 Welcome back in the last few lectures we talked about some of the basic concepts in which we started we recognized arguments and we could recognize arguments only when there are some premise indicators or conclusion indicators. Suppose if these premise and conclusion indicators are missing then we are looking for some kind of factual claim if it is there it is well and good and then we said that for identifying or recognizing an argument what is most important is the inferential claim. So if you can find the inferential claim then can say that there seems to be some kind of argument present in a given English language passage and once we identified the arguments then we identified that based on how the conclusion follows from the premises we identified that a particular kind of argument is a deductive argument in which conclusion necessarily follows from the premises and there is no new information in the conclusion which is not stated in the premises and then it is not considered to be applicative etc and all and we identified some of the other arguments in which the conclusion only probably follows from the premises and there is always some kind of new information in the conclusion which is not there in the premises and all. So these are what we call it as inductive arguments and then we also said something about non arguments such as you know somebody is giving just a piece of advice or suggestion or is just giving some kind of explanation or expository passages etc they are all non inferential passages hence we treated them as non arguments. So then we talked about one example with which one method with which we could find out whether a given argument is invalid etc and all that method is called as counter example method. So then we spoke about one particular model of argumentation which is due to Stephen Tulmin and with which you could find out what constitutes what is what do you mean by an effective argument and all. So there is a model which we have presented and then there we have seen that there are at least a few components of an argument or a layout of an argument which are important that is data and a claim and data and claim are supported by some kind of warrants and warrant needs to be supported by further backed up statements and then suppose if you come up with any claim each claim needs to be having some kind of qualifier and then it will have it every argument should have some kind of a rebuttal. So this is what we have done so far and then now what we will do is this that once we identified that they are deductive and inductive arguments and then both deductive and inductive arguments can be fallacious. So in this lecture we will be talking about what we mean by fallacy and what kind of fallacy is that we commonly come across in day to day discourse or when the arguer is said to be making some kind of mistakes in the argumentation after all fallacy is nothing but a mistake or error or defect in the argumentation and all. So why the arguer does this mistakes and all because simply because of this that all these fallacies are some kind of persuasive mechanisms and all. So we all the time want others to accept our claims and all in the process sometimes will be logical sometimes we may not be logical or we make some mistakes etc and that is what we are going to study in this lecture and all. So in this lecture I will be focusing on two kinds of two different kinds of fallacies so that is formal fallacies and informal fallacies and then I will talk a little bit about formal fallacies first and then we will move on to informal fallacies, informal fallacies arises because of some kind of problem of relevance and then I will talk about fallacies of weak induction and apart from this thing there are some kind of fallacies which arises out of ambiguity in the language because English language is vague because for example a simple word such as a predicate like tall can be represented in so many different ways and also Ram is tall for example if you say that thing and the next question that comes to us is how tall he is this is the case that 6.8 is considered to be should be considered to be tall or 5.8 is to be considered to be tall or what will happen to those cases in which falls between 5.8 definitely we consider that they are definitely taller and all and those cases in which they fall between 5.8 and 6.2 etc. So English language is a little bit vague and also we might make some mistakes in the argumentation especially when we shift the meaning of the words that we use in the argumentation then we talk about some kind of fallacies which arises out of grammatical errors etc. and all so these kinds of fallacies come under the category of fallacies arising out of ambiguity of language. So then we will discuss about detecting and avoiding fallacies this is the program this is the agenda for under this fallacies so in this lecture I will be focusing on formal fallacies and the informal fallacies especially the fallacies of relevance. So before I continue then let us talk about what we mean by a fallacy. So it is used as a synonym for any kind of position that is falls are sometimes even deceptive or sometimes it is even applied to some kind of narrow sense to some kind of faulty process of reasoning. So we talked about different kinds of reasoning inductive and deductive reasoning etc. So if both such kind of reasoning is defective then that is considered to be some kind of faulty process of reasoning or sometimes it an arguer might want to trick use some kind of tricks and all especially to persuade the reader or listener are mostly these are all some kind of spacious persuasions and all. So what is these are all persuasive kind of mechanisms and all so but logically speaking they are all considered to be mistakes in the argumentation and all and hence they are called as fallacies. So they might not be considered to be fallacy in a sense of in a psychological