Logical Fallacies, The Utility of Logic and Argumentation

By Jerry Marty, MD, MBA

The objective of this book is to equip the reader with the skill set to identify and avoid Logical Fallacies and understand the utility of Logic and the principles of argumentation.
Whether you're a university or postgraduate student, a middle manager or CEO, an entrepreneur, or a professional seeking to leverage your Critical Thinking2 and argumentation skills, this book is a guide as well as serves as a road map along your journey to the identification of logical fallacies, the utility of logic and argumentation. It is designed to navigate as well as illuminate the path to the achievement of your goals. Discernment, reasoning, and Critical Thinking2 with a deeper understanding of the "How," "What," and "Why" - are some lessons to be learned. You will become more effective as a writer, orator, debater, and critical thinker. Ultimately, the result will be for the reader to become more insightful and nuanced when participating in the expository arena of debating ideas. By the time you reach the final chapter, you will have gained a much deeper understanding of how to think more critically, rationally, logically, and, thereby, reason and posit your Argument or Claim more effectively. Some Chapter highlights follow.
Chapter Two presents Formal Logical Fallacies (deductive or non-sequitur) fallacies, where the structure or form of an Argument or Claim is invalid, regardless of the truth or falsity of its underlying premises. Then, deep diving into the world of Informal Logical Fallacies in Chapter Three, skip-stones from the classic "Ad hominem" attack to "Equivocation," to the "Slippery Slope" Argument, and many others. Each Logical Fallacy is dissected and explained in detail, accompanied by a real-world example(s) to illustrate their corrupt or erroneous usage, parlance, and impact. By uncovering and understanding the various types of fallacious reasoning, readers will be better equipped to circumvent the complexities of faulty reasoning in argumentation and arrive at truth using sound, stepwise, rationally derived conclusions through logic. The knowledge process, and therefore truth, is the final desired outcome in argumentation. Reasoning, using principles of logic, and Critical Thinking2 are complementary important subject matters of the Book discussed in Chapters Four through Eleven. Templates, worksheets, frameworks, techniques and tools as well as checklists for problem solving and decision-making are presented in Chapter Twelve. Chapter 13 discusses how Artificial Intelligence (AI) will become central to Critical Thinking2, Logic, and argumentation, closing the circle. The Epilogue presents the Mandela Effect as a special topic. Appendix One presents an argumentation and logic Reasoning API designed to help users construct, evaluate, and refine Arguments. It offers several key features, including Logical Fallacy detection, Argument construction templates, and Argument strength and validity feedback. Appendix Two offers an Excel Visual Basic for Application (VBA) Code and a separate MACRO Code program (automating manual actions) to identify a Logical Fallacy within text utilizing basic keyword matching to detect the most common Logical Fallacies. Appendix Three is a lighthearted example of the Utility of logic, and pragmatism applied to the "Weather Rock."
This book is a companion to Critical Thinking2 – A Force Multiplier (2024), a Primer on Problem Analysis and Decision-Making, and a great introduction to furthering your career and studies. The wisdom and lessons contained within both Books can be utilized to supplement your Life-Long Learning, optimize your presentations of Arguments or Claims in the Boardroom, classroom, lecture hall, and across the negotiating table, or be a resource reference for Leaders, Business Managers, and Entrepreneurs, as well as those aspiring to reach those lofty heights.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Oct 8, 2024
• ISBN: 9798350973211

Jerry Marty, MD, MBA

Dr. Jerry J. Marty received his medical degree in 1976 from Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit. After that, he completed six postgraduate years of training at Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Strong Memorial Hospital/University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, completed an additional year in straight Internal Medicine at Saint Joseph's University Hospital-VA Medical Center/Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. He undertook an eight-week fellowship in Forensic Pathology at The Detroit Medical Examiner's Office and a visiting fellowship in Clinical Cytology and Fine Needle Aspiration at the Karolinska Hospital and Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. The author is board-certified in Anatomic, Clinical, and Cyto-Pathology with a sub-specialization in Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. He has authored several publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and two separate Book Chapters in his field of expertise, specifically in Cytopathology and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. Among his earlier responsibilities, Dr. Marty had teaching positions at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and, later, at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine and Pharmacy. A Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree at George Washington University, School of Business (GWSB), Washington, D.C., was conferred on May 17, 2009. Dr. Marty's most recent professional position until 2016 was as Chairman of Pathology and Medical Director of Laboratories at MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, a three hundred seventy-eight bed Joint Commission accredited hospital facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Marty is based in the United States and enjoys travel, photography, and chess when he's not working.

