DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LOGIC AND REASONING

Reasoning and logic are highly misunderstood concepts. Often, they are considered as synonyms. The only similarity between reasoning and logic is that they both are types of thinking. Otherwise they are just the opposite. Reasoning can be defined as the mechanism, which converts an involuntary thought into a voluntary thought. Logic can be defined as the mechanism, which converts a voluntary thought into involuntary thought. Reasoning: 1. Reasoning deals with differences only. It ignores similarities. 2. It assumes that every cause has an effect and that every effect has just one cause. 3. Reasoning is voluntary and transient. Any thing eternal should be considered as logical. 4. Since reasoning deals with differences only and also enables us to be conscious of our entire knowledge it creates an impression that our knowledge has improved enormously. 5. It makes all activities of life independent of each other. Thus in reasonable life it is possible to correct just one activity without affecting any other. 6. Since it deals with differences only it enables us to solve just one problem at a time. 7. Reasoning is ideally suited for the material world. It is less suitable for body and least suited for mind. This, is because body and mind act as single units. Dividing the body is difficult and dividing the mind is impossible. Logic: 1. Logic deals with similarities. It ignores differences 2. Logic assumes that similar causes lead to similar effects. 3. Logic is involuntary and eternal. 4. Since logic considers similarities and also makes our knowledge involuntary it condenses knowledge, creating an illusion that our knowledge is reducing. 5. It merges all activities into a single giant activity called life. Thus in a logical life it is not possible to correct just one activity without affecting any other. 6. Since it deals with similarities logic enables us to rectify our entire life simultaneously. 7. Logic is ideally suited for body and mind because body and mind work as single entities. Logic ultimately leads us to the seven basic kinds of thinking and then to the mind selector, that selects one of the seven kinds of thinking. However, at this stage logic is totally involuntary and only a master of Original Meditation can be able to be aware of these. Reasoning and logic are two of the seven basic kinds of thinking. Natural thinking, the default thinking of human beings is a blend of reasoning and logic.

ANS2:
Reasoning is the general term for the process of arriving at an answer to a choice. Many specific processes can lead you to accepting a choice and logic is among those processes. Of the processes, logic and mathematics can produce universally accepted truth. Faith and trust in an authority can produce truth among those who share the same faith or who accept the same authority. The scientific method can also lead to a reasoned choice, however, science, by itself, will not produce truth since the senses are fallible and empiricism is the basis of science. FORMAL AND INFORMAL LOGIC Formal logic:

1. Formal logic is concerned with how the components of an argument relate

to each other. It focuses on the formal rules for the arrangement of statements that may guarantee the validity of an argument. It is thus heavily concerned with form. 2. Formal logic deals with propositions. Propositions are defined as statements capable of being unequivocally true or false (unlike other speech acts, such as questions, promises, commands, challenges, etc.) 3. Some propositions are premises, and some are conclusions. Premises basic reasons/assertions which are often presented without themselves being supported by other reasons/assertions. Premises are combined with other premises in order to reach conclusions. Formal logic focuses on whether the conclusion follows from the premises. If it does, a chain of reasoning is said to be valid. That is, it has a form such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It is important to note that an argument can have a valid logical form, but consist of completely false propositions. For example: All fish have lungs Whales are fish Therefore whales have lungs This is logically valid, but consists of false premises and conclusion.

are

4 Basic Logical Forms

These basic logical forms are often the building blocks for larger forms that go to make up arguments.

1. Modus ponens. This is the most common schema you will see in formal logic. It takes the following form: If A, then B. A is true, therefore B Example: If it rains, the picnic will be canceled. It is raining, therefore the picnic is canceled.

2. Modus tollens. This takes the following form: If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A. Example: If captain Picard is a Vulcan, he will be able to perform a mind meld. Captain Picard cannot perform a mind-meld. Therefore he is not a Vulcan.

3. Transitivity of Implication. This takes the following form: If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore if A, then C. Example: Andy is taller than Bob.

Bob is taller than Carol. Therefore Andy is taller than Carol.

4. Reductio ad Absurdum. This centers on the fundamental logical principle of non-contradiction. It takes the following form: A implies B, and A implies not B, therefore A is false. 5. Disjunctive Syllogism. Either A or B. Not A, therefore B. LIMITATIONS OF FORMAL LOGIC FOR THE STUDY OF ARGUMENT While formal logic works well in mathematics and certain other areas, it is often very difficult to apply to natural language situations. To begin with, real arguments tend to be far more messy and complicated than the examples given in logic textbooks. They are often very difficult to resolve into terms that make them amenable to formal analysis. The statements and reasons used to build arguments are usually not logical propositions with a clear truth value. For example in the following two statements, 'the availability of firearms causes the high murder rate', and 'it is the nature of people using guns that causes the high murder rate', it is hard to assign each proposition a clear and absolute truth value. The premises are already part of a whole web of existing arguments and assumptions, some of which may be implicit, and may involve questions of probability, value and belief. Furthermore, formal logic focuses almost exclusively on the form arguments take, and this often requires the abstraction of context and content. Yet context and content are usually crucial when people come to evaluate the worth of an argument. The form of an argument alone rarely tells us much about how persuasive or reasonable the argument is. Moreover, a problem that often plagues formal logicians is that it is usually possible to resolve natural language arguments into a number of different forms, which will then determine their validity. Real arguments may be very good without being logically valid. In fact many real arguments that are made in a variety of disciplines, which are considered to be very powerful, do not meet the standards of logical validity. Furthermore, if we privilege the criteria of logical validity too much, we will find there are not many good arguments that pass the test, since it is usually possible (especially if one is inventive) to imagine circumstances in which the premises of an argument could be true and the conclusion false.

Informal logic Informal logic is a relatively new area of study, and involves the analysis, evaluation and interpretation of arguments made in natural language i.e. in real life speech situations. Very crudely, we might say that it involves the logic of argument, as opposed to the logic of deductive inference. Perhaps the best way to understand it involves contrasting it to formal logic. Formal logic deals with propositions that have absolute truth values, inferences

that have precise standards of validity, and typically involves 'deductive reasoning'. Deductive Reasoning involves reasoning from universals to particulars, and as we have seen the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. Informal logic operates in the much less solid ground of everyday public discourse. Informal logic deals with analyzing the grounds or reasons for conclusions. It looks at how well reasons support, justify, establish or demonstrate in some way, the conclusion. This typically involves questions of degree, probability, plausibility and persuasiveness. Informal logic deals with inductive reasoning. An inductive argument is one that involves reasoning from particulars to the general, and in which the premises provide some degree of support for the conclusion. Unlike formal logic, there is no strict criteria by which to judge arguments that draw on informal logic. In general, the kind of criteria that have been discussed in this course are usually used. For example the following are important criteria: the quality of the support used to justify a claim; the nature of the evidence/examples used; the strength of the premises; the nature of the assumptions that underlie the argument; the nature of the implications or consequences the argument leads to; the internal consistency of the claims made; the way authorities are appealed to; how well the argument anticipates and deals with alternative positions; how well the argument handles c ounterexamples and counterarguments, and the nature of the audience etc.

Fallacies of Relevance
Informal Fallacies Assessing the legitimacy of arguments embedded in ordinary language is rather like diagnosing whether a living human being has any broken bones. Only the internal structure matters, but it is difficult to see through the layers of flesh that cover it. Soon we'll begin to develop methods, like the tools of radiology, that enable us to see the skeletal form of an argument beneath the language that expresses it. But compound fractures are usually evident to the most casual observer, and some logical defects are equally apparent. The informal fallacies considered here are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect. The fallacies of relevance, for example, clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to be fooled by their illegitimate appeals. Many of them were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed into common use. It's worthwhile to consider the structure, offer an example, and point out the invalidity of each of them in turn.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)

In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might propose: If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course. I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States. Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States. It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could neverthelss be false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry. I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket. Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum) In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion: As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children. Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy. The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those

feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for example: Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects. Therefore, spiders are insects. As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual (however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth. Ad Hominem Argument The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who believes it to be true: Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21. But we all know that Harold . . . . . . dresses funny and smells bad. or or or

. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally

. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 . . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us. Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Thus, for example: No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter. Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter. But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion. All children should have ample attention from their parents. Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children. Therefore, mothers should not work full-time. Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focussed on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.
fallacies of relevance 1. 3.2 Fallaciesof Relevance 2. OverviewUnderstandingfallaciesof relevanceIdentifyingdifferentforms of thesefallacies 3. Whatis a fallacyof relevance?A fallacyof relevanceis one wherethe argumentin whichit occurshas premisesthat are logicallyirrelevantto the conclusion.Theyappearto makesensethoughwhichmakesthemdifficult to identify. Whatis flawedaboutan argumentwith a fallacyof relevanceis that the connectionbetweenthe premisesandconclusionis emotional. To recognizethis kindof fallacy, you needto be awareof the differencebetweenargumentsthat use genuineevidenceand thosethat rely on an emotionalappeal. 4. Identifyingfallaciesof relevanceAppealto force(ad baculum)Occurs wheneveran arguerputs fortha conclusionandeitherstatesor impliesthat if the listenerdoesnot agreethenhe will somehowbe harmed.Thethreatcaneitherbe

physicalor psychological.Examples: Eitheragreethat Im kingof the worldor Ill beat youup! Giveme$200or Ill tell your wife yourecheatingon her. Appealto pity (ad misericordiam)Occurswhenan arguertries to supporta conclusionby gettingpity or sympathyfromthe listener.Examples: Dont give me a ticket, officer. My wife has cancerandmy aunt just had a stroke! 5. MorefallaciesAppealto the people(ad populum)The arguermanipulates the valuesandbeliefsof peoplein orderto makethembelievea certainconclusion. Thereare twowaysof doingthis: DirectapproachAn argueraddressesa largegroup of peopleandtries to excitethemandmakethememotionallycharged,so he can win their acceptancefor his argument.Examples:variouspoliticiansIndirectapproach Arguerdoesnot focuson the crowditself but at certainpeopleand howthey relate to the crowdas a whole.Bandwagonargument If youdont go alongwith the argument,youll be left out. Persuadedto join in, so you can be a part of the crowd. Appealto vanity Argumentthat compareyouwithsomeonethat is admiredor pursued,andif you agreethenyoull be admiredtoo. Appealto snobbery Similarto vanity, sinceit impliesthat youll be a part of an elitist crowdif you go alongwiththe arguer. 6. MorefallaciesArgumentagainstthe person(ad hominem)Oneperson makesan argument,andthe otherpersonreplieswith a criticismbut not one made aboutthe argument,but aboutthe personhimself. Ad hominemabusiveStandardad hominemargument,wherethe secondpersoncriticizesthe arguerinsteadof his argument.Example: JohnsaysI shouldquit smokingbecauseits badfor me. But hes practicallyan alcoholic,so whois he to give me adviceaboutmy health?Ad hominemcircumstantialSimilarto ad hominem,exceptthe secondpersoncriticizes circumstancesor conditionssurroundingthe arguer.Example: Youjust wantme to breakup with my girlfriendso you can ask her out! 7. MorefallaciesTu quoque(youtoo) The secondpersoncriticizesthe arguerfor actinglike a hypocriteor for arguingin badfaith. Example: Youreone to yell at me aboutbeingmessy.Yourbedroomlookslike a pigsty!But remember, there are timeswhena criticismagainsta personcanbe properlybackedup. You lie, youcheaton your wife, andyou steal cars. Therefore,yourea bad person.The

mainpoint here is that the secondpersonis bad, not that his argumentis bad, and the premiseshere (his behavior)are supportiveof the conclusion,so no fallacyis committed. 8. MorefallaciesAccidentFallacythat is committedwhena generalrule is appliedto a specificcaseit wasnevermeantto cover. Example: Gunsare responsiblefor manyaccidentaldeaths.Therefore,they threatenthe livesof police officersfor carryingthem.Policeofficersuse gunsas a wayof maintainingpeace, andthis belief doesnot coverthemandtheir role in society.StrawmanAn arguer distortshis opponentsargumentthendefeatsthat changedargument.He then concludesthat he has defeatedthe originalargumentas well. Example: Many peoplestandin supportof womensrights. Theyargueits a womansright to choosewhetherto havean abortion,but abortionis murder.Howcanthesepeople defendmurder? 9. MorefallaciesMissingthe point (ignoratioelenchi)In this fallacy,the premisesactuallysupporta conclusion,but a differentconclusionthanthe one presentedin the argument.Usually, its possibleto figureout the correctconclusion sinceit is whatactuallyfollowsfromthe premises.Example: Americanprisonsare becomingoverpopulated.That meanswe needto start executingmorepeopleto get morespace!The logicalconclusionfor this argumentis that we needto either build moreprisonsor find differentwaysto rehabilitateprisoners,not that we needto kill morepeople.RedherringThis fallacyinvolveschangingthe subjectof an argument to a slightlydifferenttopic, to throwthe otherpersonoff. Thena conclusionis drawn basedon this alteredargument.Example: Peoplesay that fast foodis cheapand not hardto get. But familydinnersare an importantpart of keepinga household together.Withoutqualitytime, mostfamilieswouldfall apart! Parentsneedto shift gearsandtakeactionif they wantto stay in touchwith their kids.

