In Logic of Argume: Likigan, Cresa Lyn Pitas, Margie Lausan, Pennelope

In Logic
of
Argume
A Requirement In
Legal Technique And Logic
Prepared by:
LIKIGAN, CRESA LYN
PITAS, MARGIE
LAUSAN, PENNELOPE
ATTY. NESTOR P. MONDOK

Instrutor
What is Fallacy
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong
moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be
deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed
intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed
unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal
arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made. 1
One reasons incorrectly when the premises of an argument fail to support
its conclusion, and arguments of that sort may be called fallacious. So in a very
general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy. 2
To sum it up, fallacy is a type of argument that seems to be correct, but
contains a mistake in reasoning; or any error or mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies are commonly divided into formal and informal fallacy. A formal
fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional
logic,3 while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an
improper logical form.4 Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally
valid, but still fallacious.5
1
Bustamente, Thomas; Dahlman, Christian, eds. (2015). Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation.
Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. p. x. ISBN 978-3-319-16147-1
2
Introduction to Logic, Fourteenth Edition. Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Kenneth McMahon; Chapter 4 p109
3
Gensler, Harry J. (2010). The A to Z of Logic. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 74
4
Garns, Rudy (1997). "Informal Fallacies". Northern Kentucky University. Retrieved 2013-09-10.
5
Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Formal (or deductive) fallacies occur when the conclusion doesn't follow
the premise. These are often referred to as non-sequiturs, or conclusions that
have nothing to do with initial claims. In formal fallacies, the pattern of reasoning
seems logical but is always wrong. A deductive argument often follows the
pattern:6
All dogs have legs.
Tiny is a dog.
Tiny has legs.
Example of formal fallacy:

All dogs are mammals.
All mammals are animals.
Therefore, all animals are dogs
Informal (or inductive) fallacies abound. Not only are we more likely to
come across them than formal fallacies, their variations are endless. While formal
fallacies are identified through an examination of the statement or claim, informal
fallacies are identified through supporting evidence.7
6
Types of Logical Fallacies https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-logical-fallacy.html, Extracted Feb 11,
2020
7
2020
In these instances, the statement or claim is not supported with adequate
reasons for acceptance. A strong inductive argument follows this pattern: 8
The sun has not exploded for all its existence.

The sun will not explode tomorrow.
Example of informal fallacy:

My grandmother lived to the age of 100
My grandmother ate chocolates everyday
My grandmother lived to the age of 100 because she ate
chocolate every day. 9
Classification of Fallacies
Logicians have proposed lists of fallacies that vary greatly in length;
different sets have been specified, and different names have been given to both
the sets and the individual fallacies.10
The classifications of fallacies which will be discussed to distinguished are
as follows:
1. Fallacies of relevance. Fallacies of relevance are the most
numerous and the most frequently encountered. In these
fallacies, the premises of the argument are simply not relevant
to the conclusion. However, because they are made to appear
to be relevant, they may deceive.
• R1: The appeal to the populace
• R2: The appeal to emotion
• R3: The red herring
• R4: The straw man
• R5: The attack on the person
• R6: The appeal to force
8
2020
9
Logical Fallacy by Diana Cole; https://www.slideserve.com/diana-cole/logical-fallacies, February 11, 2020
10
Introduction to Logic, Fourteenth Edition. Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Kenneth McMahon; page 110
• R7: Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion)
2. Fallacies of defective induction. In fallacies of defective

induction, which are also common, the mistake arises from the
fact that the premises of the argument, although relevant to
the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that relying on
them is a blunder.
• D1: The argument from ignorance
• D2: The appeal to inappropriate authority
• D3: False cause
• D4: Hasty generalization
3. Fallacies of presumption. In fallacies of presumption, too

much is assumed in the premises. The inference to the
conclusion depends mistakenly on these unwarranted
assumptions.
• P1: Accident
• P2: Complex question
• P3: Begging the question
4. Fallacies of ambiguity. The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of

ambiguity arises from the equivocal use of words or phrases.
Some word or phrase in one part of the argument has a
meaning different from that of the same word or phrase in
another part of the argument.
• A1: Equivocation
• A2: Amphiboly
• A3: Accent
• A4: Composition
• A5: Division
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
They arise when there is no real connection between the premises and the
conclusion of an argument. Because that connection is missing, the premises
offered cannot possibly establish the truth of the conclusion drawn. It is a fallacy
in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.
R1. Appeal to the Populace (Argument Ad Populum)

An informal fallacy in which the support given for some
conclusion is an appeal to popular belief. Also known as argument ad
11
populum. It is an emotively laden argument for the acceptance of
an unproved conclusion by adducing evidence of the feelings,
prejudices, or beliefs of a large group of people. 12
Example 1:
A recent poll shows that the majority of people believe that
marijuana should be legalized; therefore it should be.
Example 2:
Everyone says that it's okay to lie as long as you don't get
caught.
R2. The appeal to emotion (Appeal to Pity / ad Misericordiam)

One variety of the appeal to emotion that appears with great
frequency is the argument ad misericordiam. The Latin word
misericordiam literally means “merciful heart”; this fallacy is the
emotional appeal to pity. It is a fallacy in which the argument relies
on the generosity, altruism, or mercy rather than on reason. 13
Example 1:
There must be objective rights and wrongs in the
universe.
If not, how can you possibly say that torturing babies for
fun could ever be right?14
11
12
Ad Populum: Appeal to Popularity; https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
13
14
Brinton, A. (1988). Pathos and the “Appeal to Emotion”: An Aristotelian Analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 5(3), 207–219
Explanation:
The thought of people torturing babies for fun immediately
brings up unpleasant images (in sane people). The actual
argument (implied) is that there are objective (universal) rights
and wrongs (morality). The argument is worded in such a way to
connect the argument's conclusions (that there is objective
morality) with the idea that torturing babies for fun is wrong (this
is also a non sequitur fallacy). No matter how we personally feel
about a horrible act, our feelings are not a valid substitution for
an objective reason behind why the act is horrible.
Example 2:
Power lines cause cancer. I met a little boy with cancer
who lived just 20 miles from a power line who looked
into my eyes and said, in his weak voice, “Please do
whatever you can so that other kids won’t have to go
through what I am going through.” I urge you to vote
for this bill to tear down all power lines and replace
them with monkeys on treadmills.15
Explanation:
Notice the form of the example: assertion, emotional
appeal, request for action (conclusion) -- nowhere is there any
evidence presented. We can all tear up over the image of a little
boy with cancer who is expressing concern for others rather than
taking pity on himself, but that has nothing to do with the
assertion or the conclusion.
R3. Red Hearing

The red herring is a fallacious argument whose effectiveness
lies in distraction. Attention is deflected; readers or listeners are
drawn to some aspect of the topic under discussion by which they
are led away from the issue that had been the focus of the
15
Brinton, A. (1988). Pathos and the “Appeal to Emotion”: An Aristotelian Analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 5(3), 207–219
discussion. It is a fallacy in which attention is deliberately deflected
away from the issue under discussion.16
Example 1:
Hannah: "I'm so hurt that Todd broke up with me."
Cresa: "Just think of all the starving children in Africa.
Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then."
Example 2:
Senator Clark: "Why are you not willing to support the
antiabortion amendment? Don't you have any feelings
at all for the unborn children whose lives are being
indiscriminately blotted out?"
Senator Rich: "I just don't understand why you people
who get so worked up about lives being blotted out by
abortion don't have the same feelings about the
thousands of lives that are blotted out every year by the
indiscriminate use of handguns. Is not the issue of the
sanctity of human life involved in both issues? Why have
you not supported us in our efforts at gun-control
legislation?"17
R5. The Straw Man

A fallacy in which an opponent’s position is depicted as being
more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually
asserted. If one argues against some view by presenting an
opponent’s position as one that is easily torn apart, the argument is
fallacious, ofcourse. Such an argument commits the fallacy of the
18
straw man.
16
17
Texas State, Department of Philosophy https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Red-
Herring.html
18
Example 1:
Person 1: I think pollution from humans contributes
to climate change.
Person 2: So, you think humans are directly
responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and
have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If
that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the
southwest and perform a “rain dance.”19
Example 2:
Parent: No chocolate cake until you finishes your chicken and
vegetables.
Child: You only love me when I Eat.
R5. Argument against the Person (Agrumentum ad Hominem)