Book preview

Introduction

The objective of this book is to equip the reader with the skill set to identify Fallacies (Fallere, (Latin – To Deceive) framed as Logical Fallacies, as well as their avoidance, understand the utility of Logic and principles of argumentation. One must vigorously exercise and train the mind to identify and avoid the sundry traps that arise in tackling Logical Fallacies. A confounding maze necessitates employing a metaphorical Mental Positioning System (MPS) (likened to a Global Positioning System (GPS)) that can be used to get you from point A to point B, in this case, toward a logical, reasoned conclusion, derived from a valid and optimally sound premise.

This work and the companion book by the same author (Critical Thinking² - A Force Multiplier (2024)) serve as a road map along your journey. Whether you are a postgraduate university student, a middle manager or CEO, an entrepreneur, or a professional seeking to leverage your Critical Thinking² and argumentation skills, this guide is designed to navigate and illuminate the pathway to achieving your goals. Discernment, reasoning, and Critical Thinking² with a deeper understanding of the How, What, and Why - are some lessons to be learned. You will become more effective as a writer, orator or, debater, and critical thinker. Ultimately, the result will be for the reader to become more insightful and nuanced when participating in the expository arena of debating ideas.

By the time you reach the final chapter, you will have gained a much deeper understanding of how to think more critically, rationally, logically, and, thereby, reason and posit your Arguments or Claims more effectively. Some Chapter highlights follow.

An overview of Logical Fallacies, The Utility of Logic, Argumentation, and Syllogisms, as well as Multiple Choice, Short Answer Questions, Exercises, and Case Studies useful in evaluating an Argument’s or Claim’s validity, soundness, and strength are presented in Chapter One.

Chapter Two presents Formal Logical (Deductive or non-sequitur) Fallacies, where the structure or form of an Argument or Claim is invalid, regardless of the truth or untruthfulness of its underlying premises.

Deep diving into the world of Informal Logical Fallacies in Chapter Three, skip-stones from the classic Ad Hominem attack to Equivocation, to the Slippery Slope Argument, and many others. Each Logical Fallacy is dissected and explained in detail, accompanied by a real-world example(s) to illustrate their corrupt or erroneous usage, parlance, and impact. By uncovering and understanding the various types of fallacious reasoning, readers will be better equipped to bypass, circumvent, or confront the complexities of faulty reasoning in argumentation and debate to arrive at truth using valid and sound, stepwise, rationally derived conclusions through the employment of logic. The process of probative inquiry, eventuating in truth, is the final desired outcome of argumentation.

Chapter Four describes Critical Thinking², strategies for identifying and avoiding Logical Fallacies, and analytical tools.

Chapter Five discusses Logical Fallacies versus Cognitive Biases and the interface with logical reasoning.

The Utility of logic and its principles are central to the Book and discussed in Chapter Six.

Chapter Twelve presents key problem-solving and decision-making techniques and tools, including templates, worksheets, frameworks, and checklists.

Chapter 13 discusses how Artificial Intelligence (AI) will become central to Critical Thinking², logic, and argumentation, closing the circle.

Various other topics are delved into throughout the remainder of the Book, especially in Chapters Seven to Eleven.

The Epilogue presents the Mandela Effect as a special and quite timely topic of the day!

Appendix One presents an application programming interface (API) for argumentation and logical reasoning designed to help users construct, evaluate, and refine Arguments. It offers several key features, including Logical Fallacy detection, Argument construction templates, validity, soundness, and strength feedback.

Appendix Two offers an Excel Visual Basic for Application (VBA) Code and a separate MACRO Code program (automating manual actions) to identify a Logical Fallacy within text utilizing basic keyword matching to detect the most common Logical Fallacies.

Appendix Three is a lighthearted example of the Utility of logic and pragmatism applied to the Weather Rock.

Chapter 1:

Overview of Logical Fallacies,

the Utility of Logic, Argumentation, and Syllogisms

1.0 Overview Of Logical Fallacies, Logic, And Argumentation

1.1 Distinction Between Valid And Sound Arguments And Argument Strength

1.2 Syllogisms And Syllogistic Fallacies

1.3 Self-Test: Multiple Choice And Short-Answer Questions, Exercises, And Case Studies

1.0 Overview Of Logical Fallacies, Logic, And Argumentation

In our daily lives, we encounter countless instances where Arguments or claims in deliberations and debates present a set of assertions or premises. Not all Arguments, however, are created equal. Some are logically sound and cogent, while others riddle the verbal landscape with landmines strewn throughout, representing substantive logical errors that can lead us astray and are a deviation from the truth. This book, Logical Fallacies: The Utility of Logic and Argumentation, aims to provide readers with the tools and the skillset necessary to identify, analyze, and avoid these manifest errors in discernment and reasoning.

