Você está na página 1de 4


*A fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. * Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted,
• R1: Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the populace) or false.
• R2: Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to emotion/pity) • P1: Accident
• R3: Red Herring • P2: Plurium Interrogationum (Complex question)
• R4: Straw Man • P3: Petition Princippi (Begging the question)
• R5: Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against the person) P1. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
• R6: Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to force) *A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the
• R7: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant conclusion or missing the point) generalization does not apply.
R1. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (Appeal to the populace) *An informal fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some
*An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conclusion is an appeal to popular conclusion buried in that question.
belief. P3. PETITION PRINCIPII (Begging the Question)
R2. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (Appeal to emotion/pity) *An informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in any one of the
* An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is emotions— premises. Also known as “circular argument”
fear, envy, pity, or the like—of the listeners.
* An informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead and confuse. 4. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
R4. STRAW MAN *Incorrect reasoning arises from the equivocal use of words or phrases. Some word or phrase in one
*A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the person taking a position. part of the argument has a meaning different from that of the same word or phrase in another part of
R5. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Argument against the person) the argument.
* An informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the substance of some position, • A1: Equivocation
one attacks the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a consequence of his or her special • A2: Amphiboly
circumstances. • A3: Accent
R6. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (Appeal to force) • A4: Composition
* An informal fallacy committed when force, or the threat of force, is relied on to win consent. • A5: Division
R7. IGNORATIO ELENCHI (Irrelevant conclusion or Missing the point)
*A fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion from the one that is proposed. A1. EQUIVOCATION
*An informal fallacy in which two or more meanings of the same word or phrase have been confused.
*Mistake arises from the fact that the premises of the argument, although relevant to the *An informal fallacy arising from the loose, awkward, or mistaken way in which words are
conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that relying on them is a blunder. combined, leading to alternative possible meanings of a statement.
• D1: Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Argument from Ignorance) A3. ACCENT
• D2: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority) *An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase has a meaning in the conclusion of an
• D3: Non Causa Pro Causa (False Cause) argument different from its meaning in one of the premises, the difference arising chiefly from a
• D4: Hasty generalization change in emphasis given to the words used.
D1. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM (Argument from Ignorance) *An informal fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a
*An informal fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an illegitimate appeal to whole to the attributes of the whole itself.
ignorance, as when it is supposed that something is likely to be true because we cannot prove A5. DIVISION
that it is false. *An informal fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the
D2. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority) attributes of the parts of the whole.
*An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate, either because the
authority appealed to has no special claim to expertise on the topic at issue, or, more generally, Unlike accident and converse accident, composition and division are fallacies of ambiguity,
because no authority is assured to be reliable. resulting from the multiple meanings of terms. Wherever the words or phrases used may mean one
D3. NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA (False Cause) thing in one part of the argument and another thing in another part, and those different meanings are
*An informal fallacy in which the mistake arises from accepting as the cause of an event what deliberately or accidentally confounded, we can expect the argument to be fallacious.
is not really its cause.
*An informal fallacy in which a principle that is true of a particular case is applied, carelessly
or deliberately, to the great run of cases.
*The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. *An inductive argument claims that its premises give only some degree of probability, but not
PROPOSITION certainty, to its conclusion.
*A statement; what is typically asserted using a declarative sentence, and hence always either VALIDITY
true or false—although *A characteristic of any deductive argument whose premises, if they were all true, would
its truth or falsity may be unknown. provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument is said to be valid.
STATEMENT Validity is a formal characteristic; it applies
*A proposition; what is typically asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself. only to arguments, as distinguished from truth, which applies to propositions.
Every statement must be either true or false, although the truth or falsity of a given statement
may be unknown. There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in both valid
INFERENCE and invalid arguments. Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by the statement
*A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other of the combination (of truth and validity) that it represents. With these illustrations (whose
proposition or propositions. content is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a position to formulate some important
ARGUMENT principles concerning the relations between truth and validity.
*Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and a true conclusion:
regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one. All mammals have lungs.
CONCLUSION All whales are mammals.
*In any argument, the proposition to which the other propositions in the argument are claimed Therefore all whales have lungs.
to give support, or for II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises and a false
which they are given as reasons. conclusion:
PREMISES All four-legged creatures have wings.
*In an argument, the propositions upon which inference is based; the propositions that are All spiders have exactly four legs.
claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion. Therefore all spiders have wings.
CONCLUSION INDICATOR *This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
*A word or phrase (such as “therefore” or “thus”) appearing in an argument and usually true also—even though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this
indicating that what follows it is the conclusion of that argument. argument are false.
III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are true, and
*therefore *for these reasons *proves that *which implies that their conclusions are true as well:
*hence * it follows that *in consequence *which means that If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.
* so * I conclude that *consequently * which entails that I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
*accordingly * which shows that *which allows us to infer that Therefore I am not wealthy.
* for this reason *as a result * which points to the conclusion that *The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. This will be
seen more clearly when the immediately following illustration is considered.
PREMISE INDICATOR IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.
*In an argument, a word or phrase (like “because” and “since” )that normally signals that what This is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only
follows it are statements serving as premises. enough to make the conclusion false.
If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates would be wealthy.
*since *as indicated by *as *may be inferred from Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
*because *the reason is that *as shown by *may be deduced from Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.
*for *for the reason that *inasmuch as *in view of the fact that *The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false. Such an argument cannot
*follows *from may be derived from be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid argument to be true and its
conclusion to be false.
RHETORICAL QUESTION V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:
*An utterance used to make a statement, but which, because it is in interrogative form and is All fishes are mammals.
therefore neither true nor false, does not literall yassert anything. All whales are fishes.
ENTHYMEME Therefore all whales are mammals.
*An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of it being taken for granted. *The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it may be validly inferred
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT from these two premises, both of which are wildly false.
*One of the two major types of argument traditionally distinguished, the other being the VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:
inductive argument. A deductive argument claims to provide conclusive grounds for its All mammals have wings.
conclusion. If it does provide such grounds, it is valid; if it does not, it is INVALID. All whales have wings.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT Therefore all whales are mammals.
*From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from the fact that an 2. OSTENSIVE DEFINITION
argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or invalid. *A kind of denotative definition in which the objects denoted by the term being defined are
VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false premises and a referred to by means of pointing, or with some other gesture; sometimes called a demonstrative
false conclusion: definition.
All mammals have wings.
All whales have wings. 3. QUASI-OSTENSIVE DEFINITION
Therefore all mammals are whales. *A variety of denotative definition that relies upon gesture, in conjunction with a descriptive
These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions
(Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI). Hence B. INTENTIONAL TECHNIQUES
it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself determine the Intension
validity or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not *The attributes shared by all and only the objects in the class that a given term
guarantee the truth of its conclusion (Example II). denotes; the connotation of the term.