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against
the person taking a position. The phrase ad hominem translates as
“against the person.” An ad hominem argument is one in which the
thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at some person who
defends the conclusion in dispute. This personalized attack might be
conducted in either of two different ways, for which reason we
19
Excelsior Online Writing Lab https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-
fallacies-straw-man/
distinguish two major forms of the argument ad hominem: the
abusive and the circumstantial.20
R5.1 Argumentum ad hominem - Abusive
Example 1:
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good
idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats at the
Manor every night.
Explanation
The fact that she loves to eat at the Manor every night,
has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is
irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually
made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter
argument.
Example 2:
"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you
imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald
Trump (2015, in debate remarks critiquing candidate
Carly Fiorina.)
R5.2 Argumentum ad hominem – Circumstantial
20
Example 1:
Ben: I believe murders should die for the sake of the
victim’s family.
Diokno: Well, since your cousin was murdered, it isn’t
hard to see why you feel that way.
Example 2:
If you are really anti-poverty and malnutrition advocate,
then agree that abortion is moral and legal.
R6. Appeal to the Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled
threat of force.21 When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is
used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.22
Example 1:
A manager said to an employee, “You should choose to
work more overtime at the same rate of pay. After all,
you wouldn’t want to loose your job, would you?”
Example 2:
21
22
Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Force
You should believe God exists because, if you don't,
when you die you will be judged and God will send you
to Hell for all of eternity. You don't want to be tortured
in Hell, do you? If not, it is a safer bet to believe in God
than to not believe.23
R7. Missing the Point (Ignoracio Elenchi)

A fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion
from the one that is proposed. 24 Missing the point, is the informal
fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically
valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in
question.25
Example 1:
Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an
alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious; we must
reinstate the death penalty immediately.
Example 2:
P1: There has been an increase in burglaries in the area.
P2: More people are moving into the area.
C: Therefore, the burglaries are caused by an increased
number of people moving in the area.26
OVERVIEW on Fallacies of Relevance
OVERVIEW on Fallacies of Relevance
R3. The Red Herring
An informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead and
R1. The Appeal to the Populace (ad Populum)
confuse.
An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion isan
R4. The Strawappeal
inappropriate Man to the multitude.
An informal fallacy committed when the position of one’s opponent is
R2. The Appeal and
misrepresented to Emotion
that distorted position is made the object of attack.
An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is
R5. Argument Against
emotions—fear, the or
envy, pity, Person (ad Hominem)
the like—of the listeners.
An informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the substance of
some position, one attacks the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a
consequence of his or her special circumstances.
23
R6. Appeal to Force (ad Baculum)
Thought.Co https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-force-fear-250346
24 An informal fallacy committed when force, or the threat of force, is relied on to win
25 consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion
26
Fallacies, the quickest way to lose arguments https://slideplayer.com/slide/9424092/
R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
An informal fallacy committed when one refutes, not the thesis one’s interlocutor is
advancing, but some different thesis that one mistakenly imputes to him or her.
27
27
Fallacies of Defective Induction
A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the
conclusion. These includes the following forms of fallacies:
A. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
B. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)
C. False Causa ( Argument non Causa pro Causa)
D. Hasty Generalization
D1. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
Logical Forms:
 X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
 X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Examples:
1. You cannot prove God does not exist therefore God exist
2. To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has
been unable to create life from non-life;
Therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation:
Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is
not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will
someday be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance
with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.
Exception:
The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of
absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning. It is sometimes
permissible to argue from ignorance:
Example:
Our court system mandates that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If
the prosecution cannot prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury
must conclude his innocence and acquit. In the courtroom, it is permissible to
argue, “You cannot prove he is not innocent, so he is innocent.”
D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
Logical Form 1:
 According to person 1 (who offers little or no expertise on Y being
true), Y is true.
 Therefore, Y is true.
Logical Form 2:
 According to person 1 ( who offers little or no expertise on Y being
true), Y is true.
 Therefore, Y is more likely to be true.
Examples:
1. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the
foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true.
Therefore, it’s true
Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us
that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of
evidence for the theory.
2. How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest

industry in the United States? Derek Shlongmiester, the
adult film star over 50 years, said it was. That’s how I know.
Explanation: Shlongmiester may be an industry expert, as well as have a huge talent, but a
claim such as the one made would require supporting evidence. For the record, the adult film
industry may be large, but on a scale from 0 to 12 inches, it's only about a fraction of an inch.
D3. False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa)

A fallacy in which something that is not really the cause of something else is
treated as its cause.
Logical Form 1: Logical Form 2:

X apparently causes Y X apparently causes Y
Y is wrong Y is right
Therefore, X is wrong Therefore, X is right
Examples:
1. Watching TV that close will make you go blind, so move
back!
Explanation:
The false effect from watching TV too closely is going blind. For the most part, the threat that
you will “ruin” your eyesight is an old wives tale, but it does have some credibility based on
modern studies, but almost certainly, nobody is going blind from sitting too close unless they
ram their eyes into the protruding knobs. Anyway, the conclusion, “so move back!” is not
warranted by the false effect.
2. Giving 10% of your income to the Church will free a child’s

soul from Limbo into Heaven, so give your money!
Centuries ago, the Church stopped accepting bribes to get
loved ones out of Limbo, and very recently, in 2007, the
Church made it more clear that Limbo was a theory and not
an official doctrine of the Church, separating the Church
from that belief. As for the argument, the false effect of
“freeing a child’s soul from Limbo” does not warrant the
conclusion of giving your money.
Examples:
1. The death penalty in the United States has given us the
highest crime rate and greatest number of prisoner per
100,000 population in the industrialized world.
2. As prayer has gone out of the out of schools, guns,knives,
drugs, and gangs have come in
In the phrase
The “correlation does not imply causation” refers to the inability to
legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely
on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
Exception:
A belief of an effect could be argued to be an actual effect. Effects often can
be supported empirically (scientifically), but they can also be claimed by “faith”,
making them impossible to prove or disprove.
D4. Hasty Generalization
Logical Form:
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.
Examples:
1. My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age
fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine.
Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.
Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about
the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man.
2. Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley

toothpaste brand.
Therefore, it must be great.
Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random sampling
of 1000 dentists was polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four out of five
result was not necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey; it just happened to be a
statistical anomaly common among small samples.
Exception:
When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be
made or opinion with, then it is better than nothing.
Example:
If you are strolling in the dessert with a friend, and he goes to pet a cute
snake, gets bitten, then dies instantly, it would not be fallacious to assume the
snake is poisonous.
References:
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/post-hoc-ergo- https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/hasty-
propter-hoc-examples.html Generalization.
http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_s Walton, D. (2010). Argument from ignorance. Penn State
lope_examples/391/ Press. Extracted from:
http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_s https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argu
lope_examples/391/ ment-from-Ignorance.
http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_s Hume, D. (2004). An Enquiry Concerning Human
lope_examples/391/ Understanding. Courier Corporation. Extracted from:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/a9h_yIWp1_E/UH0tpVAY0lI/AAA https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appe
AAAAACRM/Ru10hkiLZe8/s1600/6_Appeal_to_Aut al-to-False-Authority.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ATTrkB761Cg/maxresdefault.jpg https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zg5stnNn0_U/hqdefault.jpg Effect.
Hurley, P.J (2011). A Concise introduction to Logic. https://enviropaul.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/logical-
Cengage Learning. Extracted from: fallacies-and-the-environment-the-slippery-slope/
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
Fallacies of Presumption are a subclass of Fallacies of Sufficiency which
occur in Inductive arguments when an unwarranted assumption is used to draw
28
a conclusion. Basically, this means that the argument a person makes is based
on an assumption, rather than a proven fact.
Such reasoning may lead the reader, listener or the author of the passage
to assume the truth of some unproved and unwarranted proposition buried in the
argument which is bad and can be very misleading. 29 As remedy, one should
identify the implicit assumption which may expose the fallacy.
Why unwarranted assumptions? The fallacies of presumption fail to provide
adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances,
however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some
further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. 30 The premises may
indeed be relevant to the conclusion drawn, but that relevance is likely to flow
from the tacit supposition of what has not been given support and may even be
unsupportable.31
Why is concept of “warrant” an important element of a good argument?
We can say that having warrant means having “good reason”. Like in criminal
procedures, if a police officer has a warrant for the arrest of a person, then he (or
the Judge, being the issuing authority) has a “valid or good reason” to bring the
person in.
There are three common forms included in this category.
P1. Accident Fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid 32)