1.1 Distinguishing Formal From Informal Logical Fallacies

Formal logical fallacies are deductive logical defects in reasoning that occur when Arguments are flawed due to their structure or form. By contrast, informal logical fallacies result from nonstructural errors in reasoning, interpretation, or communication with irrelevant or incorrect premises.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Informal logical fallacies are more numerous and pervasive in everyday discourse, such as political debates, advertising, and academic discussions, extending even to our interpersonal communications. These informal logical fallacies are reasoning errors that undermine Arguments’ validity or soundness. Most are errors of induction but can apply to deductive Arguments as well. They manifest in various forms, including faulty inference patterns, deceptive or misleading rhetoric, and cognitive biases. Recognizing and understanding logical fallacies is essential for Critical thinking² and rational, reasoned discourse, as it enables individuals to identify flawed Arguments, evaluate evidence objectively, and engage in discussion and debate. The comprehensive listing of informal logical fallacies in Chapter Three will provide detailed descriptions to explore the most common (informal) logical fallacies, their characteristics, and their impact on argumentative reasoning and debate.

To Begin at the Beginning

Recognizing and understanding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking² and rational discourse, as it enables individuals to identify flawed Arguments, evaluate evidence objectively, and engage in reasoned discourse and debate rebuttal.

Logical fallacies pervade discourse in various domains. Despite their deceptive allure, logical fallacies are traps that can be identified beforehand or concurrently in discourse and debate, then analyzed using logical principles and critical thinking² skills. The following will explore a wide range of logical fallacies, categorizing them based on their underlying flaws and illustrating their implications for argumentation and reasoning.

FORMAL FALLACIES (DEDUCTIVE FALLACIES)

These fallacies occur when the structure or form of an Argument is invalid, regardless of the truth or falsity of its underlying premises. These logical fallacies violate the rules of logic and reasoning, leading to conclusions that do not logically follow and flow from the underlying premises. They include invalid syllogisms or logical contradictions.

Affirming The Consequent

Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy that occurs when someone infers the antecedent of a conditional statement from its consequent.

The logical fallacy takes the form:

If A, then B.

Therefore, A.

[Example: If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining. The conclusion (it is raining) does not logically follow from the premises, as there could be many other reasons why the streets are wet besides rain.]

Denying The Antecedent

Denying the antecedent is the inverse of affirming the consequent and occurs when someone infers the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.

The fallacy takes the form:

If A, then B.

Not A.

Therefore, not B.

[Example: If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet. The conclusion (the streets are not wet) does not logically follow from the premises, as there could be other reasons why the streets are wet besides rain.]

Fallacy Of Exclusive Premises

The fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic fallacy that occurs when both premises of a categorical are negative, making it impossible to draw a valid conclusion.

The fallacy takes the form:

No A is B.

No C is B.

Therefore, no C is A.

[Example: No cats are dogs. No birds are dogs. Therefore, no birds are cats. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises because there is no shared term between the two premises.]

Fallacy Of FourTerms

The fallacy of four terms occurs when a categorical syllogism contains four terms instead of the required three terms.

The fallacy takes the form:

All A are B.

All C are D.

Therefore, all D are A.

[Example: All dogs are mammals. All birds have wings. Therefore, all wings are mammals. The conclusion introduces a fourth term (wings) that is not present in the premises, making the Argument wholly invalid.]

Fallacy Of Undistributed Middle

The fallacy of undistributed middle occurs when the middle term of a categorical syllogism is not distributed in either premise. The fallacy takes the form:

All A are B.

All C are B.

Therefore, all A are C.

[Example: All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs.

The middle term (mammals) is not distributed in either premise, leading to an invalid conclusion.]

INFORMAL LOGICAL FALLACIES (Non-Deductive Fallacies)

These occur when the premises of an Argument are irrelevant, ambiguous, or the result of deceptive or misleading rhetoric, leading to erroneous conclusions. They may also result from cognitive biases. Unlike formal logical fallacies, informal logical fallacies do not violate the rules of logic.

The informal logical fallacy takes the form:

Person A presents Argument X.

Person B distorts or misrepresents Argument X

Recognizing and understanding these logical fallacies is essential for evaluating Arguments and claims critically and engaging in rational discourse and debate.

Two very common examples of Informal logical fallacies include:

Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the person making an Argument rather than addressing the Argument itself. This logical fallacy takes various forms, including:

Ad hominem abusive: Attacking the character or attributes of the arguer

Ad hominem circumstantial: Questioning the motives or circumstances of the arguer

(Tu quoque, accusing the arguer of hypocrisy or inconsistency, is related.)

