(4) The aggregates of division and composition may be counted or enumerated easily; while the accident and converse accident aggregates (or generals) are not easily enumerated. (5) Division and composition relate to logical _terms_, whereas accident and converse accident relate to general _truths_. (6) Division and composition use a _term_ in a _collective_ sense and then in a separate or _distributive_ sense, or vice versa; accident and converse accident use a _thought_ in a _general_ and then in an _accidental_ sense, or vice versa. _Irrelevant Conclusion_ (_Ignoratio Elenchi_). _The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion results when the argument does not squarely meet the point at issue._ It is the fallacy of arguing to the wrong point either purposely or through ignorance. One in defense, who has a weak case, may be tempted to divert attention from the point in hand, realizing that a close analysis of the matter in dispute will tend to his undoing. In such instances (1) the lawyer will abuse the plaintiff, (2) the demagogue will tell humorous stories, (3) the teacher will take advantage of the ignorance of the pupil, (4) the scholar will refer to authority and (5) the magnate will fall back upon the power of position and wealth. These forms of “_rhetorical thinking_” are as harmful as they are popular, and furnish one of the chief reasons for giving to the common people a better understanding of “how to think” as well as “how _not_ to think.” Definite names have been given to the various forms of irrelevant conclusion which may be summarized as follows: _Argumentum ad populum._ This is the fallacy of appealing to the feelings, passions and prejudices of an audience rather than to their good sense and powers of reason. It is probably the most common of the group. To excite sympathy, the lawyer for the defense may speak feelingly of the _suffering_ that an unfavorable verdict will bring to the wife and children of the accused. _Argumentum ad hominem._ Here the character of the opponent is defamed with a view of discrediting him with the court or audience. “Mud throwing” in times of political agitation is a good example of this fallacy. _Argumentum ad ignorantiam._ This fallacy comes from taking advantage of the ignorance of the opponent; the fallacy assumes that the original supposition has been proved if one is unable to prove the _contradictory_ of the original. Illustration: Mars is inhabited because no one is able to prove that Mars is not inhabited. _Argumentum ad baculum._ In this all argumentation is made to give way to the forces of personal opposition and to the power of money. Illustration: A political committee seating those delegates only, who will vote _their_ way; and, doing this, not from the merits of the case, but because said committee happen to have a sufficient number of votes to “put the thing through.” _Argumentum ad verecundiam._