When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when
clearly there are exceptions to the rule and to ignore these exceptions is to bypass
reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law.33 The fallacy of accident begins
with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs
by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.
This type of reasoning gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental
features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
28
http://www.mesacc.edu/~barsp59601/text/lex/defs/p/presumptivefallacy.html
29
30
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
31
32
“where an acceptable exception is ignored” or “Sweeping Generalization”
33
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Accident-Fallacy
It is when we reason with a generalization as if it has no exemption.
Logical Form:
X is a common and accepted rule.
Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.
Examples:
1. Killing people is a crime. Luwi killed the armed thief that threatened
him in his home. Therefore, Luwi is a criminal.
Explanation:
The general rule is that killing people is a crime, and the specific case is the killing done by Luwi.
But because the killing is done in order save one’s own life; the rule does not apply. (Art.11,
Revised Penal Code - Justifying Circumstances)
2. Alpine: “People should keep their promises otherwise they are

liars. Jonel promised to date me on Valentines Day but did not
appear when that day came. Therefore, Jonel is a liar.”
Explanation:
A true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal
statement that “People should keep their promises otherwise they are liars." would obviously
be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional
cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.
Circumstances alter cases. A generalization that is largely true

may not apply in a given case (or to some subcategory of cases) for
good reasons. The reasons the generalization does not apply in those
cases have to do with the special circumstances, also called the
“accidental” circumstances, of that case or those cases. If these
accidental circumstances are ignored, and we assume that the
generalization applies universally, we commit the fallacy of accident.
Experience teaches us that even generalizations that are
widely applicable and very useful are likely to have exceptions for
which we must be on guard.34
In our own experience, it is the nature of people to generalize
a common principle in life. Like the second example above, we tend
to believe that promises are and should be kept by its author. We put
high expectations especially when it is a sensitive matter and tend to
disregard circumstances (accidental circumstances) that is a matter
of fact or that may possibly arise. What if the reasons why Juan was
not able to appear on the day promise may be because of a
happening (e.g. emergency meeting/ hospitalization) that prevented
him to keep his promise? Here, generalization is not applicable thus if
we insist to disregard the underlying accidental circumstances then
we are arguing fallaciously.35
Exception:
Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in
question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.
Example:
1. Lordeliza: The bible said “though shall not kill.” Therefore as a
Christian, I did not murder the thief who stole my cow.
P2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum36)

It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience
does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as
a fact. It implies something but protects the one asking the question from
34
35
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Accident-Fallacy ; Bile, J. (1988). Propositional justification:
another view. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 9, 54–62
36
“Many Questions”
accusations of false claims.37 You use this fallacy when you frame a question so
that some controversial assumption is made by the wording of the question.
This also occurs when a single question is really two (or more) questions
that are asked and a single answer is applied to both questions. And by analogy it
turns out that the answer is somehow suggested in the question because fallacy
of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it
implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered.
In a deeper sense, one would not willingly agree to the first premise unless
we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to
prove.38
These are oftenly used in court rooms, political debates/ procedures,
forensic examination, editorials or headlines (Yellow Journalism).
In debate, whenever a question is accompanied by the aggressive demand
that it be answered “yes or no,” there is reason to suspect that the question is
“loaded”.39
In political or legislative procedures, the mistake that underlies the fallacy
of complex question also poses a common problem. Deliberative bodies
sometimes confront a motion that, although not intended deceptively, is covertly
complex. In such circumstances there is a need, before discussion, to simplify the
issues confronting the body. For example, a motion that the Congress “postpone
for one year” action on some controversial matter may wisely be divided into the
questions of whether to (1)postpone action and if so, (2)determine the length of
the postponement. Some members may support the postponement itself yet find
the one-year period intolerably long.40
37
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Complex-Question-Fallacy
38
The Philosophy Pages by Garth Kemerling http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
39
40
The appearance of a question in an editorial or headline often has the
purpose of suggesting the truth of the unstated assumptions on which it is built.
This technique is a common mark of what is called “yellow journalism.”41
Examples:
1. “Did you use a knife in killing that man?” [Man: “No”]
“Aha! So you did kill him!”
Explanation:
a) There are actually two underlying questions in this complex
question: (1) Did you kill the man? (2) Did you use a knife to
kill the man?
b) Also, answering in either yes or no will show your guilt of
killing the man.
2. “[Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue

wasting taxpayer’s money on excessive foreign travels?”
Explanation:
c) There are actually two underlying questions in this complex question:
(1) Are you wasting taxpayer’s money? (2) Are you going to continue
wasting it (which already answered question 1 with yes)?
d) Also, answering in either yes or no will mean that the President is
indeed wasting taxpayer’s money.
3. "Are you going to admit that you're wrong?"