Fallacies are errors in reasoning. We often find fallacious arguments to be persuasiveat least until we know whats wrong with them. Even so, fallacious arguments are generally only given when we are thinking poorly or trying to manipulate the minds of others. There is much to be said about what is required of

good arguments, and the least controversial requirement is that no fallacies are committed. I have already discussed formal fallacieslogically invalid argument forms. Informal fallacies are errors of reasoning that dont merely involve the argument form. I have already discussed how we can give objections to logically invalid arguments. However, it is much more common to object to arguments that commit informal fallacies. I will focus on how we can object to informally fallacious arguments.
Fallacies of relevance

I will discuss three fallacies of relevancered herring, straw man, and appeal to authority. Good arguments need relevant supporting evidence and good arguments within a debate must be relevant to the other arguments within the debate. Fallacies of relevance fail to live up to these principles.

(1) Red herring

The red herring fallacy is committed during a debate by saying something mostly irrelevant to distract people or change the subject. Generally what is said focuses the attention on the opponent or the opponents argument in order to avoid ones own failings (or the failings of ones own argument). The most common form of red herring is meant to discredit the opponent by discussing the failings of the opponent (or those who associate with the opponent), but a red herring can also be used to discuss the moral superiority of yourself or those you associate with. Red herrings do not necessarily lead to an illegitimate conclusion. Instead, we tend to want to avoid them for being unproductive within a debate. An example of a red herring fallacy is the following: 1. 2. The President wants to have social programs to help the poor. However, totalitarian communists wanted to have social programs to help the poor. 3. 4. Totalitarian communists, like Stalin, killed millions of innocent people. Therefore, we shouldnt have social programs for the poor. The map for this argument is the following:

In the above argument the mere association of totalitarian communists and social programs for the poor is meant to discredit them. However, it is quite possible that evil totalitarian communists did some things right. Consider the view that everything totalitarian communists do is wrong. In that case, we shouldnt eat or drink because so did Stalin. In order to give an objection to a red herring, you can make sure to point out that the argument is irrelevant to the debate and explain why you think the argument is irrelevant. For example, we can explicitly object to the above fallacious argument in the following way: 1. The premises are irrelevant to the conclusion unless everything totalitarian communists do is wrong. 2. 3. Not everything totalitarian communists do is wrong. Therefore, the above premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. The map for this objection is the following:

(2) Straw man

We should be charitable to those we disagree with and try to understand why intelligent people disagree with us. The straw man fallacy is what can happen when we are uncharitable to others. The straw man fallacy is committed by mischaracterizing the arguments of others in a way that makes the arguments of

others seem less reasonable. We can create straw man arguments by changing the arguments given by our opponents slightly or by ignoring the actual arguments entirely and making up some totally different argument. This is generally done in order to easily discredit arguments we disagree with. However, the actual argument given by an opponent was never actually discredited. We cant discredit the actual arguments given by others if we make the argument less reasonable than they really are. An example of a straw man fallacy is the following: 1. Scientists believe in evolution because they reject God and need an atheistic explanation for where complex organisms came from. 2. Once we realize God exists, we dont need an atheist explanation for where complex organisms came from. 3. Therefore, theists should reject evolution. The map for this argument is the following:

This argument is an extreme sort of straw man argument because it ignores all the evidence for evolution actually given by biologists and merely gives a psychological motivation behind why scientists might want to justify the theory of evolution. The reason to believe in evolution given above certainly is not the strongest argument for evolution.

