. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many instances of a

class must be observed before one can be really sure? Having experienced
two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in making a generalization
about woman-drivers? (For too many men, a sampling of two seems to
justify such a generalization. Women, of course, never make this sort of
error.)"
[James L. Christian, Philosophy (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich,1998), ]
D. As legislators, women make a difference. They are far more likely to

identify problems of gender bias, and we know this firsthand. Cokie's mom,
Lindy Goggs, served 18 years in Congress and authored legislation banning
discrimination against women in bank lending practices.
[Cokie Roberts and Steve Roberts, "Women Are Flexing Their Political
Muscles," Index-Journal 94 No. 153 (September 30, 2012), 11A.]
C.Converse accident, as with other fallacies, is determinable in context, and the

argument sometimes has to be reconstructed:

"[T]he [P]resident [commented] last February: One of the proudest things in my
three years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the
world. In light of the uprising that included the burning of American flags in the
Middle East and the murder of Americans in Libya, that's one more broken
promise that can be added to a growing list."
[Cal Thomas, "Distractions and Diversions," Index-Journal 94 Vol. 146
(September 24, 2012), 8A.]
Two tragic events are cited in support of generalization that the President
is not helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world. Since
these two examples are not particularly atypical examples, this converse accident
is also a weak inductive argument because they do lend some probability to the
unstated implicit or enthymematic conclusion.
D.Fallacies of converse accident and hasty generalization are sometimes difficult
to distinguish.
A.Converse accident occurs when a generalization about all instances of a
kind is based on either too few examples which are not known to be typical
or based on instances of a different kind, whereas false cause occurs when
the conclusion of a causal relation is based on a correlation in time or
circumstance. The generalization in converse accident need not be causal,
and the causal relation in false cause need not be general.
a. E.g., "There's nothing you can't get used to. Just think about all the

unpleasant things you've accepted as ordinary, like wading through

traffic or dealing with a bad-tempered relative or coworker."
[Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, The Joy of Living(New York: Harmony
Books, 2007), 44.]
The argument is that since you got used to a few ordinary annoying
situations, the conclusion then follows that you can get used to anything.
Since the conclusion is not a causal generalization, the argument is
converse accident rather than false cause.
b. E.g., "[T]he market as a rule does better under Democratic presidents

than their counterparts. Certainly, the last four years proves the point."
[Robert E. Anderson, "Mailbag: Earnings and
Interest," Barron's (November 12, 2012) 92 No. 46, 50.]
The last four years refers to the first Barack Obama administration when
the stock market rose about 20% and the correlation is being suggested
between a Democratic President and an improving market. The general
conclusion is said to follow from this one correlation that the stock
market does better under Democratic leadership than it does under
Republican leadership. Since no causal relation is explicitly being
asserted in the conclusion, the better identification of this fallacy is
converse accident.
B. When the conclusion about a causal generalization is reached from a

premise or from premises involving one or more atypical correlations or

atypical causal relations either fallacy may be said to occur.
E.g., "A balanced, healthy diet is the best remedy for disease in general. I
have a cousin who is a breast cancer survivor, and she now consumes juiced
fruits and vegetables in enormous quantities to keep herself healthy, and so
far her cancer has stayed in complete remission."
[Karen Lee, "Restoring Your Inner Balance -- How to Stop the Aging
Process in its Tracks," Pick the Brain,
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/restoring-your-inner-balance-how-tostop-the-aging-process-in-its-tracks/, accessed April 8, 2012.]
The conclusion that the remedy for all diseases is affected by a good diet is
based on the reason cited of a cousin whose healthy diet has kept her cancer
in remission. This example can be identified as either converse accident or
false cause since a causal relation of remedying all diseases is concluded
from the correlation or causal relation of one person remedying one disease.

HASTY GENERALIZATION
(also known as: argument from small numbers, statistics of small numbers, insufficient statistics,
unrepresentative sample [form of], argument by generalization, faulty generalization, hasty conclusion
[form of], inductive generalization, insufficient sample, lonely fact fallacy, over generality, over
generalization)
Description: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are

much more in line with the typical or average situation.

Logical Form:
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S.
Example #1:
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine.
Therefore, smoking really cant be that bad for you.
Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health
risks of smoking by the case study of one man.
Example #2:
Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand. Therefore, it must be
great.
Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random sampling of 1000
dentists were polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four out of five result was not
necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey, it just happened to be a statistical anomaly common
among small samples.
Exception: When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion
formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing. For example, if
you are strolling in the desert with a friend, and he goes to pet a cute snake, gets bitten, then dies instantly,
it would not be fallacious to assume the snake is poisonous.
Tip: Dont base decisions on small sample sizes when much more reliable data exists.
Variation: The hasty conclusion is leaping to a conclusion without carefully considering the alternatives -- a
tad different than drawing a conclusion from too small of a sample.