[Example: You’re just a politician, so your Arguments about climate change can’t be trusted. The attack on the person making the Argument (a politician) is irrelevant to the validity of the underlying Argument itself.]

Straw Man

The straw man informal logical fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts their opponent’s Argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the opponent’s premise or position, the arguer attacks a weakened or exaggerated version.

Informal logical fallacies impact discourse in various domains, deceptively disarming Arguments or claims. They can arrest or detour the forward progression of an Argument or corrupt the Argument or claim by deceptively being enticing, alluring, or beguiling. Fortunately, they can be identified beforehand or concurrently within discourse and debate analyzed using logical principles and critical thinking² skills. The following will explore a wide range of logical fallacies, categorizing them based on their underlying flaws and illustrating their implications for argumentation and reasoning.

CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF LOGICAL FALLACIES

Various subcategories or classification schemes can be applied to logical fallacies, in particular, the Informal Fallacies, for example:

Relevance fallaciesoccur when the premises of an Argument are not logically related to the conclusion, leading to invalid or unsound reasoning. These fallacies often involve introducing irrelevant information or diverting attention from the main issue. Some common relevance fallacies include (1) red herring (occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant topic or Argument to distract attention from the main issue). Instead of addressing the central point of contention, the arguer shifts the focus to a tangential or unrelated topic, often used as a rhetorical tactic to evade criticism or avoid addressing difficult questions); (2) appeal to emotion (occurs when someone manipulates as well as exploits the audience’s emotional vulnerability to sway their judgment or decision-making); and (3) appeal to authority (occurs when someone persuasively appeals to the opinion or testimony of an authority figure to support their Argument, without providing substantive evidence or reasoning, or, if the authority cited is not relevant to the subject matter or lacks expertise in the relevant field). Related are genetic fallacy and appeal to ignorance.

Presumption fallacies occur when an arguer makes unwarranted assumptions or presumptions that are not supported by evidence or reasoning, often involving drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unreliable premises, leading to faulty or speculative reasoning or conclusion(s): begging the question, or circular reasoning, occurs when an arguer assumes the truth of the conclusion in the premises of their Argument, thereby circularly reasoning back to the conclusion without providing independent justification. This is an often subtle, difficult-to-detect fallacy since it disguises the conclusion as a premise.

Related are false dichotomy, or black-and-white thinking, or the false (dichotomy) dilemma, which occurs when an arguer presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or outcomes when in fact, there are other possibilities or shades of gray, oversimplifying complex issues and limiting the range of available choices, leading to erroneous conclusions; and loaded question, which contains an implicit assumption or presupposition that is unwarranted or contentious, designed to trap or manipulate the respondent by presupposing the truth of a controversial or unproven claim. Related are complex question, false cause, and slippery slope.

Ambiguity fallacies occur when the premises of an Argument contain ambiguous or vague language, leading to confusion or misinterpretation, when the meaning of the term or phrase is unclear, or when the term or phrase has multiple meanings, which may involve equivocation, amphiboly, vagueness,accent, composition, and/or division.

Statistical fallacies such as hasty generalization, gambler’s fallacy, misleading vividness, and base rate fallacy are further examples of this category.

An even simpler typology or rubric categorizes reasoning errors based on their underlying flaws, such as structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies), as earlier outlined.

1.3 Syllogisms And Syllogistic Fallacies

Syllogisms represent a conclusion or inference described as a logical Argument that applies deductive reasoning based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. The abstract thinking that is utilized creates the systematic exposition of a problem following the incorporation of antecedent, orderly, logical recursive steps leading to the ultimate conclusion.

Syllogisms are the most common way of organizing propositions into a proper Argument. In general, the first major premise shares something with a second minor premise, which in turn leads to a conclusion. The conclusion is, therefore, arrived at through the logical connection to two preliminary propositions (premises) that are asserted or assumed to be true and valid.

There are three main types of syllogisms, each with its qualities:

Conditional Or Basic Syllogisms

The basic form of the conditional syllogism is:

If A is TRUE then B is TRUE (If A then B). It appears through a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Example:

You are depressed.

I am (a psychologist) qualified to help people who are depressed.

I can make you un-depressed.

Categorical Or If/Then Syllogisms

The basic form of the categorical syllogism is:

If A is part of C then B is a part of C. (A and B are parts or members of C). Example:

All Californians are Woke.

Some people live in California.

Some people are Woke.