sense etc. All these fallacies might be of some importance there but as far as logic is concerned they are all considered to be fallacies in all. So one must note that there are many arguments which are very persuasive and all they are all not good arguments and all. So how to distinguish good argument from a bad argument etc. This is the question that we will be we have asked in the last few lectures as well as we will be asking this lecture even we will be asking this question even in these lectures as well. So mere persuasive mechanisms will not serve as a good or effective kind of argument so they might be some kind of errors or defects or mistakes in the argumentation sometimes arguer deliberately makes it sometimes arguer might make it out of ignorance or sometimes you know you just want to persuade is reader or listener to accept his claims. So fallacies in a sense it is nothing but some kind of mistake in the argumentation this mistakes might arise in many different ways that is what we are trying to look into in a greater detail in all. So a fallacy is a defect in an argumentation other than merely false premises. So just because an argument has a false premise there does not mean that it is a it is it is considered to be a fallacy and all there are many arguments which have false premises but it these kinds of arguments are valid and all. For example if you say all squares are circles all circles are parallelograms all squares are parallelograms and all. So the conclusion seems to be obviously okay for us but the premises are obviously false there does not mean that there is a mistake in that argumentation but yet this argument is considered to be valid and all since we do not want these kinds of arguments in deteriorate discourse. So we do not use these kinds of arguments so we invoke another kind of property which we have seen in the last few lectures under basic concepts that is the concept of soundness a sound argument is a deductive argument in which it is a valid as well as it has true premises. So fallacy is a term the term which is used for fallacy is non sequitur it means it does not follow other means it is an invalid kind of argument is another name for fallacy and all mostly it is used in the context of formal kind of fallacies. So there are two kinds of fallacies that we commonly come across so one particular kind of fallacy is a little bit straight forward and all just by seeing the form itself we can make out that there is a mistake in the argumentation and all. So once you extract the form and all if it is an invalid form obviously it is an invalid argument and all and hence it is a fallacy automatically all invalid arguments are automatically considered to be fallacious arguments. So what is a formal fallacy? A formal fallacy is an again error or mistake in the reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form for example instead of a implies b a and b follows that is a modus ponens rule which we have seen earlier instead of that we use a implies b and b and it leads to a then that is considered to be a mistake in the argumentation and mistake in the way very way use the forms now you have not used in a valid you have not used in a correct sense so that is why it is called as a formal fallacy. So formal fallacies can be identified just by seeing the form itself if you find invalid form obviously it is a fallacious argument and it is called as a formal fallacy informal fallacies on the other hand are not that easy to identify so they do not have a fixed form form etc and all. So informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that do not involve the explicit use of an invalid form in the day-to-day argumentation it is not it is not easy to extract form all the time and all it is not easy to identify what exactly the arguer is trying to argue or intend to claim etc the claim is considered with the conclusion. So those kinds of fallacies in which I mean you can make out that there is a mistake in the argumentation only by seeing are analyzing the content of an argument they are called as informal fallacies for example you know the lots of examples we have seen already in the last few lectures for example if you say this room is made up of atoms atoms are invisible so this room is invisible enough suppose if you say that particular kind of thing unless and until you analyze the content of the argument that means the words that you have used in your argument there is no way in which you can identify mistake in the argumentation. So detecting an informal fallacy requires an examination of arguments content in all unless until you analyze the content of an argument there is no way in which you can identify the mistakes in the argumentation. So these kinds of fallacies are called as informal fallacies to be simple in simple terms formal fallacies can be identified by somewhat some mistake in the form and informal fallacies can easily be identified by not easily but it can be identified by analyzing the content of the argument and all. So how did we get into this particular kind of some kind of interest in this fallacies and all we are saying that all fallacies are persuasive kind of mechanisms and all at the same time we are saying that not all persuasive kind of arguments are good arguments are efficient or effective kind of arguments and all. So what are the characteristics of a good argument or effective argument? So we already said about this thing so it has to be deductively valid it is well and good if it is deductively valid or at least it should be inductively strong in the case of inductive arguments you can only talk about strength of the argument. So that is why it has to be strong and of course if it has true premises it is called as in the case of inductive argument it is called as a cogent argument in the case of deductive argument it is called as a sound argument a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises if that is the case then it seems to be a good and effective kind of argument or it has validity and truth of the premises be evident as far as possible to the parties involved suppose two people are arguing with each other they know that some of the statements that an arguer has used also happen to be factually true as so that makes this argument sound and all of course validity does not require that the truth of the premises to be actually true and all but if there is an inferential claim that is well and good enough for talking about the validity and all. So both parties that means those over whose ever is engaged in argumentation should be able to find out that argument is valid as well as it has true premises it is well and good so that will constitute a good argument and the premises should be stated clearly using some kind of understandable language and making clear what the premises and the conclusions are etc it has to nicely that means it the argument has to be some kind of well crafted kind of argument. So if that is the case then if you know what premises are what conclusions are then you will automatically know what seems to be supporting what etc and you need to avoid for a good argument you need to avoid circularity ambiguity and sometimes you will be using lot of emotional language into the arguments and then basically our purpose is to make the reader or listener accept your claims and all. So one is to ensure that there is no circularity in the argument one simple example could be for example somebody is arguing that I believe that God exist is true and all. Suppose if you ask him why you believe that God exist is true and all. So then you will say that this is what Bible says so then the next question that you will come across is what is the guarantee that what Bible says is true or what Quran or Gita says is true. Then you will argue that God is true he talks of only truths and whatever he has written it is the Bible is written Gita or Quran or written by God only God's words only they are obviously true etc. Then again you ask what is the guarantee that these words are true I mean these statements that you are that are there in the Bible is true again you will say that God exist etc. Now this leads to it begs some question at each and every stage you are there it leads to some kind of circularity in an argumentation as far as possible it should ensure that there is no circularity in your arguments and all. Hence it has to be relevant to the issue at hand and all for example if you say 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and then and the moon is made up of green cheese and you will infer 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 there is no relevance between moon is made up of green cheese and 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and all although it looks like that from A and B you are deriving B but it does not make any sense to we do not make such kind of claims in logic in particular but although it is formally valid and it follows and all but usually you know that is not considered to be a good argument 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and moon is made up of green cheese hence moon is made up of green cheese from A and B follows. So the next question that arises in our mind is that how these fallacies arises so people are often more interested in convincing rather than seeking the truth of the matter. So we might be impatient or we might be we want others to accept our claims and all so somehow we want to convince others in all you will forget about what whether the conclusion is true or whether conclusion follows from the premises or is there any support of premises to the conclusion all these things we will set it as said and then we will mix up these arguments with lot of emotions etc and all. So maybe because of that these fallacies might arise or otherwise we often find in the argumentation these are the some of the arguments that you will often find it in the arguments of advertisers in particular an advertising agency wants its customers to buy some particular kind of thing I mean people to buy some particular kind of item they will use some good solid advertisements and all etc and all advocates use it in the courts politicians try to who the customers who the voters in particular so then they might use this fallacies as a persuasive mechanism or political pundits might use it in analyzing who is going to I mean political pundits might use it in some sense in a broad sense fallacies any argument that involves some kind of faulty reasoning as far as logic is concerned. So they may be they may follow psychological they might be psychologically relevant in all but as far as logic is concerned they are they are all they are considered to be mistakes in the argumentation. So now let us go into the details of formal fallacies first and then we will move on to informal fallacies little bit later so two commonly these are the two commonly found kind of fallacies in logic that is when these rules are used in not in a proper way then it leads to formal kind of fallacies in all so these fallacies are like this the first one is if a implies b and then b then if it leads to a then there is a mistake in the argumentation that I will talk about it later and the other one which you will commonly find is a implies b and not a and not b so this is called as a fallacy affirming the consequent affirming the consequent we will talk about some examples related to both these things so these are called as formal fallacies and this is called as fallacy which arises because of denial of consequent denial of antecedent. So these are all invalid forms obviously they are invalid arguments so we said that all invalid arguments are automatically fallacies and all so now why where is what is the valid form of this one this is the one which we should use an alpha a implies b is the case this is an hypothetical