ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACIES: CHARACTERISTICS, TYPES AND EXAMPLES - PHILOSOPHY - 2025

The Argumentative fallacies are those containing faulty reasoning. They occur when an argumentation contains an error that invalidates it (in the case of deductive arguments) or weakens it (inductive arguments). The word fallacy comes from the Latin fallacia, which means "trick", "deception" or "fraud."

Often times, the term fallacy is used to refer to beliefs commonly accepted but scientifically proven to be false. In this sense, the widespread belief that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space is a fallacy (the Apollo astronauts confirmed that it is not true): from the Moon you only see the Earth in blue and white.

It is a fallacy that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space

On the other hand, in logic the connotation of the word fallacy is that it is a serious underlying systematic error in the argument, either due to its formal structure or its content.

In a deductive argument the focus is on the premises. If they are true, the conclusion is also true. On the other hand, in inductive arguments the essential thing is inference. In both, the failures produce argumentative fallacies.

characteristics

The main characteristic of argumentative fallacies is that they appear to have a logical form, but present some type of error in reasoning.

Thus, the following reasoning is flawed: “Some Argentines are footballers. Lionel Messi is Argentine. Lionel Messi is a footballer ». Although the premises and the conclusion are true, it is a fallacy.

In this case, it is an invalid deductive argument. Instead, a fallacy with inductive arguments would be: “I was mistreated as a child and I'm fine. Child physical abuse does not cause emotional damage.

Fallacies can be created unintentionally, or they can be created intentionally to mislead other people, especially in cases of inductive arguments.

On the other hand, the vast majority of commonly identified fallacies involve argumentation, although some include explanations, definitions, or other products of reasoning.

Types

There are many different types of logical argumentative fallacies (or errors in logic), and there are several different criteria for defining their categories.

A distinction is often made between formal and informal. The first is found by examining the form of the argument. An informal fallacy depends more on the content and possibly the purpose of the reasoning.

Formal fallacies

A formal logical fallacy is a flawed argument due to an error related to the structure of the argument, not its content.

In this way, the following argument is perfectly valid: "if he is from Italy (antecedent), then he speaks Italian (consequent)."

On the other hand, if the consequent is affirmed, then the structure of the argument is defective and it is a fallacy of a formal type: "he speaks Italian, then he is from Italy."

Informal fallacies

As mentioned, an informal logical fallacy is an argument that does not work due to an error related to the content of the argument. These informal fallacies can be classified into five categories.

Linguistic fallacies

These arguments are flawed due to lack of clarity. This is because the use of vague or ambiguous terms severely weakens the argument.

Fallacies of omission

These arguments selectively omit vital components or misrepresent certain positions to convince the listener of the correctness of the conclusion.

Intrusion fallacies

They involve an incorporation of irrelevant material to persuade the listener to accept a particular claim.

Fallacies involving built-in assumptions

These arguments contain assumptions about tradition, nature, and other people.

Causal argumentative fallacies

These arguments are based on a misunderstanding of cause and effect. It involves the wrong assumption that sequential events are causally related.

Now, within each of these five categories there are many subtypes of logical fallacies. Also, certain fallacies fit into more than one category.

Examples

Argumentum ad populum

These argumentative fallacies are sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true. It has several other names, as an argument by consensus and authority of many.

Example

Eight out of ten people consider that God exists. So the existence of God is unquestionable.

Argumentum ad misericordiam

The argumentative fallacies of the type argumentum ad misericordiam (literally, "argument of mercy or mercy") replace reason with an appeal to the emotions.

Example

He works very hard during the day and studies at night. So you deserve to get a good rank in that evaluation.

Argumentum ad baculum

A fallacy is committed when the argument appeals to force or the threat of force to achieve acceptance of a conclusion.

In this sense, they are argumentative fallacies because the appeal is not logically related to the claim that is made. That is, the acceptance of the conclusion results from the threat and not from reason.

Example

Countries need a strong army to deter their enemies. If investments are not made to develop military strength, enemies will think they are weak and will attack at some point.

Argumentum ad hominem

Some argumentative fallacies involve attacking the character or motives of a person who has expressed an idea, rather than the idea itself. This argument directed at the person is known as argumentum ad hominem.

Example

You haven't exactly been a model father. So, you can't accuse me of being a bad parent.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

This fallacy occurs when something is assumed to be true simply because it has not been shown to be false. In this class of argumentative fallacies the burden of proof is important.

Example

Until now, no one has been able to create something out of nothing. So the universe must be the result of divine intervention.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

The argumentative fallacies of antiquity or tradition imply that some policy, behavior or practice is correct or acceptable because it has always been done that way.

Example

In many Latin countries it is normal for young children to drink coffee. So it's okay for little ones to consume caffeine.

References

1. Van Vleet, JE (2012). Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. Lanham: University Press of America.
2. Walton, DN (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3. Dowden, B. (s / f). Fallacies. Taken from iep.utm.edu.
4. Hood, C. (2012, September 06). Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal. Taken from catherinechhood.net.
5. Shabo, M. (2010). Rhetoric, Logic, and Argumentation: A Guide for Student Writers. Smyrna: Prestwick House Inc.
6. Waicukauski, RJ; Sandler, Pl M. and Epps, JA (2001). The Winning Argument.

   Chicago: American Bar Association.

7. Van Veuren, P.. (1994). Fallacious arguments. In GJ Rossouw (editor), Skilful Thinking, pp. 63-76. Pretoria: HSRC Press.