8.1 Formal vs. Informal Fallacies
2 min read•july 22, 2024
Fallacies can trip up even the sharpest thinkers. They come in two main flavors: formal ones that mess up the argument's structure, and informal ones that use sneaky content. Knowing the difference helps you spot weak reasoning.
Informal fallacies are trickier beasts. They can distract you, play with your emotions, or oversimplify things. Watch out for attacks on character, appeals to irrelevant authorities, false either/or choices, and arguments in everyday life.
Types of Fallacies
Formal vs informal fallacies
Top images from around the web for Formal vs informal fallacies
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies Poster | Principles of Public Speaking View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community View original
Is this image relevant?
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies Poster | Principles of Public Speaking View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Formal vs informal fallacies
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies Poster | Principles of Public Speaking View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community View original
Is this image relevant?
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies Poster | Principles of Public Speaking View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Formal fallacies occur when the structure of the argument is invalid, meaning the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises (, )
- Informal fallacies occur when the content of the argument is flawed or misleading due to irrelevant, ambiguous, or unsupported premises or reasoning based on false assumptions or emotional appeals
Characteristics of informal fallacies
- involve premises that are not relevant to the conclusion (, , )
- use unclear or misleading language in the argument (, , )
- rely on false or unsupported assumptions (, , )
Impact and Examples of Informal Fallacies
Impact on argument validity
- Distract from the main issue by introducing irrelevant information, leading the audience away from the central point
- Manipulate emotions like fear, pity, or anger to persuade the audience
- Oversimplify complex issues by presenting them as black-and-white, ignoring nuances and alternative perspectives
- Create the illusion of strong evidence, making arguments appear more convincing than they actually are
Examples in everyday reasoning
- Ad hominem attacks the character of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself ("You can't trust his opinion on climate change; he's just a politician, not a scientist.")
- Appeal to authority claims an argument is true because an authority figure supports it, even if the authority's expertise is not relevant ("This new diet must be effective because a famous celebrity endorses it.")
- presents a situation as having only two possible options when there are actually more alternatives ("Either we invest in this expensive project, or our company will go bankrupt.")
- Slippery slope argues that one event will inevitably lead to a chain of worse events without sufficient evidence ("If we allow same-sex marriage, it will lead to people marrying their pets.")
Key Terms to Review (26)
Accent: In the context of logic and reasoning, accent refers to the emphasis placed on a particular word or phrase in a statement, which can change the meaning or interpretation of that statement. This can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations, especially in arguments where the emphasis shifts the focus or intention behind the message. Understanding how accent plays a role in communication is crucial in identifying both formal and informal fallacies that arise from ambiguous language.
Accent: In logic, an accent refers to the emphasis placed on a word or phrase, which can alter its meaning or implications within an argument. This shift in meaning based on emphasis can lead to informal fallacies, as the intended message may be misinterpreted or manipulated through selective stress on certain words, thus affecting the overall clarity and validity of reasoning.
Ad hominem: Ad hominem is a type of logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motive of the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. This tactic often distracts from the real issue and can undermine constructive discourse, making it essential to recognize in discussions of reasoning and logic.
Affirming the Consequent: Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument asserts that if a certain condition is true, then a particular outcome must also be true, and concludes that the condition must indeed be true because the outcome is observed. This reasoning is flawed as it overlooks other possible causes for the outcome. Understanding this fallacy is crucial when evaluating the validity of arguments, recognizing sound reasoning, and distinguishing between different types of inference.
Amphiboly: Amphiboly is a type of ambiguity that arises from the grammatical structure of a statement, leading to multiple interpretations. This occurs when the syntax of a sentence allows for more than one meaning, often due to misplaced modifiers or unclear phrasing. Amphiboly can create confusion and miscommunication, making it important to recognize in the context of both formal and informal fallacies.
Appeal to authority: An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true simply because an expert or authority figure endorses it, without providing substantial evidence to support the claim. This type of reasoning can undermine critical thinking, as it relies on the assumption that authority figures are infallible and always correct, which is not necessarily the case.
Argument analysis: Argument analysis is the process of evaluating the components of an argument, including its premises, conclusions, and inferences, to determine its validity and soundness. This practice helps to identify the structure of arguments, distinguish between strong and weak reasoning, and assess the presence of logical fallacies that may undermine the argument's effectiveness.
Begging the Question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which an argument's conclusion is assumed in its premises, effectively creating a circular reasoning pattern. This fallacy often leads to invalid arguments, as it does not provide independent support for the conclusion but instead relies on the very claim that needs to be proven. Recognizing this fallacy is crucial for identifying flawed reasoning in both formal and informal arguments.
Begging the question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. This fallacy occurs when an argument goes in a circle, where the conclusion is included in the premise, making it seem valid but ultimately unsubstantiated. It often appears in discussions where the speaker takes for granted what they are supposed to prove.
