EIABC Campus, ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

Logic and critical thinking Assignment on:

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
Done by: -
1.Abel Gebru (UGR/0156/15)
2. Atika Mohammed (UGR/2717/15)
3. Bereket Zemenu (UGR/1733/15)
4.Bethlehem Tamrat (UGR/8691/15)
5.Betselot Meheretu (UGR/1580/15)
6. Brook Dereje (UGR/4385/15)
7.Iman Redwan (UGR/5362/15)
8. Inaya Ali (UGR/4383/15)
9. Koket Engida (UGR/3383/15)

Submission date: - April 25,2023

Submitted to: - Mr. Brook Shewadeg
 Fallacy of Relevance 2

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to our Logic lecturer Mr. Brook Shewadeg
for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information
regarding the project. We think the completion of this project would not have been possible
without his guidance and support. The assignment was rewarding as it helped us to better
understand the principles of logical fallacies. We appreciate the effort put forth by the instructor
in designing the assignment. This experience has improved our critical thinking skills and will
undoubtedly benefit us in future academic pursuits.
We would want to express our greatest gratitude to all those who directly or indirectly
helped and supported us throughout the project. Finally, we would like to acknowledge ourselves
for our continued support each other and coordination in this project to complete this Assignment
within the limited time frame.

2|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 3

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................................4
Informal Fallacies........................................................................................................................................5
Fallacy of Relevance................................................................................................................................5
1. Appeal to Force...........................................................................................................................5
2. Appeal to Pity..............................................................................................................................6
3. Appeal to People.........................................................................................................................7
4. Argument against the person.....................................................................................................9
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................12
References.................................................................................................................................................13

3|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 4

Introduction
Fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. Fallacies are
typically classified into two types: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are
errors in the structure of the argument, while informal fallacies are errors in the content of the
argument. Formal fallacies are easier to spot because they involve an incorrect logical form. For
instance, a formal fallacy is known as affirming the consequent, which is when a conditional
statement is logically written in reverse, leading to an incorrect conclusion. For instance, if A
then B; B; therefore, A.

Informal fallacies can be more difficult to identify, as they rely on the content of the argument
rather than the structure. For instance, an ad hominem argument is an informal fallacy which is
an attack on the character of a person instead of the content of their argument. Formal fallacies
are usually caused by mistakes in the logic and can be identified by examining the structure of
the argument. Informal fallacies, on the other hand, are caused by mistakes in the premises or
assumptions of the argument, and can be harder to detect as they rely on the interpretation of the
content of the argument. The fallacy of relevance is committed when an argument relies on
premises that are not logically relevant to its conclusion. This type of fallacy is often used in
persuasive arguments but fails to provide a valid logical connection between the premises and
conclusion. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the fallacy of relevance in order to identify
and avoid it. Therefore, we will highlight portions like the definition of a fallacy as well as a
description of the main categories of fallacies. Then our discussion will take a more in depth
look at the fallacy of relevance and some of its examples which includes:

 Appeal to Force,
 The Appeal to Pity,
 Appeal to the People (Bandwagon Arguments, Appeal to Vanity, Appeal
to Snobbery)
 Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy which encompasses Abusive ad
Hominem, Circumstantial ad Hominem, and tu quoque (you also).

4|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 5

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is
not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to
their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and
thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are
often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions,
or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit. In philosophy, fallacies
are usually seen as a form of bad argument, but in non-scholarly discourse fallacies are not seen
as arguments but rather as false yet popular beliefs. Traditionally, a great number of informal
fallacies have been identified, but the traditional approach to fallacies has received a lot of
criticism in contemporary philosophy. This criticism is often based on the argument that the
alleged fallacies are not fallacious at all, or at least not in all cases. To overcome this problem,
alternative approaches for conceiving arguments and fallacies have been proposed. These include
the dialogical approach, which conceives arguments as moves in a dialogue-game aimed at
rationally persuading the other person. This game is governed by various rules. Fallacies are
defined as violations of the dialogue rules impeding the progress of the dialogue. The epistemic
approach constitutes another framework. Its core idea is that arguments play an epistemic role:
they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet
justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of
epistemic justification. In the Bayesian approach, the epistemic norms are given by the laws of
probability, which our degrees of belief should track. Some of the informal fallacies are: fallacy
of relevance, fallacy of weak induction, and fallacy of presumption, ambiguity and grammatical
analogy.

Fallacy of Relevance
The fallacies of relevance are those arguments which clearly fail to provide adequate reason for
believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade
people by non-logical means. Arguments in which the fallacies of relevance occur have premises
that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises are relevant psychologically, so
the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.
In such arguments the connection between the premise and conclusion is emotional. Many of the
fallacies of relevance were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names
for them have passed into common use. The following are some examples of fallacies of
relevance.

5|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 6

1. Appeal to Force
As the name indicates, this argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant
backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. The listener is told that unpleasant
consequences will follow if they don’t agree with the conclusion Logically, this consideration
has nothing to do with the points under consideration. Moreover, the fallacy is not limited only to
the threats of violence. But also, it includes threats of any unpleasant backlash like financial,
professional, and so on. Example:
 The teacher said, “If you don't fulfil every point, in the assignment, there will be a loss in
marks.”
 We should always be loyal to our boss, otherwise, he will fire us within a second from
the company.
 Never try to violate the supreme law of the country, otherwise, you’ll face many
unpleasant consequences.
 You shouldn’t harm others, because you will reap what you sow.
 Biden is the greatest president that US ever had. If you disagree you will lose your
position in the congress.
After all, when force is used in a place of reason in an attempt to justify the conclusion, we call it
an Appeal to Force. And, it commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational
arguments fail to convince a reader.

2. Appeal to Pity
Appeal to pity is one of the types of fallacy of relevance in which someone tries to persuade
other to accept their argument or conclusion based solely on the emotion appeal of feeling such
as sympathy, compassion or empathy rather than providing sound reasoning and evidence or
relevant facts for their argument. It's important to be able to distinguish between sound argument
based on evidence and logical reasoning, and argument that relay on emotional appeals like pity.
while emotions can certainly play a role in our decision-making processes, they should not be the
sole basis of a persuasive argument.
For instance, if someone is arguing in favor of lower sentence for a criminal based solely on the
emotional appeal of the criminal's difficult childhood rather than presenting relevant facts about
the case and the criminal's action, they are committing the fallacy of appeal to pity. This is an
example of fallacy because the emotional appeal of pity is not necessarily related to the argument
being made. Example:
 I know I didn't do well on the exam, but you must give me a passing grade. Because my
grandmother passed away last week, and I couldn't concentrate on my studies.
In this example a person is asking for a pity that is a passing grade that isn't based on his effort.
 You can't fire me! I have three kids to feed and no other job prospects. Please, have
mercy on me.

6|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 7

 You can’t send me to jail! I'm a single parent and my kids need me, and I have promised
that I will never do it again.
In all of these examples the argument is based on emotional appeal rather than logical reasoning.
While it may be understandable to feel sympathy for someone's situation, it doesn't necessarily
justify giving them what they want or excusing their behavior. In order to make a valid argument,
one must present relevant evidence and logical reasoning, rather than relying on emotional
manipulation.

3. Appeal to People
Appeal to People or Argumentum ad populum, is a persuasion technique that involves appealing
to a person valued by others. There are two approaches: Direct and Indirect
 The direct approach aims to elicit emotion and enthusiasm from a large group of people
to win acceptance for a conclusion. Using a direct approach means that you get straight
to the point after the salutation and a reference to previous contact.
Example: With reference to inform you that you have not been selected for interview.
 The indirect approach involves directing the appeal to one or more individuals
separately, utilizing techniques like the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, and
the Appeal to snobbery. While this technique may be effective, be cautious not to rely
solely on emotion without backing your argument with credible evidence. Remember to
prioritize logical reasoning over emotional appeals.
Example: If Tina and Carlos are co-workers and Tina disapproves of Carlos eating habits at his
desk but doesn’t know how to communicate this directly to him, she may emit loud, exasperated
signs or glare at Carlos disapprovingly.

a. Bandwagon
The bandwagon is also sometimes called the appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses
because it’s all about getting people to do or think something because “everyone is doing it” or
“everyone thinks about it this way”. It is based on appeal to popular belief and behavior not on
valid and logical points. The term “bandwagon” stems from the 1848 U.S presidential election.
During Zachary Taylor’s successful campaign, a popular performance. Clown invited Taylor to
join his circus bandwagon. Taylor received a significant amount of renown, and people started
claiming that his political opponents might also want to “Jump on the bandwagon”.
It is a psychological phenomenon because people do something primarily because other people
are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs which they may ignore or override. The bandwagon
is an informal fallacy, which means that the illogical part of a bandwagon argument is its content,