In order to give an explicit objection to a straw man fallacy, we should point out that the best argument for a position is being ignored or distorted, and the opponent has replaced the best argument with something less reasonable. For example, we can explicitly object to the above fallacious argument in the following way: 1. The above argument describes a reason to believe in evolution as, Scientists reject God and need an atheistic explanation for where complex organisms came from. 2. However, the above argument states a significantly worse argument for evolution than are available. (Rejecting God is not evidence for evolution and there is physical evidence of evolution.) 3. If the above argument states a significantly worse argument for evolution than are available, then the above argument does not refute the best reasons to believe in evolution. 4. Therefore, the above argument does not refute the best reasons to believe in evolution. The map for this objection is the following:

(3) Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority argument is reasonable when we refer to the unanimous opinions of experts who have justified their beliefs though the appropriate research. The appeal to authority fallacy is when we refer to the opinions of others who are not qualified in the relevant sense. Either the authority figure is not the right kind of expert or the experts opinion is controversial among the other experts in the field. An example of an appeal to authority fallacy is the following: 1. Aristotle was one of the greatest philosophers of all time who discovered formal logic. 2. 3. Aristotle thought the Sun revolves around the Earth. Therefore, the Sun revolves around the Earth. The map for this argument is the following:

Although Aristotle was a great philosopher, astronomers now unanimously agree that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. We can explicitly object to an argument that uses a fallacious appeal to authority by pointing out why its fallaciouseither the authority is not the appropriate kind of expert or the experts do not unanimously agree. For example, we can give the following objection to the fallacious argument above: 1. The above appeal to authority is fallacious unless Aristotle is an expert astronomer and his opinion is uncontroversial among the experts.

2.

However, Aristotles opinion is now unanimously rejected by the relevant experts.

3.

Therefore, the above argument is fallacious. The map for this objection is the following:

fallacies of presumption Fallacies of presumption involve unreasonable and unwarranted assumptions. I will discuss the following three fallacies of presumption: (1) begging the question, (2) false dilemma, (3) accident, and (4) one-sidedness.

(1) Begging the question

The begging the question fallacy is committed when the argument offered requires us to either assume that the conclusion is true or that a controversial premise is true that would make the conclusion a trivial consequence. These arguments provide none of the evidence that would be required to prove the conclusion is true. An extreme form of begging the question is the circular argument, which has a premise that contains the conclusion. All dogs are mammals because all dogs are mammals is a circular argument. No evidence is given by this argument to accept the conclusion despite the fact that its logically valid. Another example of begging the question is the following argument: 1. 2. 3. Its always wrong to kill people. If its always wrong to kill people, then its always wrong to kill murderers. Therefore, its always wrong to kill murderers. The argument map for this is the following:

The problem with this argument is that the conclusion is a trivial consequence of assuming that its always wrong to kill people. The second premise is uncontroversial, but the first premisethat its always wrong to kill peopleis not obvious. To explicitly object to arguments that beg the question, we should make it clear that the argument is circular or fails to provide evidence for a controversial premise. An explicit objection to the above fallacious argument is the following: 1. The above argument requires us to agree that its always wrong to kill people, but it gives us no reason to agree with this controversial premise. 2. If an argument requires us to agree with a controversial premise and it doesnt give us any reason to agree with it, then the argument begs the question. 3. Therefore, the above argument begs the question. The argument map for this objection is the following:

(2) False Dilemma

An argument is a false dilemma when it requires us to assume there are only so many possibilities when even more possibilities are plausibly available. A false dilemma can be logically valid, but the argument fails to give us a reason to agree

with the conclusion because its unreasonably demanding us to dismiss or ignore certain relevant options. An example of a false dilemma is the following: 1. 2. 3. Either matter can be created without cause or God created the universe. It is false that matter can be created without cause. Therefore, God created the universe. The argument map for this false dilemma is the following:

This argument is a false dilemma because there are plausible alternatives that are left out. Perhaps the universe always existed. If so, we cant conclude that God created the universe even if we agree that matter can be created without cause. First we would have to prove that the universe didnt always exist. When we object to false dilemmas, we can make it clear that we are required to unreasonably restrict our options when more options should be considered. An example of an objection to the above false dilemma is the following: 1. The above argument requires that there are only two reasonable possibilitieseither (1) matter can be created without cause or (2) God created the universe. 2. However, there is at least one other reasonable possibilityperhaps the universe was not created after all.

3.

If the argument requires only two reasonable possibilities, but more than two reasonable possibilities exist, then the argument will fail to give us a reason to agree with the conclusion.