situation and then if a is indeed true then we can infer that b follows from these two things and the other the correct usage of this one is this a implies b and you deny the consequent and then you need to deny the antecedent so first of all so this is called as antecedent so this is a conditional statement and a is called as antecedent and b is called as a consequent and then that makes this a implies b some kind of hypothetical statement if it rains the grass is wet so if this is assumed to be true and then b is also assumed to be true then we need to see whether a is to our faults so the correct forms are these two things but as you see here clearly instead of using this valid form where we have used invalid forms in all invalid forms are automatically invalid arguments so that is why they are all fallacies and all it is pretty straight forward and simple to identify these kinds of fallacies so formal fallacies usually grouped into two kinds of fallacies one is fallacy of affirming the consequent instead of affirming the antecedent you are affirming the consequent and all of course you might say that in day to day argumentation we will this seems to be some kind of valid argument there is a kind of reasoning which we did not discuss in this particular kind of code we do not discuss in this particular kind of course so that kind of reasoning is called as abductive reasoning so this abductive reasoning so in that what we will do is this that this kind of principle a implies b and b and then from that it seems to be the case that a follows from this particular kind of thing so these kinds of reasonings reasoning is the one which we are not going to talk about and abductive inferences are also called as inference to the best explanations in all so it is like for example detectives or doctors who are diagnosing some kind of disease they use this kind of reasoning in all in day to day discourse so there of the view I mean of course a detective is trying to find out whether or not murdered took place etc in a certain place etc and all so you might find you will just hypothetically state a particular kind of statement a implies b if murdered took place then there will be some kind of blood stains etc so then detective first you will find some kind of blood stains etc and all that will make him infer that there was some kind of murder took place in that particular kind of room and all it seems to be little bit sensible in the actual day to day situations and all but this kind of reasoning is a kind of fallacious reasoning term as far as logic is concerned since it is not used in a valid form and all you can always come up with a counter example in which a implies b is true and b is true but a can be false and all but in day to day discourse you might find some examples where this seems to be convincing for you a detective might use this particular kind of thing in all he has an hypothetical situation a implies b and then b is indeed the case in all at least in all that evidence confirms that this is the case and then from this you will explain that probably a might be the best explanation for these two things to be true in so this is called as inference to the best explanation so this is one not what we are trying to use here and all objective reasoning is not the one which we are going to talk about so but here so these are the two fallacies in which you know logically invalid forms in all so that is why they are automatically invalid kind of arguments but the correct forms of this one is these things a implies b and a and b follows this is called as modus ponens rule and this is called as modus tolens so these are somewhat Latin names in all but usually it is represented as empty and MP modus ponens and modus tolens so so these are the correct forms these are the incorrect forms that is where they are invalid arguments are automatically fallacious so now we can come up with lots of examples for these particular kind of arguments that are there on the top of this thing so one example could be if 2523 is divisible by 9 then it has to be divisible by 3 and all so that is seems to be little bit acceptable to us in all anything divided by 9 it should be divided by 3 also and then you are saying that 2523 is divisible by 3 so it also happened that 2523 is divisible by 3 so then it is also divisible by 9 it may not be the case that it may be divisible by 9 and all the better examples which you can take into consideration so this is like fallacy of affirming the consequent of consequent and all so this comes under the category 2 sorry first one so you are affirming the consequent and then you are affirming the antecedent and all here the best example could be like this suppose if you are in Kanpur then you are in Uttar Pradesh because Kanpur is in Uttar Pradesh only you have to be in Uttar Pradesh only so if I am in Uttar Pradesh so that is also considered to be the case then it follows that you are in Kanpur and all you might be in any part of Uttar Pradesh and all but does not mean that you are in Kanpur and all the first one I am in Kanpur is represented as a I am in Uttar Pradesh is represented as B and then I am in Uttar Pradesh is represented as B uniformly represented with the help of some symbols then I am in Kanpur is the one which is which follows from these two one is the hypothetical statement and the other one is I mean the statement that I am in Uttar Pradesh you might be in Uttar Pradesh but you might be in Agra or you might be in some other part of the city may be some other place and all or Bareilly or some other place and all but you need not have to be in Kanpur and all so that is a single counter example which shows that this argument does not follow and all. So all the fallacious arguments are obviously there all invalid arguments are automatically fallacious they are formal fallacies and all so other examples could be the same example can be represented in