CIRCULAR REASONING
circulus in demonstrando
(also known as: paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and consequence, circular
definition [form of])

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported
by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy
is often quite humorous.
Logical Form:
X is true because of Y.
Y is true because of X.
Example #1:
Pvt. Joe Bowers: What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: They're... what they use to make Brawndo!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: But why do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo's got electrolytes.
Explanation: This example is from a favorite movie of mine, Idiocracy, where Pvt. Joe Bowers (played by
Luke Wilson) is dealing with a bunch of not-very-smart guys from the future. Joe is not getting any useful
information about electrolytes, no matter how hard he tries.
Example #2:
The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.
Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. This is
like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after
you wire him a good will offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in
the e-mail that reads I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can
trust this e-mail and any others that come from me. Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in
the e-mail.
Exception: Some philosophies state that we can never escape circular reasoning because the arguments
always come back to axioms or first principles, but in those cases, the circles are very large and do manage
to share useful information in determining the truth of the proposition.
Tip: Do your best to avoid circular arguments, as it will help you reason better because better reasoning is
often a result of avoiding circular arguments.
Variation: A circular definition is defining a term by using the term in the definition. Ironically, that
definition is partly guilty by my use of the term definition in the definition. Okay, I am using definition
way too much. Damn! I just did it again.
Moral Behavior: Behaving morally.

COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY

plurium interrogationum
(also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false
question)
Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one
asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy
when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a
fact.
Example #1:
How many times per day do you beat your wife?
Explanation: Even if the response is an emphatic, none!, the damage has been done. If you are hearing
this question, you are more likely to accept the possibility that the person who was asked this question is a
wife-beater, which is fallacious reasoning on your part.
Example #2:
How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school
shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more
complex question. Reactively, when one hears a question such as this, one's mind will attempt to search for
an answer to the questionwhich is actually a distraction from rejecting the implicit claim being made. It
is quite brilliant, but still fallacious.
Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted fact.
How long can one survive without water?
Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.

AMBIGUITY FALLACY
(also known as: amphiboly, semantical ambiguity, type-token ambiguity [form of], vagueness)
Description: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does
not support the conclusion. Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a

specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation.

Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Example #1:
It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it
began and exactly when.
Explanation: The ambiguity here is what exactly good understanding means. The conclusion assumes a
much better understanding than is suggested in the premise; therefore, we have the ambiguity fallacy.
Example #2:
All living beings come from other living beings. Therefore, the first forms of life must have come from
a living being. That living being is God.
Explanation: This argument is guilty of two cases of ambiguity. First, the first use of the phrase, come
from, refers to reproduction, whereas the second use refers to origin. The fact that we know quite a bit
about reproduction is irrelevant when considering origin. Second, the first use of, living being, refers to
an empirically verifiable, biological, living organism. The second use of, living being, refers to a belief of
an immaterial god. As you can see, when a term such as, living being, describes a Dodo bird as well as the
all-powerful master of the universe, it has very little meaning and certainly is not specific enough to draw
logical or reasonable conclusions.
Exception: Ambiguous phrases are extremely common in the English language and are a necessary part of
informal logic and reasoning. As long as these ambiguous phrases mean exactly the same thing in all uses
of phrase in the argument, this fallacy is not committed.
Variation: The type-token fallacy is committed when a word can refer to either a type (cars) or token (Prius,
RAV4, Camry) is used in a way that makes it unclear which it refers to, the statement is ambiguous.
Toyota manufactures dozens of cars.
This obviously refers to the different types of cars, not how many instances (or tokens) of each car were
manufactured.

Description of Composition
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a
whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification
provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of

which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the
characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion
regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole).
More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.
1.Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have
certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a
whole) has those characteristics.
It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a
class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always
fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the
conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth
than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that
the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of
poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and
the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.
The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded
that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there
being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning"
would be as follows:
1.The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply
because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the
whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in
math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the
number 4 is odd.
It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties
of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from
parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of
the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to
conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of
a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes
that the whole structure is made of brick.

Examples of Composition
1.A main battle tank uses more fuel than a car. Therefore, the main battle
tanks use up more of the available fuel in the world than do all the cars.
2.A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a
group, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth.
3.Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.
4."Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team
is a great team." This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able
to play together very well and hence they could be a lousy team.
5."Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a
masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece." This is fallacious since
a show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail
to "come together" to make a masterpiece.
6."Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beens, so you will like this
beef, potato, and green been casserole." This is fallacious for the same
reason that the following is fallacious: "You like eggs, icecream, pizza,
cake, fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls, and
yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all of them."
7.Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any
combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.
Description of Division
The fallacy of Division is committed when a person infers that what is true of a
whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that inference is
not provided.
There are two main variants of the general fallacy of Division:
The first type of fallacy of Division is committed when 1) a person reasons that
what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts and 2) the person fails to
justify that inference with the required degree of evidence. More formally, the
"reasoning" follows this sort of pattern:
1.The whole, X, has properties A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C, etc.
That this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear by the following case: 4 is
an even number. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore 1 and 3 are even.
It should be noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion about the
parts of a whole based on the properties of the whole. As long as adequate
evidence is provided in the argument, the the reasoning can be acceptable. For