7|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 8

not its construction. A bandwagon has effects in different areas like politics, Customer behavior,
investment and finance. Some examples of bandwagon argument are:
 Don’t do your homework, come to the movie night. Everyone is going to be there.
 You should buy the new Audi. It is the most popular car right now; everyone says it is
the best.
 When someone is deciding what clothes to buy his friend tells him that the new jeans are
the most popular fashion at the moment and he should buy them if he wants to feel
comfortable.
 When someone wants to go on his summer vacation and spend some time at the beach.
But in the latest travel magazine it says that a trip to Australia is the up-and-coming
travel destination, so he goes on holiday there.
 Someone with love of our planet wants to vote for a political party whose main goal is to
prevent global warming. All his neighborhood is voting for another party, so he decides
that this party must be the correct choice, even though climate change is not on their
agenda.

b. Appeal to Vanity
The literal meaning of vanity, from the dictionary, is “excessive pride in or admiration of one's
own appearance or achievements”. This appeal is also referred as ‘Appeal to flattery’. In
appealing to flattery, a person uses extravagant compliments to win the support of their
audience’s vanity/ pride. To add on, appeal to vanity is a marketing technique that focuses on
highlighting the customer's sense of self-importance and seeks to create a connection between a
product or service and the customer's vanity. It is used to make customers believe that the
product or service will help them feel more attractive or successful. For example, a company
may create advertisements that feature models wearing their clothing to make customers feel that
their clothing will make them look as attractive as the models.
Appeal to vanity also works to make customers feel that they are part of an exclusive group by
suggesting that their purchase will make them stand out from the crowd. This creates a sense of
exclusivity that makes customers even more likely to buy the product or service.
 For instance, a company might promote their product as "only available to a select few"
or use words like "exclusive" and "limited edition" to make customers feel like they are
part of an elite group. A luxury car manufacturer might advertise their vehicles as
"limited edition" with only a certain number of units produced, making them feel like the
customers are special for being among the few to own one.

c. Appeal to snobbery
The snobbery appeal fallacy is an argument that distracts by exploiting the audience's desire to
want to feel special or unique. It is one of the specific forms of indirect approach where the
arguer aims to his or her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but at one or more individual
separately, focusing on some aspects of their relationship to the crowd. It uses the desire of the

8|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 9

reader or listener to stand out in the crowd to convince him/her to accept the conclusion. Snob
appeal refers to the qualities or attributes of a product that might appeal to a consumer with
"snobby" tastes. It may refer to the actual product itself or the exclusivity the consumer could
potentially experience as a result of owning the product that is being advertised.
The purpose of snob appeal is to persuade a consumer to purchase a product or service by
convincing him or her that the purchase will elevate their status. For example:
 Cigarette ads with big and tough guys smoking cigarettes makes it seem that the
consumer, too, could be amongst the elite hearty men who smoke cigarettes.
 Commercials that show men drinking a certain brand of beer attracting all of the beautiful
women in a bar gives the underlying message that drinking that beer will make the
consumer more attractive to women.
 A food commercial that highlights parents who are "Number One" that purchase a certain
food product implies that the consumer will also be a top-notch parent if he or she
purchases the product.
 A military slogan that says, "Do you have what it takes?" is appealing to snob appeal by
trying to recruit members implying that they are an elite group that has characteristics
that others do not possess.

4. Argument against the person

The argument against the person fallacy, also known as the ad hominem fallacy, is a type of
logical fallacy that involves attacking an individual's behavior rather than engaging with the
substance of their argument. Ad hominem attacks are typically viewed as being weak and ill-
informed since they divert attention away from the main point and produce a negative
atmosphere. Ad hominem attacks can inhibit growth and prevent helpful talks, therefore it's
important to be aware of them and to avoid them when participating in an intelligent debate. It
has three forms: ad hominiem abusive, ad hominiem circumstantial and tu quoque (“you too”
fallacy).

a. Ad Hominem Abusive
It’s a type of fallacy broadly categorized under relevance fallacy and specifically under the
argumentum ad hominem. It involves two persons. One asserts a claim and shows the evidences
or proofs to make an argument, but the other attacks the arguer—exposing the arguer’s
characters, motives, morals, intellect, economic status, social disfunction, and so on—not by
investigating the credibility of the assertion itself. As the name indicates, the second person
abusively block out or demoralize the ideas of the person by targeting and turning focus towards
the person and his/her supposed failings which don’t have any relevant relation to decide the
validity of the arguer’s claims. Therefore, this is how it go:
Premise: X is making an argument
Premise: X is a mad man.
9|Page
 Fallacy of Relevance 10

Conclusion: The argument has to be rejected.

