Fallacy: Its Kinds and Life-Based Examples

The Term of Fallacy

The fallacy is defined as the type of argument that seems to be correct but which contain a mistake in reasoning and the fallacy may be formal or informal. When the premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion then this type of argument is known as fallacious. It also means that “any error in reasoning that nullifies the argument” is a fallacy.

Classification of Fallacy

There are the kinds of fallacies in an argument:

• Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of defective induction
• Fallacies of presumption
• Fallacies of ambiguity

Fallacies of Presumption

In the fallacy of presumption, too much is assumed in the premises. It means that any argument which a person makes is based on an assumption, rather than a proven fact. A group of informal fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument presume is what they claim to prove. The inference to the conclusion depends mistakenly on these unwarranted assumptions. Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.

When Does Fallacy of Presumption Occurs?

When the argument is based on the unproven or which is not found or unknown. It means that the argument unjustifiably presumes something to be true. Some of the mistakes in daily life reasoning are the consequence of an unjustified assumption, in which the argument is formulated. When such dubious propositions, buried in the argument, are crucial for the support of the conclusion, the argument is bad and can be very misleading. Arguments that depend on such unwarranted leaps are called fallacies of presumption.

There are three common fallacies are included in this category:

1. Accident
2. Complex Question
3. Begging the question

Accident/Sweeping Generalisation

An accident fallacy is an error or a mistake in a reasoning which is caused by sweeping generalisation. Accident fallacy of presumption is an alarming situation. An informal fallacy in which generalisation is applied to individual cases that it does not govern. Any situation or an event of critical type, that happen in such a way that moral principle rule or law is broken. A sweeping generalisation is that to apply a general rule on a specific case without proper evidence. This is a fallacy in which a generalization rule is mistakenly applied on a specific case to which the generalization does not apply. A generalization that is largely true may not apply in a given case or the rule which is a good/true but it does not applicable in all situations. The reasons the generalization does not apply in those cases have to do with the special circumstances, also called the “accidental” circumstances of the case. If these accidental circumstances are being ignored and we suppose that the generalization rule is applicable universally then we commit the fallacy of accident. Accident is the fallacy that arises when we move carelessly or unjustifiably from a generalization to some particulars that it does not in fact cover. An accident fallacy is such a generalization to draw an incorrect conclusion about an obvious exception.

Examples:

• A good example of an accident fallacy could be assuming that ‘birds can fly’ applies to all birds, and therefore arguing or believing that a penguin can fly. On the other hand, the statement that birds can fly is not false because most birds can fly and the penguins are an exception. Penguins are those birds which cannot fly and it would be logically fallacious to conclude otherwise based on the premise ‘birds can fly.’
• The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to free speech. However, the courts have ruled that this right is not absolute. For example, the Supreme Court generally refuses to give obscenity any protection under the First Amendment. And arguing that the right to free speech is protected, therefore I am free to shout an obscenity anytime and anywhere is a fallacy of accident.
• Always speak truth is a general rule. In case, if someone want to kill your friend and ask his address from you and you tell a lie. But if you tell a truth then it falls unto category of fallacy of accident. As when general rule is misapplied in specific case is a accident fallacy.
• “A friend in need is friend indeed” is a general rule. If your friend want to suicide and you help her in this matter by applying this rule then this will falls in the category of accident fallacy. As the general rule is misapplied in the specific case.
• It is wrong to cut people with knives and it is supported by law and we also don't disagree. While, surgeons use scalpels to cut people every day and this is both legal and moral. In this case, it would be wrong to argue that surgery is wrong or illegal based on the statement that it’s wrong to cut people with knives. Surgery is an obvious exception and we know that.

How to Avoid an Accident Fallacy?

To avoid an accident fallacy requires that person should think critically about generalized statements. Do not accept them at face value; be sure to really think about whether they apply to that situation or not. Most of the general statements have exceptions. Don’t assume a general statement is always true unless you have proved it.