example, the human body is made out of matter and it is reasonable to infer
from this that the parts that make up the human body are also made out of
matter. This is because there is no reason to believe that the body is made up of
non-material parts that somehow form matter when they get together.
The second version of the fallacy of division is committed when a person 1)
draws a conclusion about the properties of indvidual members of a class or
group based on the collective properties of the class or group and 2) there is not
enough justification for the conclusion. More formally, the line of "reasoning" is
as follows:
1.As a collective, Group or class X has properties A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore the individual members of group or class X have properties A,
B, C, etc.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious can be easily shown by the following: It is
true that athletes, taken as a group, are football players, track runners,
swimmers, tennis players, long jumpers, pole vaulters and such. But it would be
fallacious to infer that each individual athlets is a football player, a track runner,
a swimmer, a tennis player, a swimmer, etc.
It should be noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion about an
individual based on what is true of the class he/she/it belongs to. If the inference
is backed by evidence, then the reasoning can be fine. For example, it is not
fallacious to infer that Bill the Siamese cat is a mammal from the fact that all
cats are mammals. In this case, what is true of the class is also true of each
individual member.
Examples of Division
1."The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue."
2."A living cell is organic material, so the chemicals making up the cell
must also be organic material."
3."Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
4."Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely eaten. Therefore its
constituent elements, sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten."
5."Americans use much more electricity than Africans do. So Bill, who lives
in primitive cabin in Maine, uses more electricity than Nelson, who lives in
a modern house in South Africa. "
6."Men receive more higher education than women. Therefore Dr. Jane
Smart has less higher education than Mr. Bill Buffoon. "
7."Minorities get paid less than 'whites' in America. Therefore, the black

CEO of a multi-billion dollar company gets paid less than the white janitor
who cleans his office."

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

Ad Ignorantium
(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment,
argument from Incredulity)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.
Usually best described by, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Logical Form:
X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:
Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core
cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moons core is filled with spare ribs.
Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of
them. Now you might expect that any reasonable person would know that the moon cant be filled with
spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply
on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.
Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life;
therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is
not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able
to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or
possibility) is fallacious.
Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a
fallacy, but valid reasoning.
Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!
Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than
evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or
"against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument
is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person
presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First,
an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances,
or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person
reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the
claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of
"argument" has the following form:
1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character,
circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on
the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being
made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1.Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say
that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't
believe what you say."

APPEAL TO FORCE
argumentum ad baculum
(also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick, argument by vehemence [form of])
Description: When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to

justify a conclusion.
Logical Form:
If you dont accept X as true, I will hurt you.
Example #1:
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.
Explanation: Melvin has asked a legitimate question to which he did not get a legitimate answer, rather his
question was deflected by a threat of force (as being forced out of his job).
Example #2:
Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?
Dad: Because if you dont, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing but your
Bible!
Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that would happen.
Exception: If the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or
consequence, then it would not be fallacious, especially when a legitimate reason is given with the threat,
direct or implied.
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to wear this goofy-looking hardhat?
Boss: It is state law; therefore, company policy. No hat, no job.
Tip: Unless you are an indentured servant (slave) or still living with your parents (slave), do not allow
others to force you into accepting something as true.
Variation: Argument by vehemence is being very loud in place of being right. This is a form of force, or
basically frightening your opponent into submission.

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1.Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2.Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order
to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of
"reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong

emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated

with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about
X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for
a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at
generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a
certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking
emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such
speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because
using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for
a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible
hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim
that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be
adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the
person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases,
the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an
action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to
determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In
such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get
people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take
some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a
political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain
acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be "you
should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence" would
be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them
favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of
violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily
clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the
claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the
excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people
have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason.
Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the
power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its
great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an
important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get
them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach

presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires
them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing
inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of
argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what
inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this
fallacy.
As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to
Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be
committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to
Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a
leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to
accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an
Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be
aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In
the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the
person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her
character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences
between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve
appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept
claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on
evidence for the claims.
Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows
Appeal to Popularity
1.Most people approve of X.
2.So, I should approve of X, too.
3.Since I approve of X, X must be true.
Appeal to Emotion
1.I approve of X.
2.Therefore, X is true.
On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most
people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is
accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the emotion
of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion
1.The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If
you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and

wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power.
TangerinePower.
2.The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled
by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in
your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
3.Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about
the evils of the government and the need to throw out the peoople who are
currently in office. After hearing the speach, Bill is full of hatred for the
current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the
old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he
feels.