Explanation:
Answering yes proves you're wrong. Answering no implies you accept you are wrong, but won't
admit it. This question presumes guilt either way.
4. How many times per day do you beat your wife?
Explanation:
e) There are actually two underlying questions in this complex
question: (1) Do you beat your wife? (2) How many times to
you beat her (which already answered question 1 with yes)?
f) Also, answering in either yes or no will mean that the
President is indeed wasting taxpayer’s money.
41
If you are hearing this question, you are more likely to accept the possibility that the person
who was asked this question is a wife-beater, which is fallacious reasoning on your part.
The remedy here is to respond to a complex question by determining the 2

(or more) questions that have been combined and answer them correctly.
Note that a complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion
by including it implicitly in the question wherein the controversial assumption is to
be considered.42
Exception:
It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be
an accepted fact.
Examples:
“How long can one survive without water?”
Explanation:
Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.
P3. Begging the Question (petitio principii43)
Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument

as one of the premises offered in its own support. Unlike the other fallacies,
begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is
formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion
must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide
support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already
granted that.44
It involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. If fails to establish the truth
of these premises, then the arguments prove nothing.45
42
The Philosophy Pages by Garth Kemerling (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm)
43
“assuming the 1st part.”
44
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
45
The Philosophy Pages by Garth Kemerling (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm)
To “beg” the question is to ask, or to suppose, that the very matter in
controversy be conceded or acknowledged or accepted to be true or valid. But
remember that it does not necessarily be in a form of question, it is usually a
statement.46
Is the argument here valid? Note that an argument is valid when the
conclusion cannot be false when the premises are true. Since the conclusion is
(one of) the premise(s) and that the conclusion is true.This requirement is
satisfied. BTQ is a fallacy that is also a valid argument.
Example:
1. “Murder is morally wrong. Death penalty is ending one's life. So
Death Penalty is morally wrong.”
 1st Premise - True
 2nd Premise - True
 Conslusion - (Must then be) True
2. “We have the freedom of speech because we have the freedom to

express our own opinions.”
5. “Murder is an immoral act because it is wrong.”
“Circular Reasoning”
Also known as circular reasoning, this type of fallacy argues by drawing out
conclusion that is the same with the premise although expressed differently.47
The
problem is
that this
valid
argument doesn't really provide support or
merit for the truth its conclusion but instead conclusion is framed or expressed in
46
47
http://logicwrendolf.blogspot.com/2014/01/fallacies-of-presumption.html
any or all of the premises by restating or rewording it. Its possible that this form is
neither inductive nor deductive because there is really no premise to speak of
that really support the conclusion.
Example:
1. God exists because it says so in the bible. Furthermore, we know
that the bible is true because it is the revealed work of God.
2. “We have the freedom of speech because we have the freedom to
express our own opinions.”
3. “Murder is an immoral act because it is wrong.”
These questions indicate that something has been left out of the original
arguments. If the arguer is unable to establish the truth of these premises, then
the arguments prove nothing. However, in most cases of begging the question,
this is precisely the reason why such premises are left unstated. The arguer is not
able to establish their truth, and by employing rhetorical phraseology such as “of
course,” “clearly,” “this being the case,” and “after all,” the arguer hopes to
create the illusion that the stated premise, by itself, provides adequate support for
the conclusion when in fact it does not.48
“Safe from trouble”

Begging The Question leaves something (a reason or fact) out of the
original arguments because the arguer is not able to establish their truth.
By begging the question, we can observe that something has been left out
of the original arguments. Remember we said that if the arguer is unable to
establish the truth of these premises, then the arguments prove nothing. This is
48
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION, Affaf Asgher Butt, page 4
precisely the reason why such premises are left unstated. The arguer is not able to
establish their truth.49
This is by use of words such as (but not limited to): “of course”, “clearly”,
“this being the case” and “after all” to create the illusion that the stated premise
provides adequate support for the conclusion when in fact it does not. The arguer
hopes to create the illusion that the stated premise, by itself, provides adequate
support for the conclusion when in fact it does not.
Example:
“Murder is morally wrong. Clearly Death Penalty is morally wrong.”
Hidden premise:
QDeath Penalty is murder (which is exactly the question under
debate.)
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
Fallacies of Ambiguity is also called as
“Ambiguous Assertion”, “Semantical Ambiguity”, or
“Vagueness”.
Ambiguity is a feature of language that occurs
when a word or phrase has more than one meaning or
is susceptible to different interpretations given to a
context. A term may have one sense in a premise but
quite a different sense in the conclusion.50
When the conclusion is dependent on the interpretation to an ambiguous
word or phrase in the premise/s makes the argument fallacious, because the
reader or listener is confused or mislead or deceited.
Example:
“It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly
how it began and exactly when.”
Explanation:
49
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION, Affaf Asgher Butt, page 4
50
The ambiguity here is what exactly “good understanding” means. The conclusion assumes a
much better understanding than is suggested in the premise.
The five varieties of ambiguity fallacy is discussed the succeeding

