PHIL 201STUDY GUIDE: LESSON 5Informal FallaciesLesson OverviewIn our last lesson, we began a study in logic and overviewed the basic terminology and types of logical argumentation. In this lesson, we survey a number of well-known informal fallacies. Formal fallacies break specific rules of valid inference, but informal fallacies do not a break a specific rule. They are guilty of bad reasoning due to a flaw in the content of the argument. We will organize the fallacies around 4 types of flaws: weak induction, ambiguous language, questionable presumptions, and irrelevant issues.TasksRead and take notes on Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 6: “Informal Fallacies.” As you read, make sure you understand comthe following points and questions:- Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy.Formal fallacy: Deductive, when a specific rule of valid inference is brokenInformal fallacy: Inductive, Do not break a formal rule yet there is something wrong with the reasoning. (pg. 144)- What is a fallacy of weak induction?When an error arises because the reasoning between the premises and the conclusion is inductively weak and leads us to a conclusion that may be presented as strong, but does notfollow. (pg. 145)- Explain the fallacies of hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy, and slippery slope.Hasty Generalization: Occurs by arriving at a conclusion bawled on insufficient evidence (pg.145)Sweeping: Applying a general principle to a specific case to which it does not apply (pg. 145-146)Weak Analogy: Occurs when items being compared are not relevantly similar concerning the issue under consideration (pg. 146)Slippery Slope: A weak inductive argument that claims that given 1 event, an alleged chain of events will offer, but offers little or no evidence to upport (pg 149)- Describe the fallacy of false cause and know the different types.Fallacy of false cause: Attempt to draw a causal inference between 2 events when there is little or no evidence that the 2 events are causally connected. 1. Post-hoc fallacy2. Oversimplified cause3. Non causa pro causa(pgs. 147-148)Page 1 of 7PHIL 201- What is a fallacy of ambiguity?A family of fallacies arising from language problems. Language that is unclear, vague, ambiguous or inappropriate. Philosophy must have clarity so they value language that is precise and accurate in expressing ideas. (pg. 150)- Explain the fallacies of equivocation, hypostatization, amphiboly, composition, and division.Equivocation - Occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in the middle of an argument and thus distorts and usually invalidates the conclusion. (pg. 150)Hypostatization - Occurs when one treats an abstract word as if it were a concrete word, usually personification. (pg. 151)Amphiboly - A well-known fallacy that is usually the result of ambiguous grammatical construction or poor sentence structure that introduces a lack of clarity in the sentence. (when the referent of a pronoun is not clear) (pg. 151)Composition - It is erroneously thought that what is true of each part of something must necessarily be true of the whole. (pg. 152)Division - It erroneously assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of each individual part. Opposite of fallacy of composition. (pg. 153)- What is the problem with using language that is emotionally loaded or a cliché in an argument?When people are passionate about their beliefs, they may use language that moves people emotionally, but may not be accurate and may even be misleading in arguing for a particularview. (pg. 153)- What is a fallacy of presumption?Occur when one is not given the opportunity to investigate all of the options in an argumentbecause the argument has been framed and presented in such a way as to ignore, distort or evade certain facts that may have significant bearing on the argument. (pg. 155)- Explain the difference between assuming and presuming.Assuming: To take something for granted without investigationPresuming: An epistemic obligation exists that usually is not present with a simple assumption. (pg. 154)- Explain begging the question and its different forms.It is a fallacy of presumption. The main question or premise under debate is never addressed. The arguer presumes the issue is settled or does not need to be addressed and arrives at a conclusion without presenting the premise or allowing others to examine it.1. Leaves the key premises out and presumes everyone is settled on the issues (pg. 155)2. Conclusion merely restates a premise using different language (pg. 155)3. Circular argument (pg. 156)Page 2 of 7PHIL 201- Explain the fallacies of bifurcation, special pleading, and complex question.Bifurcation (Also known as false dilemma or the fallacy of extremism) A Fallacy of presumptionOccurs when we are presented only 2 possible options, usually extremes, when other options are possible. Doesn't allow other possibilities. (Politicians) (pg. 157)Special Pleading (Fallacy of presumption)Occurs when one applies a double standard without warrant: one standard for us and another for them. This fallacy is commonly committed through the use of pejorative and euphemistic language. (pg. 158)Complex Question. (Fallacy of presumption)Occurs when a question is asked that contains 2 questions but is phrased so that the responder can give only one answer and is not allowed to address both questions separately. Favorite of lawyers. When asked a complex question is to question the question. Separate and answer the questions individually. (pg. 159)- What is a fallacy of relevance?Employ premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion being proposed. Might appear relevant and are presented that way, but on close analysis the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Can be intentional or unintentional (pg. 160)- Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies.1. Abusive form - the personal character or the opponent is attacked2. Circumstantial form - A person's motives rather than his character are attacked. If it benefits him personally then it is claimed that should discredit the argument.3. Tu Quoque ("you also") - that the person making the argument is guilty of the practiceshe is arguing against. (pg. 161)- Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies.1. The most common way is by showing that a large # of people agree with a position therefore you should also.2. A subtler version inverts the logic and appeals to a