different way if I am in Kanpur then I am in Uttar Pradesh so I am not in Kanpur then you are not in Uttar Pradesh in all so that is the one which follows from this particular kind of thing or you can take another example to establish this thing that fallacy of denial of antecedent and fallacies of affirming the consequent leads to mistake in the argumentation so they are all invalid arguments and all. If you get hit by a car when you are at 6 then you will die in obviously 6 anyone dies you will die in only but you are not hit by the car when you are 6 that does not mean that you know you will not die in may be the next year or may be next incident you might die and all so you could be hit by a truck at the age of 7 or may be some other thing might happen you might die out of disease or some incurable disease or something like that. So what is important here is that invalid form means an invalid argument and invalid arguments are automatically fallacious so when an argument is invalid it is always with the case that you know you can always come up with premises true and a conclusion false and all. So it is possible that you know you could come up with premises true and a conclusion false that makes this argument invalid and all for example if you say grass is wet if it rains the grass is wet so then you are saying that grass is wet and all. So just because the grass is wet does not mean that if you infer that it rained and all and there seems to be some mistakes in the argumentation grass might be wet in several other ways as well the sprinkler might be on or may be somebody throw out some water there etc. There is some leakage of water from tap some somewhere etc. All these things might be reasons for grass being wet and all. So these are some of the formal there is some problems with the form usage of the form so that leads to the mistake in the argumentation they are pretty straight forward to identify all the things which I mentioned it here are will come under the category of categorical syllogisms which I am going to talk about it little bit later. Categorical syllogisms are special kind of arguments in which it involves only categorical propositions and categorical propositions are just their propositions but they have a special feature that all these propositions begin with all know some etc. Every all these things comes under the category of categorical propositions for example if you say all men are mortal some men are mortal all men are not mortal some men are not mortal all these things are called as categorical propositions. So now the ones which I have stated here all these things are invalid arguments because it has invalid form and all as I said in the counter example method whenever you have an invalid argument suppose if you start with some set which has all the things that you are obviously know that they are true or false etc and all for example if you say all cats are dogs in the statement is false and all anyone would be able to believe that the particular kind of thing is false and all cats are animals seems to be acceptable to us that is true statement. So there are certain things which are obvious to us which nobody could deny and all so those things which take into consideration and then substitute it for a b c's etc and all and see whether you could come up with any counter instance a counter example and all counter example in a sense that you have true premises and a false conclusion. Suppose if you say all a's are b's all c's are b's so all a's are c's in all so the actual valid form is all a's are b's all b's are c's and all a's are c's but here it is not used in that particular kind of form so that is why this is considered to be an invalid form so that is why these are called as fallacious argument. So what seems to be the valid arguments are this thing all a's are b's a's b's can be anything you can substitute for a you can substitute for b donkey cat it does not matter all b's are c's so then all a's are c's so this is a kind of valid kind of argument in all so valid form so that is why it is called as a valid kind of argument we might ask how do we know that this is a valid argument etc. So then for the definition of validity is this that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in all that means you cannot come up with a counter example in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false in all whatever you substitute for a's b's etc and all b's c's etc then if these two are assumed to be true then the second one at the whatever follows from these two things should also be true in all so it is a deductive argument is a truth preserving conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in all so the one which we have used here are all a's are b's it is like all a's are b's somewhat like all c's are all c's are what all c's are b's so all that is all a's are c's so if you compare these two things this is considered to be a valid form and this is not an invalid form in all suppose if you are not convinced with this particular kind of thing that when I say that this is an invalid form that is why it is an invalid argument it is a valid form and it is a valid argument then there are certain things which we are which we know that they are obviously true obviously false etc. So instead of in this one you substitute a for cat or b for animal or c for some kind of rat or something like that then you will see whether these follows are not so the example here is this that for a's we have taken into consideration dogs that is all dogs are animals which is obviously the case in all a dog cannot be some other thing in all a fish or something like that so that is that is satisfying the first statement and all c's are b's here c's considered to be cats so all cats are also animals so from that you infer that all a's are c's for example all a's means a means dogs and all dogs are cats suppose if you say that particular kind of thing although the premises the first two premises are true that is all dogs are animals all cats are also animals but it if you infer that all dogs are cats then that the conclusion is false given the premises are true and all that means you could easily come up with some kind of counter example for that particular example the counter example is that you have come up with the true premises you come up with a false conclusion all dogs are cats so at least all of us will be easy it will be easy to say that all cats are dogs are obviously false so like this whenever you come across an invalid form you can always come up with a counter instance where your true premises and a false conclusion that makes that argument invalid arguments are automatically fallacious by virtue of the form itself because it we used in invalid form so that is why these arguments are invalid so like this we can come across the valid form is that one this is our valid form and all we have used in different ways in all so that is why it is invalid form that is why it is invalid all A's or B's no C is A and no C is B and all so whether this particular kind of argument is valid or invalid then again you know there are certain things which are quite obvious to us you substitute A for cat and B for animal and C for dog and all and then see what happens here so all A's are B's instead of all every they are all same in one of the same so you say all in every cat is an animal as good as saying the same thing all cats are animals so that is the first preposition and the second one is no C is A that means no dog is a cat dog can be different from the cat and all so that satisfies the second preposition in the this thing and then from that no C is B that is no dog is an animal so you could easily come up with a counter example where the premises every cat is an animal is true no cat no dog is a cat is also true but the conclusion no dog is an animal is false and all so like this whenever you have an invalid arguments I do not want to go into the details of other arguments and all they are all invalid forms and all invalid arguments and hence they are invalid arguments and all whenever you come across an invalid argument you can substitute these instances etc instead of A's B's C's etc and all you substitute dogs cats animal etc without disturbing the truth value of the prepositions and see whether you could come across with a counter example I mean you could come across with a false conclusion true premises should not lead to false conclusion a valid deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the term premises to be true and the conclusion is false even if you could come up with a single instance where your premises are true and the conclusion is false then that particular kind of argument is invalid so far we have seen that you know arguments are invalid just because of the fact that you know they are having invalid forms in life is not that simple and all so we need to we need to analyze the content of the argument to see whether there is any mistake in the argumentation and all so these kinds of fallacies are called as fallacies of relevance sorry fallacies informal fallacies and one particular kind of fallacy which arises very frequently in day to day discourse especially when two argues are engaged in some kind of a debate or when an arguer presents some kind of thing to convince the reader or listener you will find these kinds of fallacies which arises out of the problem of relevance and I will talk about what we mean by relevance etc little bit later but so this fallacies of relevance arises in involve the use of premises that are logically irrelevant to their conclusion for an argument the basic structure is that your premise and then premise should lead to premise should have some provide some kind of adequate support to believe that your conclusion to be true and all but it does not provide any adequate reasons to believe the conclusion to be true then there seems to be some kind of problem here the problem arises because the premises are not logically relevant to their conclusions in all there are some other relevant factors which comes into picture in all so these relevant factors may be psychologically relevant factors in all it might be pity it might be anger it may be frustration all these things are psychologically relevant factors in all sometimes we do you we do take into consideration all these factors and sometimes the argument may be a good argument as well sometimes we invoke some kind of patriotism and then we will infer some kind of thing but it that argument may be maybe convincing for all of us but it might turn out to be fallacious for us. So here the most important feature that you need to look for is that are they logically relevant or psychologically relevant in all I am not saying that psychological reasons are not important or useless etc and as far as logical reasoning is concerned as far as possible a good argument should be free from all these psychological psychologically relevant factors in all but in day-to-day discourse we do take into consideration these particular kind of factors etc psychological reasons in all. So here is a list of fallacies which come under the category of fallacies of relevance you should note that there is no way in which you can classify these fallacies into one group or another group and all different text books have different classifications in all so the book that we are following is concise introduction to logic by Patrick Hurley it seems that you know these things are classified in a very nice way and all in this book. So we are referring to that particular book in which you know things are classified in a very nice way so we believe that this is the very good kind of classification and also we follow this particular kind of thing. So what are fallacies of relevance there are different names in all mostly you know these kinds of fallacies are already there right from antiquity and what that means right from the Greeks period onwards you will find you might have come across from Greek period onwards these fallacies exist and these exist even in day-to-day is even now also. So the first one is appeal to force this is also called as argumentum add baculum there are Latin names and the second one is instead of arguing the argues argument you will attack him in person so ad hominem argument when you invoke pity it leads to appeal to pity kind of fallacy the other kind of fallacy which will commonly come across is appeal to people and fallacy of accident missing the point strawman fallacy and red airing fallacies in all these fallacies what is the problem is that the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion but premises may be psychologically relevant to the conclusions. So let us look into each one of these fallacies in some detail some greater detail the first one is simple kind of fallacy which is called as appeal to force appeal to force or it is called as ad baculum fallacy which occurs when a conclusion is defended by some kind of threat to the well-being of those who do not accept it so this threat can be sometimes express it sometimes it can be even implicit in all. So this argument has this particular kind of structure so you can draw the diagram for this particular kind of fallacy then you will come to know where lies the who is who seem to have committed this particular kind of fallacy. So now here is an arguer is presenting some kind of argument in all so this is what is called as appeal to force so what a does is here is your reader or listener r stands for reader or sometimes it can be listener also that means you are reading a text or you are listening to someone's argument in all. So now this arrows are important so a threatens a threatens reader or listener and he poses this particular kind of conclusion so a threatens reader and listener and all and he poses a conclusion ultimately his purpose is that he wants the reader or listener to accept his claims in all. So in the process now you might do it in several ways in all to persuade the reader or listener to accept his claims in all so one way which he does in this case is that he threatens the reader or listener if you do not accept whatever he says to be true in all then you will say that there is some kind of consequence which follows in all. So this particular kind of thing is called as appeal to force kind of fallacy in all so basically this threatening can be some kind of physical threat you will directly say that I am going to beat you or something like that or he might say that some kind of pose some kind of mental threaten you will invoke some kind of fear in you you might say that you will leak your information etc. So this kind of thing is called as appeal to force in all here what you will see here is that the premises may not be relevant to the conclusion and all so since he has incorporate threaten threatening into picture and all so there all may be psychological factors etc and all sometimes he might use it for the well-being of the reader or listener or a person who is whom the argue is trying to persuade but in not in all the cases it might be used for the well-being of a reader or listener so the structure of this argument is that of course these are premises and conclusions premises could be this you can avoid harm by accepting this particular kind of statement so that is why the statement is true so what he says is that he threatens the reader or listener why he threatens the reader or listener he says that you are going to avoid some kind of harm etc and all if you do not do this thing you will you have to face the music and all so you have to attract some kind of fine or it may be you will be punished etc and all so this is the one which we commonly come across in day to day discourse also so where what the argue is trying to do is is that you can avoid harm by accepting this particular kind of statement so what is the statement that he wants his reader or listener to accept and all that is a conclusion is posing some kind of conclusion if you do not accept the conclusion then he says that there is some harm is going to happen to that particular kind of person so out of fear the reader or listener might accept his claim and all but here the premises are nothing to do with the conclusion and all so only threat is what is making him to believe the conclusion to be true so some examples which he take into consideration and then we will see we will understand this kind of fallacy in greater detail now here the argument is threatening the reader or listener and then ultimately what the intention of an argument is that reader or listener accept whatever the conclusion that is making an all yes to accept this particular kind of statement which is there in the conclusion so now who is said to have committed the mistake in the argumentation a is said to have committed this fallacy if somebody presents this particular kind of argument and all then we should be in a immediately in a position to say that since a has used threatening and all kinds of things and all that should not be relevant to believing this particular kind of statement so some examples which we will see in greater detail so this is remnant reminiscent of scenes in films about organized crime etc children arguing with the parents or children arguing with each other etc not with the parents one example is like this Mr. Salim you helped us import the drugs somebody is arguing like this somebody is threatening Salim here for this the boss is obviously grateful and all but now you say you are entitled to 45% of the profits and all so now you started claiming share and all now boss is very angry on this particular kind of thing the boss says that you are entitled to only 10% you are claiming excessive and all although you helped us in importing some illegal drugs etc and all okay that is fine well and good and all but now you are asking you deserve only 10% but you are asking 45% and all so your boss is very angry etc this is what you see in the organized crime and all so the next statement is unless you see things in boss way that means you do not under if you do not listen to what the boss is trying to say that is you be happy with only 10% of the share etc so that is what is unless you see the things in boss way you are going to have a very nasty kind of accident you know boss might kill you or you might do something or other some kind of harm is going to happen to you a middle kind of some broker kind of person is trying to convince the reader or listener let you know if you accept you know whatever boss says that is he is happy with the 10% and all no threat is going to happen to him otherwise he is going to face some kind of nasty accident you will come across some kind of nasty accident so you are entitled to 10% only so ultimately saying you got my point or not we do not get my point you are going to be punished and all so so what is happening here is that there is some kind of arguer here is arguing with Salim and all so Salim here is a reader or listener the arguer is someone arguing in favor of in favor of his boss you know big boss don or something like that so who is said to have committed a mistake the arguer who is arguing for this for the boss and all whosoever is arguing that you deserve only 10% etc. so he seems to be committing this particular kind of fallacy why he has committed fallacy because all these things are not relevant for this particular kind of thing that you know that whatever is claiming that is 45% profits etc. and all so instead of here the all the relevant things are like this that you know the broker who is arguing in favor of the arguer is trying to threaten the threaten Salim here so he is saying that you know unless until you accept bosses whatever boss is saying then you are going to invite some kind of problems so here the first one is that the threatened nasty instant has no logical relevance on the conclusion that Salim is entered into only 10% and all there are nothing to do with this particular kind of there only psychologically are relevant to this particular kind of but yet this is used as some kind of persuasive mechanism and all if you are this can still be used as some kind of persuasive mechanism and all a broker who is arguing for some kind of boss and all that you know ultimately is trying to negotiate with Salim that you know it is also only 10% rather than 45% and all if he claims 45% then the broker is saying that you know you will face some kind of problems etc. He is trying to negotiate or persuade the reader or listener by invoking some kind of threat so suppose in this case the arguer is said to have committed this particular kind of fallacy this particular kind of fallacy is called as appeal to force kind of fallacy so the persuasion is that you can avoid harm by accepting this this statement this statement is is that you know you deserve only 10% of the thing you know so his statements are based on threat so and if he says that the statement is true then there seems to be some mistake in the augmentation so this is what happens here premises is that you can avoid harm by accepting this statement the conclusion is that hence that statement is true enough the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion and hence leads to fallacies of relevance and this fallacy of relevance can be further classified into the fallacies of relevance which arises due to appeal to force sometimes this threat arguer threaten the reader or listener and poses a conclusion and this particular kind of threat can be even a psychological threat also it can be a mental kind of threaten so this is what you commonly see in organizations in particular where the secretary is arguing with his boss so he is saying this particular kind of thing I deserve promotions with increments etc all the time you know is worried about his increments etc and all he got somehow is claiming with this boss that he should be promoted this particular kind of year and all so he says till here it is fine and all but his claim is based on some other irrelevant factors in all he goes on and says that after all you know how friendly I am with your wife and I am sure you would not want her to find out what kind of affair has been going on between you and that of yours somehow he had some door of some kind of relations with his wife and that she does not know and all bosses wife does not know so now he is threatening the boss that you know if you do not promote me and all I am going to expose everything to your wife and all so I know you have been lying to your wife about what you are what is where about where you go on on Wednesdays afternoons etc and all these things are irrelevant for the promotion and all unless you want her to know where you really go it is time for you to realize that you have no choice then rising my salary and all you raise my salary or promote me otherwise I am going to leak all the information and all so this is some kind of psychological threat that secretary is trying to some kind of blackmailing is trying to do so here in this case secretary is seems to have committed fallacy and there is a mistake in his argumentation because all these factors whether the boss is having relation with someone else etc all these things have nothing to do with his promotion and all the promotion what is relevant may be yes achieved something some task some some other things might play a crucial role in the promotion and all his performance etc so the threat to expose the lie in no way constitutes evidence for once promotion and all it has nothing to do with this particular kind of thing so this is the problem of relevance and then we will continue with other kinds of fallacies in the next lecture.