Fallacies
Aristotle not only showed what arguments are valid, but he also showed invalid arguments that he called contentious or sophistical arguments. Sophistical arguments are arguments that only establish a conclusion that takes the form of an argument that is apparent but not genuine, or an argument that is simply not acceptable. When arguments appear apparent but are not genuine, they are deceiving and invalid. In contrast, arguments that are not acceptable are so because they are a matter or opinion or belief. For example, the argument of "Whatever you have not lost, you have. You have not lost horns. Therefore, you still have horns" is not accepted by a reader and is therefore a sophistical argument (Smith, 2011).
In his Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle identified thirteen logical fallacies where logic is invalid. His linguistic fallacies include Accent, Amphiboly, Equivocation, Composition, Division, and Figure of Speech, while his non-linguistic fallacies include Accident, Affirming the Consequent, In a Certain Respect and Simply, Ignorance of Refutation, Begging the Question, False Cause, and Many Questions ("Aristotle's 13 fallacies"; "Aristotle's 13 fallacies", 2009).
In his Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle identified thirteen logical fallacies where logic is invalid. His linguistic fallacies include Accent, Amphiboly, Equivocation, Composition, Division, and Figure of Speech, while his non-linguistic fallacies include Accident, Affirming the Consequent, In a Certain Respect and Simply, Ignorance of Refutation, Begging the Question, False Cause, and Many Questions ("Aristotle's 13 fallacies"; "Aristotle's 13 fallacies", 2009).
Accent
The Accent fallacy is where a rhetorician places an accent, or emphasis, in a statement that gives a different meaning than if the word were used alone. In this case, the emphasis puts a spotlight on a word to direct attention to it, implying importance. The Accent fallacy can be unintentional because of dialect's emphasis on words, but it can be intentional to show a rhetorician’s true intentions of selecting a certain word. For example, "I wonder if you really want to do this." The accent on “want” suggests that the individual in question wants to do the activity in question (“Aristotle's 13 fallacies”). In Greek especially, the Accent fallacy was very important because written words with the same spelling could have more than one way to pronounce them and, in turn, more than one meaning (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies", 2009).
Amphiboly
The Amphiboly fallacy is where a rhetorician composes a sentence that has multiple meanings where the meaning that the rhetorician intends is not clear. For example, "young men and women" used in a sentence does not specify if the rhetorician is talking about young men, young women, or both young men and young women. This causes confusion in the reader. When used intentionally, however, it may be incorporated to make the reader confused and to suggest something subconsciously (“Aristotle's 13 fallacies”).
Equivocation
The Equivocation fallacy is where a rhetorician uses a word that has multiple meanings multiple times, leading a reader to confusion of which meaning the word takes in each different instance (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”). For example, "Brad is a nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad must be perfect, too" (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009). The Equivocation fallacy can be used either to belittle a concept or to raise a concept with false pretenses (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009). This switch in meanings can give a sentence a new meaning or take away all meaning, which confuses the reader and makes them more open to suggestion and, consequently, more likely to be persuaded by an argument (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Composition
The Composition fallacy is where a rhetorician groups unrelated items as being related with general attributes (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”). In essence, when a writer guesses that something is true of the whole when it is true of only part of the whole (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009). For example, "A car creates less pollution than a bus. Therefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than buses"(“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies", 2009). In the Composition fallacy, induction is used inaccurately to generalize when there is no logical rationale for doing so. Often, the Composition fallacy roots from stereotyping (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Division
The Division fallacy is when a rhetorician makes a general assumption that all parts of a system have what the whole system has simply because they are part of the whole system. For example, "Cars go fast. A seat is part of a car, so seats go fast." In the Division fallacy, the characteristics assumed of the group may not be true or applicable for all parts of the group. Similar to the Composition fallacy, the Division fallacy is much like a stereotype of generalizations that cannot be logically proven. However, where the Composition fallacy uses induction inaccurately, the Division fallacy uses deduction inaccurately (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Figure of Speech
The Figure of Speech fallacy is when a rhetorician includes different words, specifically crucial in Greek or Latin, that have different cases or genders although the endings are of the same case or gender (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009). For example, "Since the opposite of immobile is mobile, then the opposite of inflammable is flammable.' In this case, the word structures are similar because they are synonymous. Despite this, they are not the opposites and are thus invalid (Hughes, 2011).
Accident
The Accident fallacy is when a rhetorician uses a general rule to explain a specific case where such a rule is not applicable in the case. For example, " You can't go there, Mr. President. Nobody is allowed in." In the Accident fallacy, a general rule is assumed to have a broader scope than reasonable or the rule is mismatched with the case (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Affirming the Consequent
The Affirming the Consequent fallacy is when a rhetorician tries to argue backwards from a valid conclusion and to the truth to one of the propositions in the valid conclusion (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”, 2009). For example, "If you are cheating on me, you will be out of the house a lot. You are out of the house a lot, so you must be cheating on me." In the Affirming the Consequent fallacy, it is assumed that "If A, then B" and vice versa (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
In a Certain Respect and Simply
The In a Certain Respect and Simply fallacy is when a rhetorician uses a characteristic or aspect relative to a certain area, assumes that it can be applied to a larger area, and then applies it to such wrongly. For example, "There is money in my pocket, so there is always money in my pocket." Assumptions are typically made of things in context, but in this fallacy, such assumptions go beyond the area (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Ignorance of Refutation
The Ignorance of Refutation fallacy is when a rhetorician strays from his or her conclusion. They give a valid argument and conclusion, but the conclusion they come to is not relevant to their argument. For example, "There has been an increase in burglary in the area. It must be because there are more people moving into the area." Often, those who want to prove an argument but do not know how to use this fallacy to come to their destined conclusion, where passion and authority strengthen the effectiveness towards an audience when they are not closely following the argument (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Begging the Question
The Begging the Question fallacy is when a rhetorician assumes that the truth of a topic within the premise of such a topic and never proves the topic in the argument. It can occur through a statement or set of statements that circle around to "prove" the statement true. A common variant of Begging the Question is that if a topic is not wrong, then it is right. For example, "You are not bad. Therefore, you must be good." The Begging the Question fallacy takes the form of an unproven position to try to prove the position stated and is rooted in assumptions that are never quite proven (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
False Cause
The False Cause fallacy is when a rhetorician states that one thing causes another thing when there is either no correlation between the two things or a very faint correlation. The False Cause fallacy is just that - a mistaken false cause. For example, "It is dark now, which makes it very dangerous." In this case, the darkness is not the thing that causes danger. While cause-and-effect reasoning can lead a rhetorician to a valid argument, that is only if the causal relationship is found and argued correctly. Correlation, on the contrary, is fallacious because it does not necessarily mean that it is the cause of something (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).
Many Questions
The Many Questions fallacy is when a rhetorician asks multiple questions either connected to the argument or completely unrelated. For example, "When and where will you expect me to be and how often do you want this to happen and what will be the time of day and which weeks?" Since listeners have a limited capacity for understanding complex or multiple questions at once, the Many Questions fallacy causes confusion in the reader, prompting them to either answer nothing or answer partially, which lets the rhetorician answer the question in the way they wish or simply move on. With disconnected questions, the reader not only tries to remember them but also tries to understand them so they can connect them to the broader theme of the argument (“Aristotle’s 13 fallacies”).