paragraphs.
A1. Equivocation
Equivocation is a fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or
phrase are used in different parts of an argument leading to an incorrect
conclusion being drawn (lexically ambiguous).
Most words have more than one
literal meaning, and most of the time we
have no difficulty keeping those
meanings separate by noting the context
and using our good sense when reading
and listening.51
Yet when we confuse the several
meanings of a word or phrase—
accidentally or deliberately we are using the word equivocally. In other words, we
are equating words with different meaning.
A. Equivocation by mistakenly equating

Example:
“Nature is governed by laws.
Laws are the work of Law Makers.
So, Laws of Nature are the work
of some Law Makers.”
B. Equivocation by use of one word to mean two different things
51
C. Equivocation by use of one word to mean two different things
Example:
1. When a girl says NO, it does not always means NO for not liking or
agreeing. Sometimes she means YES but is just covered by her
emotions.
Remedy: Use your instinct on what is her true intention or meaning. Otherwise she will be
outraged!
2. “We have a duty to do what's right. We have a right to do speak out
in defense of the innocent. Therefore we have the duty to speak
out in defense of the innocent.”
Explanation:
The word “rights” were used in two senses:
Premise 1 - “right” means morally correct
Premise 2 - “right” means a just claim
The two premises do not connect thus conclusion is INVALID.
D. Equivocation by misuse of “relative” terms
Example:
1. “A
n
elephant is an animal; therefore a small elephant is a small animal”
(INVALID)
Explanation: This is a fallacious and ridiculous argument. The point
here is that “small” is a relative term because a small elephant is a
very large animal.52 The remedy is to use non-relative terms.
2. “An elephant is an animal; therefore a gray elephant is a gray
animal” (VALID)
Explanation:
The argument here is perfectly valid. The word “gray” is a
nonrelative term.
Not all equivocation on relative terms is often obvious, however the word
“good” is a relative term and is frequently equivocated on when it is argued 53, for
example:
3. “Bato a good general and would therefore be a good president”

4. “Pedro is a good scholar and is therefore likely to be a good
teacher.”
A listener may not detect immediately the relative term equivocated in the
argument because it may sound convincing. So one should be careful.
A2. Amphiboly
Amphiboly is a fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words
can be interpreted in more than one way; the argument contains a premise based
upon one interpretation, while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation.
54
Committed when the premises used in the argument are ambiguous

because of carelessness or ungrammatical phrasing (structural/ gramatically
ambiguous).
Example:
1. “Ancient philosophy professor"
Explanation:
52
53
54
It may mean a teacher of classical Greek and Roman philosophy; or a very old professor of
philosophy
2. “He was shot in the train in the back in the sleeping car.”
Explanation:
Ambiguous because of doubt whether he was shot in the back or in the back of the train.
An ambiguous construction by itself is not a fallacy of Amphiboly. It
becomes a fallacy of Amphiboly when the wrong conclusion is drawn.
Example:
3. "They said they suspect several people of setting the fire. Therefore I
can't be under suspicion, since I was alone that night."
Explanation:
The conclusion relied on a different interpretation of “several people” .
A3. Accent
We have seen that earlier on that shifting the meaning of some term in an
argument may result in a fallacy of ambiguity, right? Sometimes, however, the
shift is the result of a change in emphasis on a single word or phrase, whose
meaning does not change.
Fallacy of accent occurs when an argument contains a premise that relies
on one possible emphasis of certain words, but the conclusion relies on a different
emphasis that gives those same words a different meaning.55
Fallacies that are based on the stress or emphasis of a word or word parts
being unclear. Example: "I didn't take the test yesterday." This statement may
mean that “someone else took the test” or “I took it another day.” 56
In expanding the use of emphasis we try to hear the statement “We should
not speak ill of our friends”. When read without stress on any of its words, we
must all surely agree. But, if the sentence is read with stress on the word
“friends” (with stress) would you still agree? Because by putting stress on the
55
56
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-logical-fallacy.html
“friends”, we might understand it to suggest that speaking ill of those who are not
our friends is not included.57
Other examples:
1. Example:
(In an interrogated for suspected murder:
Police Officer: "When did you shoot the girl?"
Civilian (in shock): "I shot the girl? I shot the girl?" (without stressing as a question)
Police Officer (goes to court): "Then he said, 'I shot the girl. I shot the
girl.''
Explanation: In the interview, it appeared that the police officer did
understand Rod's question "I shot the girl? I shot the girl?" as a
confession. Note that the police officer uses a complex question but
his fallacious tactic is not the issue in this case, rather a failure of
critical thought perhaps of the police officer due to a strong
confirmation bias. The officer was very confident that Bill was guilty,
thus failed to detect that the nuance in Rod's question was due to
shock.
Our biases can cause us to miss the vocal nuance. Listen actively and
critically, and try not to jump to conclusions. Specially in Rhetorics.
A4. Composition
Fallacy of Composition is an argument erroneously assigns attributes to a
whole (or to a collection) based on the fact that parts of that whole (or members
of that collection) have those attributes.58
Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transfer of an
attribute from the parts of something to the whole.
Sometimes the transfer of attributes is legitimate.
Not to be confused with hasty generalization. Composition proceeds from
members of a class to the class itself. Hasty generalization proceeds from specific
to general (from some members of a class to every member of a class).
57
58
A4. 1. －It is reasoning fallaciously from the
attributes of the parts of a whole to the
attributes of the whole itself.59
Example:
“Diokno is the smartest student in our school.
Since he is in my class, I must be in the smartest class in school.”
Explanation: Notice here that only one part (Diokno) is used to assume that the whole (class) is
what the single part is (smart).
In this type of fallacy an arguer infers that something is true of the whole
from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every part).
Example:
A4. 2. － Reasoning from

