Question

  Explain the difference between a fallacy of weak induction, a fallacy of ambiguity, and a fallacy of relevance. Give example of each.

Answer 1

ans--

The fallacies of weak induction are arguments whose premises do not make their conclusions very probable—but that are nevertheless often successful in convincing people of their conclusions.

Example-- No one would blame a bartender for having a few drinks on the job. but an airline pilot is no less a human being than a bartender. So, no one should blame an airline pilot for having a few drinks on the job. Occurs when an analogy upon which the argument depends is too weak to support the argument.

Amphiboly. A fallacy of ambiguity, where the ambiguity in question arises directly from the poor grammatical structure in a sentence. The fallacy occurs when a bad argument relies on the grammatical ambiguity to sound strong and logical.

Common Ambiguity Examples

Foreigners are hunting dogs – It is unclear whether dogs were being hunted, or foreigners are being spoken of as dogs. Each of us saw her duck – It is not clear whether the word “duck” refers to an action of ducking, or a duck that is a bird.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand. Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.

Emotional Appeal: Some fallacies of relevance exploit or take advantage of various human emotions (fear, desire, pity, prejudice, bigotry, gullibility, insecurity, vanity, snobbery, modesty, guilt, admiration, loyalty, patriotism, hatred, etc.) rather than present reasoned and relevant evidence.