Fallacy of Complex Question

It essentially is the kind of paradox in which the response to the inquiry is as of now underestimated in the wrapping up or you may state that the appropriate response is itself covered profound into the inquiry. A mind boggling question is an error in which the response to a given inquiry assumes an earlier response to an earlier inquiry. Otherwise called a stacked inquiry, a trap question, a main inquiry, the misrepresentation of the bogus inquiry, and the false notion of numerous inquiries

At the point when a few inquiries are joined into one, so that a yes-or-no answer is required, the individual they are asked of gets no opportunity to give separate answers to each, and the error of the unpredictable inquiry is submitted. An inquiry that has a presupposition implicit, which suggests something however shields the one making the inquiry from allegations of false cases. It is a type of misdirecting talk, and it is a paradox when the group of onlookers does not recognize the expected data understood in the inquiry and acknowledges it as a reality.

Examples:

• Did John ever give up his bad habits? It is the unasked inquiry whose answer is accepted being referred to. We have to retain any response to address until this earlier inquiry has been settled. In certain occurrences of this false notion, significant battle might be vital so as to free ourselves from the deceptive impact of a mind boggling question.
• Have you stopped cheating in exams? This contention is generally planned to trap the respondent into recognizing something that the person in question may some way or another not have any desire to recognize.
• Have you stopped smoking? Answering the question in either of the ways, that is yes or No makes it admit the person that he is a smoker.
• Did you buy the gun before or after you decided to kill your wife?

Fallacy of Begging Question

Any type of contention where the end is accepted in one of the premises. Numerous individuals utilize the expression 'making one wonder' mistakenly when they use it to signify, 'prompts one to make the inquiry'. That isn't the right use. Making one wonder is a type of roundabout thinking.

A misrepresentation is a contention dependent on unsound thinking. Making one wonder is a paradox in which a case is made and acknowledged to be valid, yet one must acknowledge the reason to be valid for the case to be valid. This is otherwise called roundabout thinking. Basically, one makes a case dependent on proof that expects one to as of now acknowledge that the case is valid.

Examples:

• Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong
• The greatest thing we can do is to love each other. Love is better than any other emotion.
• The Apple iPhone is the best smartphone on the planet because no one makes a better smartphone than Apple does. Essentially, this sentence is expressing that the iPhone is the best since it's superior to all the others. This would resemble saying something is the greatest in light of the fact that everything else is littler.
• Avatar is the greatest movie ever made because it is the number one top grossing movie of all times. Now and then, making one wonder can be genuinely self-evident. Different occasions, it may be progressively unobtrusive. The facts demonstrate that the motion picture Avatar acquired over $2.7 billion all around. In any case, it's not characteristically evident that the most elevated acquiring motion picture is innately the best motion picture. This contention begins with that presumption, and subsequently, it is indeed rehashing the case as verification of its reality.

Fallacy of Ambiguity

There are numerous kinds of improper reasoning that result from the inaccurate usage of language. An ambiguous term or expression is that which has more than one divergent meaning (for example the words that have different spellings but when uttered they sound same or the words that have dual meaning). The fallacies of ambiguity can be seen as formal fallacies, as in an argument there is always a shift, in the sense of a word or phrase. Basically, it refers to the way of speaking or accent of a person. Moreover, the disputes among the people are due to the fallacy of ambiguity as people misunderstood the meaning. In simple words, these fallacies refer to the two or more different senses of the word.

Examples:

• If we say that, The Sun is going to die. The word ‘Sun’ and ‘Son’ have the same accent so when it will be pronounced people will not be able to understand that to whom the speaker is referring whether it is sun or son.
• If we say that, it was a long tale. The listeners might get confused with words tail and tale.

Kinds of Fallacy of Ambiguity

This fallacy is further divided into the following expressions:

• Fallacy of ‘Equivocation’
• Fallacy of ‘Amphiboly’
• Fallacy of ‘Accent’
• Fallacy of ‘Division’
• Fallacy of ‘Composition’

Fallacy of ‘Equivocation’

This type of fallacy is related to language and the way of speaking. The fallacy of equivocation exists when a word or phrase is used directly or indirectly, in two dissimilar ways in the argument and the conclusion rely on this fact. The words pronounced have same sound but used differently in a statement. It also refers to the name of children that are named according to the name of things. The instance when the argument is not sound then it may have false or invalid premise.