4.

Therefore, the above argument fails to give us a reason to agree with the conclusion. The argument map for this objection is the following:

(3) Accident
The accident fallacy takes a general rule and applies it in an inappropriate way. General rules tell us what is usually the case rather than always the case. For example, its a general rule that birds can fly, but not all birds can fly. For example, ostriches. An example of an argument that uses the accident fallacy is the following: 1. 2. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Therefore, President Obama has a 50% chance of getting a divorce. The argument map for this argument is the following:

This is an accident fallacy because this statistic cant be used to make predictions about specific people. There are many factors that determine the likelihood of getting a divorce. (We could conclude that a random person that we know nothing about has a 50% of getting a divorce only because we wouldnt have enough information to make a better estimation.) In order to object to an accident fallacy, you can make it clear that a general rule is being considered that does not apply in every case. We can explicitly state an objection to the above fallacious argument as the following: 1. The argument requires the assumption that if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then President Obama has a 50% chance of ending in divorce.

2.

However, there are many factors that we should use when determining the probability of divorce rather than just use the average for all people.

3.

If there are many factors that we should use when determining the probability of divorce rather than just use the average for all people, then the assumption that if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then President Obama has a 50% chance of ending in divorce is unjustified.

4.

Therefore, the assumption that if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then President Obama has a 50% chance of ending in divorce is unjustified. The argument map for this objection is the following:

(4) One-sidedness
It is often important for arguments to account for the reasons for and against various beliefs. Debates are very educational because they present two sides and its important for debaters to respond to the objections given by others. Its often a good idea to seek out and consider the arguments of those who disagree with us precisely so (a) we dont unreasonably dismiss the evidence against our beliefs, and (b) we can correct our beliefs whenever we find out theyre unjustified. Onesidedness is what often happens when we fail to take account of both sides of an issue. One-sidedness is one of the most popular fallacies, which is also known as cherry picking or suppressed evidence. When we make certain strong claims, we need strong evidence to prove our claim to be justified. Strong evidence must include all the most relevant pros and cons for believing the claim being made. To neglect to mention various objections to a claim can make a claim seem more reasonable than it really is. We therefore need to make sure that our arguments and discussions are two-sided whenever necessary. For example, we cant think that free speech justifies making promises of reward for an assassination because it violates someone elses right to life. Both rights should be considered. To ignore the rights to life would require us to have a one-sided argument. An example of a one-sided argument is the following: 1. Susan argues that a war with another country would cost a lot of money and lead to the death of many people. 2. 3. 4. However, the USA can attack other countries to take their oil. If the USA can attack other countries to take their oil, then it should do so. Therefore, the USA should attack other countries to take their oil. An argument map for this argument is the following:

This argument is one-sided because it ignores the reasons why going to war could be a bad idea (it costs money and many people will die). One possible positive benefit (getting oil) is merely one consideration in favor of going to war. We should consider all the reasons for and against going to war before we conclude whether it should happen. When explicitly objecting to a one-sided argument, we should make it clear that there is important evidence against the conclusion that has been left out. We can explicitly object to the above one-sided argument in the following way: 1. The above premise is only true if attaining oil is a sufficiently good reason to go to war. 2. If there are other considerations that might be of greater important than attaining oil, then the premise is false. 3. oil. 4. Therefore, the above premise is false. The argument map for this objection is the following: The financial cost and lost lives can both be more important than attaining

fallacies of ambiguity

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Ambiguous Language

In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses. Equivocation An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition. Really exciting novels are rare. But rare books are expensive. Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive. Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious. In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of otherwise valid deductive arguments.
Amphiboly

An amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity. A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck. In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.

Accent

The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example: Jorge turned in his assignment on time today. Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late. Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion. Composition The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole). Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college education was well-organized. Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective. Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class. Division Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts). Ocelots are now dying out. Sparky is an ocelot. Therefore, Sparky is now dying out. Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members. Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health"). The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual

parts. Avoiding Fallacies Informal fallacies of all seventeen varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth. Whether they are committed inadvertently in the course of an individual's own thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to manipulate others, each may persuade without providing legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. But knowing what the fallacies are affords us some protection in either case. If we can identify several of the most common patterns of incorrect reasoning, we are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled by anyone else.