*A kind of connotative definition in which a word, phrase or symbol is defined in terms of
DEFINIENDUM another word, phrase or
In any definition, the word or symbol being defined. symbol that has the same meaning and is already understood.
In any definition, a symbol or group of symbols that is said to have the same meaning as the 5. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
definiendum. *A kind of connotative definition that states that the term to be defined is correctly applied to a
given case if and only if
FIVE TYPES OF DEFINITION the performance of specified operations in that case yields a specified result.


*A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily *A type of connotative definition of a term that first identifies the larger class (“genus”) of which
assigned; as opposed to a lexical definition, a stipulative definition cannot be correct or the definiendum is a species or subclass, and then identifies the attribute (“difference”)that
incorrect. distinguishes the members of that species
2. LEXICAL DEFINITION from members of all other species in that genus.
*A definition that reports the meaning that the definiendum already has. A lexical definition can
be true or false. In appraising proposed definitions by genus and difference, especially when they are
3. PRECISING DEFINITION intended as lexical, there are five good rules that have been traditionally laid down.
*A definition devised to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness by delineating a concept more Rule 1: A definition should state the essential attributes of the species.
sharply. Rule 2: A definition must not be circular.
4. THEORETICAL DEFINITION Rule 3: A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow.
*A definition that encapsulates an understanding of the theory in which that term is a key Rule 4: Ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language must not be used in a definition.
element. Rule 5: A definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative
*A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring
emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language.


*The collection of all the objects to which a term may correctly be applied.

1. DENOTATIVE DEFINITION (Definitions by example)

*A definition that identifies the extension of a term, by (for example) listing the members of the
class of objects to which the term refers.


Proposition Form Name and Type Example
All S is P. A Universal affirmative All lawyers are wealthy people. THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
No S is P. E Universal negative No criminals are good citizens.
Some S is P. I Particular affirmative Some chemicals are poisons.
Some S is not P. O Particular negative Some insects are not pests.


Proposition Letter Name Quantity Quality Distributes
All S is P. A Universal Affirmative S only
No S is P. E Universal Negative S and P
Some S is P. I Particular Affirmative Neither
Some S is not P. O Particular Negative P only

Convertend Converse
A: All S is P. I: Some P is S. (by limitation)
E: No S is P. E: No P is S.
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S.
O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid)

Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P. E: No S is non-P. All S is P. A Universal affirmative All S is P
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P. No S is P. E Universal negative No S is P
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P. Some S is P. I Particular affirmative Some S is P
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P. Some S is not P. O Particular negative Some S is not P

Premise Contrapositive
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S.
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation)
I: Some S is P. (contraposition not valid)
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S.P is not non-S.