Examples

• All triads are acute. Whoever is acute is genius. Therefore, all triads are genius. The word ‘acute’ give arise to the fallacy of ‘equivocation’. As in the former premise the word acute means the triangle less than 90 degree, and in the latter it means a person who is ‘shrewd’.
• All stars are hot giant balls of gases. Cyril is a star. Hence, Cyril is a hot giant ball of gases. Here the word star used in first premise means heavenly body or sun, whereas in the second one it means performer or actor.
• Now days, great leaders are rare. But rare movies are expensive. Therefore, thrilling novels are expensive. This argument equivocates on the word 'rare', which is used in a different way in the above two premises of the argument. In the former premise 'rare' means extraordinary, whereas in the second it means novels that are limited.
• The billboard says 'fine for parking'. A driver notices the billboard and assumes that it is fine to park his vehicle over there. This is surely a misunderstanding. The word 'fine' has been used in two diverse senses here. In the billboard 'fine' means penalty/ punishment. However the driver thought that it means 'it’s all right'.

Equivocation is a common fallacy for the reason that it is often quite complex to notice that a shift in meaning has taken place in an argument. In a wider sense, equivocation refers to the use of vague, ambiguous or unclear language, mainly when the intention is to mislead, betray or deceive an audience.

Fallacy of ‘Amphiboly’

Construction of a sentence sometimes permits it to two dissimilar meanings. Amphiboly arises when a speaker misapprehends an argument which is grammatically vague and proceeds to give fault conclusion. Ambiguity generally, arises from an error in argument due to arrangement of words, punctuation, or grammar.

Examples:

• The notice that there will be a lecture on heart attack in the assembly hall may be misinterpreted to mean that the lecture will be on heart attacks which have occurred in the assembly hall. The ambiguity, though, can be clearly evaded if the phrase 'in the assembly hall' is placed directly after 'lecture' rather than 'heart attack.'
• “If you want to avoid cancer, you’ll want to avoid the Chemistry Building; subsequently there is a lecture tonight on the causes of cancer in the Chemistry Building.” Apparently, the lecture is on the grounds of cancer, and the lecture will be given in the Chemistry Building, but that’s not clear from the sentence structure. The conclusion requires that the causes of cancer although, perhaps, not the lecture are in the Biology Building. Sometimes the words used in advertisements also contribute to the fallacy of amphiboly. That basically refers to the double meaning assertion.

Difference Between Amphiboly and Equivocation

Many people usually confuse with amphiboly and equivocation as these fallacies can be mixed up easily. Because both of these fallacies, comprises of language that can leads to the various meanings. However, the error that results from the uncertain use of grammar is called amphiboly. Whereas, when there is a shift of sense or definition in an argument it is called equivocation. These fallacies are often used in creating humor or jokes. The following examples clearly show the difference between them.

Example of Amphiboly

Yesterday, I hit a tiger in my pants. I'll never know how he gets in pants. It means that he hit the tiger when he was in pants. On the other hand, it can also be concluded that the tiger was wearing pants.

Example of Equivocation

'I don't think there will be any problem in swimming here. The signboard warns of ‘Sharks that eat man’, but I'm a woman.' Here it doesn’t consist of error in grammar but in fact the double meaning of the sentence. ‘Eating of man' commonly means eating of human, but to think that it refers to Male only give rises to the fallacy of equivocation.

