<Li> Ecological fallacy: An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide ." In metrical argumentation, ecological fallacies can be committed when one measures scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g. "Hispanic" faculty). </Li> <P> Of other classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J.S. Mill . Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph. 33, 38 sqq .) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone . With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt . i . J.S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks . See Rd . Whateley's Logic, bk . v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847); A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks . </P> <P> According to the pragmatic theory, a fallacy can in some instances be an error a fallacy, use of a heuristic (short version of an argumentation scheme) to jump to a conclusion . However, even more worryingly, in other instances it is a tactic or ploy used inappropriately in argumentation to try to get the best of a speech part unfairly . There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy--the perpetrator and the intended victim . The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component . A dialogue has individual goals for each participant, but also collective (shared) goals that apply to all participants . A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue . It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation, based on sleight - of - hand . Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest . But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists . The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation, but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labelled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue . Hence on the pragmatic approach, each case needs to analyzed individually, to determine by the textual evidence whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable . </P> <P> Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments; Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that invalidate the argument . McMullin (2000), a clinical psychologist, explains that: "Logical fallacies are unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts". It is important to understand what fallacies are so that you can recognize them in either your own or others' writing . Avoiding fallacies will strengthen your ability to produce strong arguments . It is important to note that; </P>

When does an argument commit a fallacy of presumption