FALLACIES

Classifications:

v Rhetorical Fallacies/ Hermeneutic Fallacies- errors of understanding or interpretation

o Incorrect Obversion-arises when changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or vise versa, the meaning of the proposition is changed.

o Incorrect Conversion-arises when in the transposition of the subject and the predicate, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.

o Fallacy of accent- is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.

o Fallacy of amphibology-arises on an account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to miscomprehension.

v Logical Fallacies- errors in inferring or reason

o Formal fallacies- those arise from the violations of the rules of syllogism.

Formal Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

1. Fallacy of four terms- this is committed when more than three terms are used in syllogism

2. Fallacy of undistributed middle- this is committed when the rule of syllogism, which says that the middle term must be distributed at least once, is violated

3. Fallacy of illicit major- arises when the major term is distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the major premise.

4. Fallacy of illicit minor- arises when there is a violation of the rule that the minor term should not be distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the minor premise.

5. Fallacy of negative premise- when the premises are both negative

6. Fallacy of particular premise- when two premises of the syllogism are both particular.

Formal Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

1. Alternatives not mutually exclusive- arises when the use of one of the alternatives does not preclude the use of the other

2. Possibilities not exhaustive- arises when the possibilities used in the predicate of the disjunctive major premise are not exhaustive

Formal Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism

1. Fallacy of denying the antecedent- when the minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise.

2. Fallacy of affirming the consequent- when the minor premise affirms the consequent

v Material Fallacies- arise from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of the terms used or from a faulty assumption of facts.

o Fallacies of equivocation- arise from the assumption that what is true of a term in one sense is also true of the same term used in another sense.

o Fallacies of quantity-arise when we assert that what is true of a whole taken collectively is true of a part taken individually and vice versa.

o Fallacies of quality- are those that arise from the confusion in the attributes connoted by terms used in the proposition.

o Fallacies of presumption- arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove.

§ Begging the question- arguer assumes the truth of the proposition

§ Fallacy of ignorantio elenchi- irrelevant conclusion

§ Fallacy of complex question- debater asks a question that implies the truth of an assumption

§ Fallacy of non sequitar- debater draws a conclusion from a premise without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth.

Reference:
The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa