1. Fallacy of ambiguity:
If middle term or phrase are ambigious wrong conclusion may be drawn,ie,
1. Partisans are not faithful
2. republicans are partisans
3. Conclusion (Republicans are not faithful)
Here middle term Partisans has two meaning in the two premises. In premises No 1, it means those who are prejudicely interested in some cause but in the secong premise it denoted the members of a particulars party
2. Fallacy of composition:If middle term or phrase are ambigious wrong conclusion may be drawn,ie,
1. Partisans are not faithful
2. republicans are partisans
3. Conclusion (Republicans are not faithful)
Here middle term Partisans has two meaning in the two premises. In premises No 1, it means those who are prejudicely interested in some cause but in the secong premise it denoted the members of a particulars party
When we accept a thing or term to be true of a whole which just holds true of its parts only, eg,
1. All the angles of a triangle are less than 180*
2. ABC are the angles of this triangle
3. Conclusion (ABC are less than 180*)
Here all the angles in the first premise means each and every angle taken separately but in the second premise it means A, B, and C taken collectively. it means what is true of part can not be necessarily true of the whole
3.Fallacy of Divison
It is opposite composition. If we consider that what is true of the whole will be true of parts when taken separately it will also give wrong conclusion, eg,
1. All the birds fly in the sky
2. Ostrich is a bird
3. Conclusion (Ostrich fly in the sky)
Ostrich is an exception which does not fly in the sky
4. Fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion
Fro some time assume as wrong conclusion to be right if it si near to the tight conclusion. This makes our efforts, futile, eg,
1. Those who takes shelter in slums are sometimes butchered by the rich
2. Rich people are always antagonistic to those who lives in slums
3. Conclusions (Rich butcher the pooor because they hate them
