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 the following points and questions:- Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy.o Formal fallacies occure when a specific rule of valid inference is broken (a formalrule,) and concern structural relationships. Informal fallacies do not break a formal rule, yet there is still something wrong with the reasoning and are often more concerned with the content of the argument.- What is a fallacy of weak induction?o- Explain the fallacies of hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy, false cause and slippery slope.o Hasty generalization: occurs by arriving at a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.o Sweeping generalization: occurs by applying a general principle to a specific case to which that principle does not apply.o Weak anaology: occurs when the items being compared are not relecantly similar concerning the issue under consideration.o False Cause: committed when we attempt to draw a casual inference between two events and there is little evidence that the two events are causally connected.o Slippery slope: usually considered a fallacy of its own, but it can be seen as a typeof the false cause fallacy. It’s a weal inductive argument that claims that given one event, an alleged chain of events will follow, but it offers little or no evidenceto support such a claim.- Describe the fallacy of false cause and know the different types.o When we attempt to draw a casual inference between two events and there is littleevidence that the two events are causally connected.o Post hoc fallacy: an individual mistakenly concludes that because one event occurred temporally after another event, the first event must have caused the second.Page 1 of 4PHIL 201o Oversimplified cause: the tendency to oversimplify, as lamentable as it is, is rampant in a culture that continually reduces complex ideas to thirty-second sound bites.o Non causa pro causa: “Not the cause, for the cause,” occurs when something that is not the cause is inferred as being the cause for an ecent or effect wit hno evidence offered to support the inference. - What is a fallacy of ambiguity?o A family of fallacies arising from language problems. The language employed might be unclear, vague, ambiguous or inappropriate in some other sense.- Explain the fallacies of equivocation, hypostatization, amphiboly, composition, and division.o Equivocation: occurs when the meaning of a significant term changes in he middle of an argument and this distorts and usually invalidates the conclusion.o Hypostatization: occurs when one treats an abstract word as if it were a concrete word. Concrete words refer to particular objects such as the round table.o Amphiboly: well-known fallacy that is usually yhe result of ambiguous grammatical construction or poor sentence structure that introduces a lack of clarity in the sentence.o Composition and division: known as part/whole fallacies because it is erroneouslyassumed that what is true of one must also be true of the other.  Composition: is it erroneously thought that what is true of each part of something must necessarily be true of the whole. Division: makes the same error in the opposite direction; it erroneously assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of each individualpart.- What is the problem with using language that is emotionally loaded or a cliché in an argument?o People are often passionate about the beliefs they hold and this may cause them touse language that packs an emotional wallop but may not be accurate and may even be misleading in arguing for a particular view.- What is a fallacy of presumption? Explain the difference between assuming and presuming.o The fallacies of presumption occurs in an argument because 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.o To make an assumption is to take something for granted without investigating it.o A presumption is like an assumption with a small twist, an epistemic obligation exists that usually is not present with a simple assumption.- Explain begging the question and its different forms.o In this fallacy, the main question or premise under debate is never addressed. Leaving out the key premise in an argument When the conclusion merely restates a premise The circular argument- Explain the fallacies of bifurcation, special pleading, and complex question.Page 2 of 4PHIL 201o Bifurcartion: “ false dilemma” or “fallacy of extremism,” occurs when we are presented only two possible options, usually extremes, when other options are possible.o Special pleading: occurs when one applies a double standard without warrant; onestandard for us and another for them.o Complex question: occurs when a question is asked that contains two questions but is phrased so that the responder can give only one answer and is not allowed to address both questions separately.- What is a fallacy of relevance?o Might appear relevant and are presented that way, but on close analysis the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. These can also be intentional or unintentional.- Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies.o Abusive form: the personal character of the opponent is attackedo Circumstational form: the person’s motives rather than his character are attacked.o Tu quoque “ you also”: the person making the argument is guilty of the practice she is arguing against, so her argument is invalid.- Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies.o Showing that a large number of people agree with a position and therefore you should also.o Mob appeal: the crowd is whipped up into an emotional frenzy based on some noble