Critical thinking: Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information in order to form a judgment or conclusion. It involves questioning assumptions, identifying biases, and assessing evidence, leading to more informed decision-making. This skill is essential for distinguishing between valid arguments and fallacies, and for engaging effectively in reasoned discourse.
Denying the Antecedent: Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy in deductive reasoning where one assumes that if a conditional statement is true, then negating its antecedent means the consequent must also be false. This logical misstep occurs when one infers that a negative outcome follows from a negative premise, leading to invalid conclusions. Understanding this concept is essential for evaluating argument structure and identifying fallacies in reasoning.
Equivocation: Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when a word or phrase is used in multiple senses within an argument, leading to misleading or ambiguous conclusions. This fallacy exploits the ambiguity of language to shift meanings and create confusion, making it difficult to determine the actual intent of the argument. It's important to recognize equivocation as it can appear both in formal and informal reasoning, often undermining the clarity and effectiveness of communication.
Fallacies of Ambiguity: Fallacies of ambiguity occur when the meaning of a term or phrase is unclear or shifts during an argument, leading to confusion or misinterpretation. These fallacies can arise from ambiguous language, misleading terms, or unclear references, making it difficult to reach a valid conclusion. They highlight the importance of clarity and precision in communication, as vagueness can undermine logical reasoning and result in flawed arguments.
Fallacies of Presumption: Fallacies of presumption occur when an argument is based on an assumption that is not supported or is questionable, leading to a conclusion that lacks a solid foundation. These fallacies often mislead by presuming too much about the evidence or the situation, and they can be either formal or informal in nature. Understanding these fallacies helps in identifying faulty reasoning in discussions and debates.
Fallacies of Relevance: Fallacies of relevance are errors in reasoning where the premises of an argument are not logically connected to the conclusion, often leading to distracting or misleading conclusions. These fallacies divert attention away from the actual argument by introducing irrelevant information or emotional appeals, making them a common feature in informal arguments. They can undermine the effectiveness of communication by obscuring logical reasoning.
False dilemma: A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents a situation as having only two alternatives, ignoring other viable options. This fallacy simplifies complex issues by forcing a choice between extremes and often manipulates the audience's perception by framing the argument in a limited way. Recognizing a false dilemma is essential for critical thinking, as it highlights the need to explore all possible outcomes rather than being trapped in a binary choice.
False Dilemma: A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents two options as the only possibilities when, in fact, more options may exist. This type of reasoning oversimplifies complex issues and forces individuals to make choices without considering a broader range of alternatives. False dilemmas are often used in arguments to manipulate perceptions and limit discussion.
Formal fallacy: A formal fallacy is an error in the structure or form of an argument that renders it invalid, regardless of the content of the premises. These fallacies are strictly related to the logical form, meaning that even if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be logically drawn from them. Recognizing formal fallacies is crucial for evaluating arguments, as they highlight flaws in reasoning that can mislead or confuse.
Informal fallacy: An informal fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs due to problems with the content or context of an argument rather than its form. These fallacies often arise from emotional appeals, ambiguity, or irrelevant information, making them more subtle and sometimes harder to detect than formal fallacies. Understanding informal fallacies is essential for evaluating the strength and validity of arguments in everyday discourse.
Persuasion: Persuasion is the process of influencing someone's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, or behaviors through communication. It involves appealing to the audience's emotions, logic, or ethical values to encourage a change in perspective or action. This concept is crucial in understanding how arguments are constructed and evaluated, especially when distinguishing between sound reasoning and fallacious claims.
Red herring: A red herring is a logical fallacy that involves introducing irrelevant information or distracting elements in an argument to divert attention from the main issue. This tactic often misleads the audience, leading them away from the actual point of contention and can be found in both formal and informal arguments, highlighting the importance of recognizing such distractions in reasoning processes.
Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of persuasion through effective communication, often utilizing techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to influence an audience's beliefs or actions. It plays a crucial role in shaping arguments, whether in writing or speech, by focusing on how language can be crafted to persuade and engage. Understanding rhetoric enhances critical thinking skills, enabling individuals to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of arguments presented in various contexts.
Slippery slope: A slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument asserts that a relatively small first step or action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant, often negative, outcome. This type of reasoning is often used to create fear or urgency without providing sufficient evidence that the progression will occur as stated.
Slippery Slope: A slippery slope is a logical fallacy that suggests that a relatively small first step or action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in significant (usually negative) consequences. This fallacy often relies on fear and exaggeration to persuade others, rather than presenting factual evidence. Recognizing this fallacy is crucial in evaluating arguments, as it highlights the need to question whether the proposed chain reaction is logically sound or merely speculative.
Soundness: Soundness is a property of arguments in formal logic indicating that an argument is not only valid, but also has all true premises, which guarantees the truth of its conclusion. This means that sound arguments are both logically correct and factually accurate, connecting the logical structure of arguments to their real-world implications.
Validity: Validity refers to the property of an argument wherein if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This concept is crucial in assessing the strength of arguments, as it determines whether an argument logically follows from its premises, linking directly to methods of analysis and various logical tools.