Disjunctive Or Either/Or Syllogisms

The basic form of the disjunctive Syllogism is:

Either A is TRUE or B is TRUE (an exclusive—or B). Thus if A is TRUE, B is FALSE, and if B is TRUE, A is FALSE. A and B cannot both be TRUE. Example:

Either you vote for me, or you vote for increased taxes.

Deductive Arguments move from the general to the specific, opposite to inductive Arguments, which move from the specific to the general.

An often-cited example of a syllogism:

"Knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal."

Rewritten in a three-line, stepwise logical format:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Aristotelian logic, also known as categorical syllogism or term logic, may well be the earliest works of formal logic: a particular kind of Argument containing three categorical propositions, two of them premises and one a conclusion, as aforementioned.

Aristotle’s (384 BC–322 BC) categorical syllogistic or term logic (upper figure) and square of oppositions (lower figure) of the same input circumstance(s) can be schematically depicted as follows:

(upper figure)

(lower figure)

There are five main types of typical claims: fact (true or not true), debate (one side or another is taken), persuasive (idea generation or action), definition (meaning), and value (intrinsic).

After that, a three-step method of framing the Argument or claim proceeds as follows:

First is the major premise, an assumption or Argument meant to be considered fact.

Next is the minor premise, another assumption or Argument that serves to substantiate the major premise.

The conclusion is drawn from both the major and minor premises or, stated differently, deduced from a combination of general and specific statements.

The Syllogistic Fallacy: A Definition

A corrupted syllogism, a formal logical fallacy occurring in syllogisms, would be called a syllogistic fallacy.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENT S

At this juncture, it is accordingly important to differentiate VALID From SOUND Arguments since they are NOT the same!

VALID Argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and it has a correct formal logical structure.

SOUND Argument, in addition to being a formally correct Argument, also contains true premises.

The optimal situation is to meet both criteria, that is, to construct an Argument or claim that is valid and sound.

Formal Logic Checks Only Argument Validity, Not Soundness!

Therefore, logic principles alone cannot be used to determine whether an Argument is true (only whether it is valid based on the premise).

Several multiple-choice and short-answer questions, exercises, and case studies follow, designed to identify and differentiate between logical fallacies and valid logical reasoning.

1.4 SELF-TEST Multiple Choice And Short-Answer Questions, Exercises, And Case Studies

This SELF-TEST can be used for your personal development to enhance logic reasoning skills and promote a more rigorous analysis of Arguments.

The questionnaire that follows is mainly structured into three main sections:

Identification of Logical Fallacies: Questions designed to test the respondent’s ability to recognize different types of logical fallacies in various Arguments.

Evaluation of Logical Reasoning: Questions aimed at assessing the respondent’s ability to evaluate the validity of logical reasoning within given Arguments.

Application and Analysis: Questions requiring the respondent to apply their understanding of logical fallacies and reasoning to analyze and critique real-world scenarios and Arguments.

The following section includes multiple choice and short-answer questions, exercises, and case studies to assess the reader’s knowledge and skills comprehensively.

a. Identification Of Logical Fallacies

Objective: To test the ability to identify various examples of logical fallacies in different contexts.

Multiple Choice Questions

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Question: Which of the following Arguments contains an ad hominem fallacy?

We should listen to Dr. Smith’s views on climate change because she has been studying the topic for over twentyyears.

You can’t trust John’s opinion on environmental policy because he was once arrested for littering.

Renewable energy is the future because it is sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Electric cars are better for the environment than gasoline cars due to lower emissions.

ANSWER: 2.

Straw Man Fallacy

Question: Identify the Argument representing a straw man fallacy.

My opponent suggests that we should not fund space exploration. However, exploring space has led to many technological advancements that benefit society.

We should invest in renewable energy to reduce our carbon footprint and combat climate change.

The benefits of a plant-based diet include improved health and reduced environmental impact.

Some people believe that space exploration is a waste of money, but these missions can inspire scientific curiosity in younger generations.

ANSWER: 1.

False Dilemma Fallacy

Question: Which statement exemplifies a false dilemma fallacy?

We either cut the budget or face economic collapse.

Many factors contribute to economic stability, including budget management and economic policies.

Improving public transportation can reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

Tax reform policy should consider the impact on individuals and corporations.

ANSWER: 1.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Question: Select the Argument that involves a slippery slope fallacy.

If we allow students to redo their assignments, soon they will expect to pass without making any effort.

Encouraging students to revise their work can improve their learning outcomes.

Providing feedback helps students understand their mistakes and improve their skills.

Allowing some flexibility in deadlines can accommodate students with different learning paces.

ANSWER: 1.

Short Answer Questions

Question: Describe the logical fallacy in the following Argument: "You should not listen to Emily’s opinion on