3 Fallacies

I. What Are Fallacies?1

Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making
mistakes that are of a factual nature. If I counted twenty people in
the room when there were in fact twenty-one, then I made a
factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are
round squares I believe something that is contradictory. A belief
in “round squares” is a mistake of reasoning and contains a
fallacy because, if my reasoning were good, I would not believe
something that is logically inconsistent with reality.

In some discussions, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind

of argument or inference. In our view, this definition of fallacy is
rather narrow, since we might want to count certain mistakes of
reasoning as fallacious even though they are not presented as
arguments. For example, making a contradictory claim seems to
be a case of fallacy, but a single claim is not an argument.
Similarly, putting forward a question with an inappropriate
presupposition might also be regarded as a fallacy, but a question
is also not an argument. In both of these situations though, the
person is making a mistake of reasoning since they are doing
something that goes against one or more principles of correct
reasoning. This is why we would like to define fallacies more
broadly as violations of the principles of critical thinking, whether
or not the mistakes take the form of an argument.

The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical

thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid
them and help explain other people’s mistakes.

There are different ways of classifying fallacies. Broadly speaking,

we might divide fallacies into four kinds:
  Fallacies of inconsistency: cases where something
inconsistent or self-defeating has been proposed or
accepted.
 Fallacies of relevance: cases where irrelevant reasons are
being invoked or relevant reasons being ignored.
 Fallacies of insufficiency: cases where the evidence
supporting a conclusion is insufficient or weak.
 Fallacies of inappropriate presumption: cases where we
have an assumption or a question presupposing something
that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant
conversational context.

II. Fallacies of Inconsistency

Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something
inconsistent, self-contradictory or self-defeating is presented.

1. Inconsistency
Here are some examples:

 “One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever

true or false.” – If there is something we know for certain,
then there is at least one truth that we know. So it can’t be
the case that nothing is true or false.
 “Morality is relative and is just a matter of opinion, and so it
is always wrong to impose our opinions on other people.” –
But if morality is relative, it is also a relative matter whether
we should impose our opinions on other people. If we should
not do that, there is at least one thing that is objectively
wrong.
 “All general claims have exceptions.” – This claim itself is a
general claim, and so if it is to be regarded as true we must
presuppose that there is an exception to it, which would
imply that there exists at least one general claim that does
not have an exception. So the claim itself is inconsistent.

2. Self-Defeating Claims
A self-defeating statement is a statement that, strictly speaking,
is not logically inconsistent but is instead obviously false.
Consider these examples:

 Very young children are fond of saying “I am not here” when

they are playing hide-and-seek. The statement itself is not
logically consistent, since it is not logically possible for the
child not to be where she is. What is impossible is to utter
the sentence as a true sentence (unless it is used for
example in a telephone recorded message.)
 Someone who says, “I cannot speak any English.”
 Here is an actual example: A TV program in Hong Kong was
critical of the Government. When the Hong Kong Chief
Executive Mr. Tung was asked about it, he replied, “I shall
not comment on such distasteful programs.” Mr. Tung’s
remark was not logically inconsistent, because what it
describes is a possible state of affairs. But it is nonetheless
self-defeating because calling the program “distasteful” is to
pass a comment!

III. Fallacies of Relevance

1. Taking irrelevant considerations into account

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant
reasons, e.g., inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion,
tradition, authority, etc. An example would be when a student
failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead,
because “his parents will be upset.” Since grades should be given
on the basis of performance, the reason being given is quite
irrelevant.

Similarly, suppose someone criticizes the Democratic Party’s call

for direct elections in Hong Kong as follows: “These arguments
supporting direct elections have no merit because they are
advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it.” This
is again fallacious because whether the person advancing the
argument has something to gain from direct elections is a
completely different issue from whether there ought to be direct
elections.
2. Failing to Take Relevant Considerations
into Account
For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay
criticisms because we do not like them, even when those
criticisms are justified. Or sometimes we might be tempted to
make a snap decision, believing knee-jerk reactions are the best
when, in fact, we should be investigating the situation more
carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we

are ignorant of it, then this lack of knowledge does not constitute
a fallacy.

IV. Fallacies of Insufficiency

Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is
provided in support of a claim. Most common fallacies fall within
this category. Here are a few popular types:

1. Limited Sampling
 Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the
age of 96. He said he ate instant noodles every day. So
instant noodles cannot be bad for your health.
 A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a
traffic accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.

In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but

a lot more data is needed to support the conclusion, e.g., studies
show that many other people who eat instant noodles live longer,
and those who encounter black cats are more likely to suffer from
accidents.

2. Appeal to Ignorance
 We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he
must be guilty.
If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence
showing that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to
point either way, so a lack of evidence is not enough to prove
guilt.

3. Naturalistic Fallacy
 Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not
stop them from playing.

Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency.

Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient for normative
conclusions, even if they are relevant.

There are many other kinds of fallacy of insufficiency. See if you

can identify some of them.

V. Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption

Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have
explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable
to accept in the relevant context. Some examples include:

 Many people like to ask whether human nature is good or

evil. This presupposes that there is such a thing as human
nature and that it must be either good or bad. But why
should these assumptions be accepted, and are they the
only options available? What if human nature is neither good
nor bad? Or what if good or bad nature applies only to
individual human beings?
 Consider the question “Have you stopped being an idiot?”
Whether you answer “yes” or “no,” you admit that you are,
or have been, an idiot. Presumably you do not want to make
any such admission. We can point out that this question has
a false assumption.
 “Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because by
definition a marriage should be between a man and a
woman.” This argument assumes that only a heterosexual
conception of marriage is correct. But this begs the question
against those who defend same-sex marriages and is not an
appropriate assumption to make when debating this issue.
VI. List of Common Fallacies
ad hominem

A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or

lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for
it. Example:

A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so

that workers are not exploited.
B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good
job.

ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of

evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is to
argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against
their existence. At first sight it seems that many theories that we
describe as “scientific” involve such a fallacy. For example, the
first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not
been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against
it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law,
namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not
apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one
has already been falsified. In situations such as this, we may
justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find
evidence for or against it.

ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens

when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their
need, e.g., a student argues that the teacher should let them pass
the examination because they need it in order to graduate. Of
course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain
conditions, as in contexts involving charity.

ad populum (appeal to popularity)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its
popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many
commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that
we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of
a sales rank, or because the brand is the city’s “favorite.”

Affirming the consequent

Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true

that if P is true, Q is true.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the

possibility that there are other conditions apart from P that might
lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may
be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being
a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be
late due to a faulty alarm clock.

Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most

likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to
be true without committing a fallacy.

Begging the question (petito principii)

In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the

premise. Example: “God exists because this is what the Bible
says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God.”

Complex question or loaded question

A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what

answer they give to the question, will inevitably commit
themselves to some other claim, which should not be
presupposed in the context in question.

A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people

into agreeing to something they never intended to say. For
example, if you are asked, “Are you still as self-centered as you
used to be?”, no matter whether you answer “yes” or ”no,” you
are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past. Of
course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the
presupposition of the question were indeed accepted in the
conversational context, i.e., that the person being asked the
question had been verifiably self-centered in the past.

Composition (opposite of division)

The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts.

Anne might be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person
to invite to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and
David, considered individually. But it does not follow that it will be
a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate
each other and the party will be ruined.

Denying the antecedent

Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but

P is false.

This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause
might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition
might be sufficient to make Q true.

Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for

work. But it is not right to argue in the light of smooth traffic that
the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have
stopped working.

Division (opposite of composition)

The parts of a whole are assumed to have the same properties as

the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is very
effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be
inappropriate to assume they all are.

Equivocation

Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning

without having it pointed out. For example, some philosophers
argue that all acts are selfish. Even if you strive to serve others,
you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your
desire to serve others. But surely the word “selfish” has different
meanings in the premise and the conclusion – when we say a
person is selfish we usually mean that he does not strive to serve
others. To say that a person is selfish because he is doing
something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others,
is to use the term “selfish” with a different meaning.

False dilemma

Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that

are worth considering in the context. Example: “Every person is
either my enemy or my friend. If they are my enemy, I should
hate them. If they’re my friend, I should love them. So I should
either love them or hate them.” Obviously, the conclusion is too
extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your
friend.

Gambler’s fallacy

Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as

dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, for example,
if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads,
then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be,
however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely
independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact
that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known
already, the statistics would have been dependent.

Genetic fallacy

Thinking that because X derives from Y, and because Y has a

certain property, that X must also possess that same property.
Example: “His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no
good.”

Non sequitur
A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This
is not a specific fallacy but a very general term for a bad
argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said
to be non sequitur.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (literally, “after this, therefore

because of this”)

Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed

by Y.

For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that
graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course, this
inference is not warranted since this might just be a coincidence.
However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

Red herring

Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised that diverts

attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is
sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red
herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the
argument in a very misleading manner.

For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone

might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to
many people’s lives. This would be an example of a red herring
since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is
irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The positive
psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the
belief is true.

Slippery slope

Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1, then

they have to accept some other closely related claim C 2, which in
turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C 3, eventually
leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to
something absurd or obviously unacceptable.
This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is
inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim, one
must accept all the other claims.

An example: “The government should not prohibit drugs.

Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes.
And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated too.
The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush
our teeth and do exercises every day.”

Straw man

Attacking an opponent while falsely attributing to them an

implausible position that is easily defeated.

Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong

Kong, a typical “straw man” reply is to say that more democracy
is not warranted because it is wrong to believe that democracy is
the solution to all of Hong Kong’s problems. But those who
support more democracy in Hong Kong never suggest that
democracy can solve all problems (e.g., pollution), and those who
support more democracy in Hong Kong might even agree
that blindly accepting anything is rarely the correct course of
action, whether it is democracy or not. Theses criticisms attack
implausible “straw man” positions and do not address the real
arguments for democracy.

Suppressed evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence

is presented.

VII. Exercises
Identify any fallacy in each of these passages. If no fallacy is
committed, select “no fallacy involved.”

1. Mr. Lee’s views on Japanese culture are wrong. This is because

his parents were killed by the Japanese army during World War II
and that made him anti-Japanese all his life.

2. Every ingredient of this soup is tasty. So this must be a very

tasty soup.

3. Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and

he died of lung cancer.

4. Professor Lewis, the world authority on logic, claims that all

wives cook for their husbands. But the fact is that his own wife
does not cook for him. Therefore, his claim is false.

5. If Catholicism is right, then no women should be allowed to be

priests. But Catholicism is wrong. Therefore, some women should
be allowed to be priests.
6. God does not exist because every argument for the existence
of God has been shown to be unsound.

7. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of
vitamin C. On each occasion, the cold cleared up within a few
days. So vitamin C helped me recover from colds.

8. The union’s case for more funding for higher education can be
ignored because it is put forward by the very people – university
staff – who would benefit from the increased money.

9. Children become able to solve complex problems and think of

physical objects objectively at the same time that they learn
language. Therefore, these abilities are caused by learning a
language.

10. If cheap things are no good then this cheap watch is no good.
But this watch is actually quite good. So some good things are
cheap.
1 This chapter is taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and is
in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications
have been made to the original content.