What determines if an argument is fallacious?

Answer 1

Strictly speaking, an argument is fallacious if and only if its conclusion does not deductive follow from its premises. For example, consider the following argument:

All men are mortal, George Bush is mortal, therefore George Bush is a man.

In this case both premises (1) "All men are mortal", and (2) "George Bush is mortal are true" are true, as is the conclusion "George Bush is a man".

However, the argument is fallacious because the premises do not imply the conclusion: if "George Bush" is the name of your duck, for example, the conclusion is clearly false.

Formally, there is no rule of logic that allows you to go from A->B and B to A.

Note also that a wildly unsound argument may be valid ("valid" is the opposite of fallacious): (1) John Kerry is President, (2) John Kerry is a Democrat, therefore (3) The President is a Democrat.

That argument is not fallacious--it is valid--but still unsound (for the reason that one of the premises (namely #1) is false.

Answer 2

There are many ways an argument can be fallacious, but those ways come under three main headings:

1. Informal fallacies of content.

Fallacies of this kind are due to a fault in the content of the argument (that is, the actual words used). The determining factor in such fallacies is some sort of *confusion*. Often the fault is one of double meaning. For example:

Arnold is very healthy.
Smoking is not very healthy.
So, Arnold is healthier than smoking.

Because the phrase 'very healthy' has two different meanings in this argument its conclusion is nonsense.

2. Formal fallacies.

Fallacies of this kind are due to a fault in the form (the basic structure) of an argument. Usually the term applies only to deductive arguments, in which case the form is said to be invalid. The determining factor in such fallacies is some sort of *conflict* in the structure . The two sorts of conflict are incoherence (conflict within a premise) and incompatibility (conflict between premises). An incoherent (self-contradicting) premise cannot be true. And two incompatible (mutually contradictory) premises cannot both be true together.

It is often difficult to tell whether a form is invalid. One easy method that often works is to remove the content from the argument to expose its form and then give that form some very different content. For example:

If Tom likes Jane he might do her homework.
Tom is doing Jane's homework.
So, Tom likes Jane.

The form of this is:

If P then Q.
Q.
So, P.

But look what happens when you give this form different content:

If there is a power blackout the TV won't work.
The TV won't work.
So, there is a power blackout.

If an argument has a valid form and true premises then its conclusion is *necessarily true*. If an argument has true premises but its conclusion is not necessarily true then it has an invalid form.

3. Informal fallacies of context.

Fallacies of this kind are due either to something that is outside the argument and should be in it, or to something that is in it but does not belong there. So the determining factor is a lack of *precision* - the argument is either incomplete or overcomplete. For example:

John tells us smoking is bad for our health.
John is still a smoker.
So, we should ignore what John tells us about smoking.

In this argument the premise that John is a smoker is irrelevant to the question of whether John's advice is good advice. This argument both lacks premises it needs and includes a premise that does not belong.

Answer 3

Ultimately reality determines the truth of a statement by the consequences that result from the actions taken by a person holding a false belief.

Answer 4

A wrong argument are absurd claims optimum to an unacceptable premise yet can fool human reasoning. All tall human beings make good presidents Clyde is tall for this reason Clyde would make a good president. on an analogous time as the 'sort' is valid the reasoning is wrong. human beings can easily mistake sort for a valid argument.

Answer 5

Fallacious means logically unsound.

But, there is logic and there are scientific facts.

Answer 6

if u really dont believe in the issue ur argueing for then your ganna fail