Fallacy of Accent

A fallacy that refers to the misleading accent or in other words when the sense of a sentence is altered by the insertion of an unusual verbal emphasis. Moreover, the meaning of a sentence or idea is changed by the fall of an accent. Emphasis is considered important to understand the actual meaning. Generally, it confuses the listener. It can be made intentionally as well as unintentionally. Accent is basically a stress placed on a word or sentence because a word may have different meanings assigned to it and different pronunciations but same spelling; in that case the way of pronunciation can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

Example:

• 'Why are you asking me about Sarah’s assignment question? I resent her question.' In its written form, there are two meanings arising first is that the writer was distressed about the question Sarah asked and didn't want to talk about it, or that the question had been sent out again and he is waiting for a reply. The different meanings depend upon a stress or emphasis placed on the word ‘resent’.
• My husband must be cheating on me: because he said me that, 'I don't really love you now.' In this example, it depends upon placing the emphasis on the word you, therefore signifying that someone else is loved now. But if we place the stress on other words, like really or love, it can be concluded that the person is fed up of relationship and wants to part ways.
• English Teacher said that, 'Iman has done her complete homework today' with unnecessary stress on 'today', that might shows that Iman usually comes to school without completing her homework.
• Another example is that, it is said to recite Holy Quran slowly so that the words cannot get mix with each other otherwise the whole meaning will be changed.
• Two friends are discussing the acts of their third friend. One of them speaks, “I can imagine him doing that; no doubt it’s possible.” The other answers, “Yes, no doubt it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” It is merely shows the confirmation by the other friend. If, the other friend had put emphasis on ‘imagine’, then the meaning of the sentence would be change; “Yes, no doubt it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” Now, here it can be said that yes we can imagine him doing that but in reality he cannot do that.

Fallacy of Composition

This fallacy is basically, an error or mistake in thinking that what is true for one particular thing, member of class or group is true for the whole. For example if we say that: humans are made up of atoms and atoms are invisible, therefore humans are invisible. In simple words it means that drawing a conclusion from a particular thing to the general one. Moreover, if we assume that whole thing have the same qualities as one of its parts it will give rise to this fallacy because the qualities may differ.

Examples:

• Murree has a cold climate, therefore whole Pakistan has cold climate. In this statement, it is true that Murree has a cold climate but it doesn’t apply to whole of the Pakistan
• The one brick in our house weights not more than one gram. Our house is made up of bricks; therefore, our house weight is not more than one gram. In the example, the whole of the house cannot weight less than one gram so it is very obvious.
• Oxygen and hydrogen are both gases. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.  So, water or H2O is also a gas. However, we all know that water is not a gas it is in liquid form.
• Sand is made up of particles. These particles are invisible. Thus, sand is invisible.
• Chloride and sodium are poisonous chemicals. A salt is made up of sodium and chloride (Nacl). Hence, salt is a poisonous compound. However, salt is not a poisonous compound.

Fallacy of Division

The opposite of fallacy of composition is fallacy of division. The fallacy of division arises when someone assumes that what are the properties for whole of the thing is also same for its part. It generally refers to drawing conclusion from a general thing to a particular one. For instance, If we say that at Kinnaird University students study science, physics, media, urdu, English, law, chemistry, mathematics, accounting and so on. Sara is a student of Kinnaird. Therefore, Sara studies science, physics, media, Urdu, English, law, chemistry, mathematics, accounting and so on. The fallacy of composition contradict with fallacy of division as composition moves from a particular part to general whereas division moves from general to particular parts.

Examples:

• National Accountability bureau is important for the elimination of corruption. Zafar Ahmed is a member of NAB; therefore Zafar Ahmed is important for the elimination of corruption.
• Car is a very heavy vehicle. Tires are the part of car, therefore; tires of the car are very heavy.
• Sand is a ‘nontoxic’ and nonpoisonous compound. It is made up of silicon dioxide; thus, its element silicon dioxide is nontoxic and nonpoisonous.
• America is about 200 years old. Jessica is an American woman. Hence, Jesica is 200 years old.

Conclusion

Fallacy is basically a sentence that seems to be accurate. However it contains mistakes in it. The fallacy can be formal or informal. Formal fallacy is related to structure of an argument whereas informal deals with the language. The most common fallacies are the fallacy of presumption and ambiguity. These provide us to detect an error in our arguments. Both of these are subdivided into different kinds. Fallacy of presumption consists of accident, begging a question and a complex question. Whereas, fallacy of ambiguity consists of equivocation, accent, amphiboly, division and composition.