Fallacies of Presumption

Explanation

Fallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but are
nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of presumption begin with a false (or at
least unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their conclusion.

Examples

Arguments involving false dilemmas, complex questions, or circularity all commit fallacies of
presumption: false dilemmas assume that there are no other options to consider; complex
questions assume that a state of affairs holds when it may not; circular arguments assume
precisely the thing that they seek to prove. In each case, the assumption is problematic, and
prevents the argument from establishing its conclusion.

Unwarranted Assumptions

The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their
conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit
supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. Again, we'll
consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon
which it is based.

Accident

The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule,
but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
Oprah Winfrey is a woman.

Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a
universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be false. The
truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and
applying it to any of them is fallacious.

Converse Accident

The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some
way, and then errs by deriving from this case the truth of a general rule.

Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.

Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general
principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the
argument is unreliable.

False Cause

The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connectionsimply because events appear
to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.
 The moon was full on Thursday evening.
On Friday morning I overslept.

Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal
relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.

Begging the Question (petitio principii)

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises
offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an
explicit version would look like this:

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals have hair.

Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.

But all animals that bear live young are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain
of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the
conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide support
for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.

Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it
implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

Have you tried to stop watching too much television?

If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.

If not, then you must still be watching too much television.

Therefore, you watch too much television.

In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous fallacy. We
would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the
conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove.
Fallacies of Ambiguity

A fallacy of ambiguity occurs when a conclusion is drawn from premises that are
unclear. When an unclear premise is used, it may not support the conclusion.

Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.

Ambiguous words or statements lead to vagueness and confusion, and shape the basis for
instances of unintentional humor. For instance, it is ambiguous to say I rode a black horse in red
pajamas, because it may lead us to think the horse was wearing red pajamas. The sentence
becomes clear when it is restructured Wearing red pajamas, I rode a black horse.

Similarly, same words with different meanings can cause ambiguity e.g. John took off his
trousers by the bank. It is funny if we confuse one meaning of bank which is a building, to
another meaning, being an edge of a river. Context usually resolves any ambiguity in such
cases.

Ambiguity or fallacy of ambiguity is a word, phrase, or statement which contains

more than one meaning.

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.

Vicious Abstraction. In a word, this is the fallacy of misquotation. In its first form (quoting out
of context) it is committed whenever a statement is removed from a context or discussion which
is necessary for the statement's meaning. Notice how each of the following statements, while
quoted accurately from the passages above them, takes on a different meaning, so that the
original speaker seems to be saying something he never intended:
 "Teenage exploitation films seem to be drawn from a pile of garbage that gets worse as
time passes. There seems to be a contest to see who can make the most sickening,
disgusting film ever. This one is the winner. It stands by itself. If you go to see it, be sure
to take an air sickness bag." --Sam Eyeball
Sam Eyeball says of the film, "This one is the winner. It stands by itself." --Movie
Advertisement
"Paul . . . to all who are beloved of God in Rome. . . . [etc.] Timothy, my fellow-worker
greets you; and so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who write
this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you."
[etc.]
The book of Romans was written by Tertius, who lived with Gaius. Just look at Romans
16:22-23: "I Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, host to me and to
the whole church, greets you."

An important thing to remember about this form of vicious abstraction is that the context
necessary for meaning may be larger than a few sentences. You may have to have a paragraph, a
chapter, or even a whole work in order to understand the true import of a statement or viewpoint.
(And this is especially true with Biblical interpretation.)

The second form of the fallacy of vicious abstraction occurs when a statement is quoted
inaccurately--that is, some part of a statement is omitted, thereby changing the meaning of the
statement, or the statement itself is changed somewhat. Note how different the originals here are
from their alleged sources:

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth
men's minds about to religion. --Francis Bacon
Bacon said, "Philosophy inclines men to atheism."

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil. -- 1 Timothy 6:10

Paul says in first Timothy that money is the root of all evil.

While the book does have a few poorly written places, the wonderful ideas and the
general elegance of the writing certainly make up for a couple of clumsy expressions.
--Freida Reader
Freida calls the book "poorly written" and says it has "clumsy expressions" in it.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in
heaven. --Matthew 22:30
Jesus tells us that in the resurrection people become angels in heaven.

I really like a lot of wine in my spaghetti sauce. --Phil Jones

Jones himself admits, and I quote, "I really like a lot of wine. . . ." Is that the kind of
person we want for city council?
It is better to have the whole world as your enemy, than to offend Jesus. --Thomas a
Kempis
Thomas a Kempis says that it's good to have the world as your enemy.

How do we know God has a beard? Well, Isaiah tells us that in the future "the Lord will
shave with a razor." [Isaiah 7:20, NASB--look it up]

For a couple of other Biblical examples see John 21:21-23 and compare John 2:19 with Matthew
26:61 or Mark 14:58.
Especially when reading political or polemical materials, you should beware of quotations which
seem to contradict known positions of the speaker or writer and be skeptical of statements which
appear inhumanly callous or inanely simplistic. Such quotations may have been viciously
abstracted.

Paraphrases of opinions, stands, and even literary or philosophical works often contain vicious
abstractions because the paraphrasers are not careful to include qualifications, details,
exceptions, or circumstances which are essential to a proper meaning. For this reason, accurate
conclusions can seldom be drawn from paraphrases.

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.