Other names that are interchangeably used for ad hominem abusive are Personal Attack, Abusive
Fallacy, Damning the Source and Name-calling. Examples:

 Carly: “I think that climate change is the most important issue of our time and everyone
should acknowledge that.”
Jamie: “You didn’t even go to college, so no one should listen to you.”
The conclusion to this argument is to reject the idea of Carly just because she has not learned in a
college, but this doesn’t show the credibility or validity of her argument. The verbal abusive act
is to personally attack the arguer and fallaciously prove that the argument can’t be accepted by
mentioning the drawbacks of the arguer’s background or present circumstances, yet this
information/condition has no relevant significance for the person to use it against and completely
damn the claim asserted by the arguer. In contrary, there are some cases in which the criticism is
not considered to be an ad hominem abusive fallacy.
1. Simple Insult – it is when the person presents relevant proofs/points against the argument
made, but makes irrelevant insults against the arguer at the same time. The insult is not
used as a criterion to refute the argument; it’s just simply an insult.

2. Relevant Criticism – it is when the person is bringing up the characters, credentials, skills
& the like of the arguer that have definite match or relevant relation to the
topic/conclusion of the argument. Examples can include employing someone for a job,
placing someone in the seat of authority (law, management, governance, etc.)

b. Ad Hominem Circumstantial
It is one of the categories of argumentum ad hominiem in which a person tries to dispose and
invalidate the argument of the proponent by suggesting that the person is biased or predisposed
to take a particular stance because of his/her position(circumstances). It points out that someone
is in circumstances (job, wealth, property, or relation) such that they are disposed to take a
particular position. Ad hominiem circumstantial has other names like: appeal to bias, appeal to
personal interest, argument from motives, conflict of interest, faulty motive, naïve cynicism,
questioning motives, and vested interest. It has a logical form which goes like this:
A claims ‘x’ to be true.
B suggests that A claimed ‘x’ to be true because he/she has a vested interest in ‘x’ being
true, therefore ‘x’ is false. Example:
 Salesman: our machine better than other company’s machines, so many customers have
given it a rating of 5 stars.
Customer: that’s not true, you’re making this up just because you want to sell it to me.

10 | P a g e
 Fallacy of Relevance 11

In this example the fact that the salesman has a vested interest in selling this machine to the
customer doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s making up all of this staff. It is reasonable to think
that he is saying this because he believes in the quality of the product that he is trying to sell.
 Student: all the students who presented should get a bonus
Teacher: you’re just saying this because you’re one of the presenters.
But there is a question that comes to our mind and that is “Are all of ad hominiem circumstantial
arguments fallacious?” and the famous philosopher and pundit of informal fallacies Douglas N.
Walton asked this question and argued that ad hominiem circumstantial arguments can be non-
fallacious. This happens when A attacks the argument of B by referring to his/her personality,
while the personality of B is relevant to the argument. He gives the example of a witness on a
trial: if the witness had been caught lying and cheating in his life, according to him the jury
shouldn’t take his word for granted. So, according to Douglas N. Walton all ad hominiem
circumstantial arguments are not fallacious.

c. Tu quoque (you too)

This is another type of ad hominiem argument in which one discredits or invalidates a claim by
pointing out that the proponent has acted in a way which is contradictory to their stated position.
It tries to falsify the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s personal behavior and
action as being inconsistent with their argument. It can be used as effective tool of persuasion
even though it is fallacious. By using Tu quoque all we can achieve is show how hypocrite the
opponent is rather than disproving their claims. Logical form:
A claims that statement ‘y’ is true
B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of their claim.
Therefore, ‘y’ is false. Example:
 Father: lying to someone is morally wrong
Son: yesterday I have heard you lying to your boss, so lying must be a good thing.
 A: “stop running so many stop signs”
B: “you run them all the time.”
Unlike the first example the second example doesn’t contain statements which are explicitly
claiming ‘x’, but because of the colloquial nature of the conversation, it is understood that
statement ‘x’ is “running stop sign is wrong.” So, it is possible for Tu Quoque arguments to be
presented by using colloquial language and it can also appear outside of conversation.

11 | P a g e
 Fallacy of Relevance 12

Conclusion
 The fallacy of relevance is an important concept to consider when making arguments. It
involves using irrelevant information to try to prove a point, which often leads to flawed
reasoning. We covered examples of relevance fallacy, including appeals to force, appeals
to pity, appeals to people, and appeals against people. There are other examples of this
fallacy not discussed here, such as the strawman fallacy and the red herring fallacy. It is
important to be aware of these fallacies and recognize when they are being used in
arguments, so that we can make more informed decisions by helping us to identify false
information, which is a key element in effective decision-making, since fallacious
arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments.

12 | P a g e
 Fallacy of Relevance 13

References
1. Wikipedia
2. “Informal fallacies” by department of philosophy, Texas state university.
3.

13 | P a g e