attributes of the individual elements or members of a collection to attributes of
the collection or totality of those elements.60
Exception:
If the whole is very close to the similarity of the parts, then more
assumptions can be made from the parts to the whole.
Example:
59
60
Open a small bag of potato chips and discover that the first one is delicious, it is not
fallacious to conclude that the whole snack will be just as delicious.
A5. Division
Fallacy of division occurs when someone
argues that something that is true for the
whole is also true for the parts of the whole.
Example:
1. “The men in my neighborhood
are drunkards. So my new neighbor, Chris, will surely be a drunkard.
2. “I just read a report about teachers not being happy with how much
they are paid. So, my cousin Alyssa who is a teacher must be unhappy
with her salary.”
3. “The United States is the richest country in the world. Therefore,
everyone in the United States must be rich and live well.”
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

In Logic of Argume: Likigan, Cresa Lyn Pitas, Margie Lausan, Pennelope

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Logic of Argume: Likigan, Cresa Lyn Pitas, Margie Lausan, Pennelope

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Logic

ATTY. NESTOR P. MONDOK

Example of formal fallacy:

The sun has not exploded for all its existence.

Example of informal fallacy:

2. Fallacies of defective induction. In fallacies of defective

3. Fallacies of presumption. In fallacies of presumption, too

4. Fallacies of ambiguity. The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of

R1. Appeal to the Populace (Argument Ad Populum)

R2. The appeal to emotion (Appeal to Pity / ad Misericordiam)

R3. Red Hearing

R5. The Straw Man

R5. Argument against the Person (Agrumentum ad Hominem)

R5.1 Argumentum ad hominem - Abusive

R5.2 Argumentum ad hominem – Circumstantial

R6. Appeal to the Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

R7. Missing the Point (Ignoracio Elenchi)

D1. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

2. How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest

D3. False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa)

Logical Form 1: Logical Form 2:

2. Giving 10% of your income to the Church will free a child’s

D4. Hasty Generalization

2. Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley

P1. Accident Fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid 32)

2. Alpine: “People should keep their promises otherwise they are

Circumstances alter cases. A generalization that is largely true

P2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum36)

2. “[Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue

3. "Are you going to admit that you're wrong?"

The remedy here is to respond to a complex question by determining the 2

P3. Begging the Question (petitio principii43)

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument

2. “We have the freedom of speech because we have the freedom to

“Safe from trouble”

The five varieties of ambiguity fallacy is discussed the succeeding

A. Equivocation by mistakenly equating

B. Equivocation by use of one word to mean two different things

D. Equivocation by misuse of “relative” terms

3. “Bato a good general and would therefore be a good president”

Committed when the premises used in the argument are ambiguous

A4. 2. － Reasoning from

You might also like