Written Report.docx

4.1 What is Fallacy? It came from the Latin word “fallacia” which means “deception, deceit, trick, artifice”. Fallacy is reasoning incorrectly when the premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion. It is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves on examination not to be so. In a general sense, Fallacy is any error in reasoning. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others. IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING FALLACIES 1. Logical fallacies are an important part of any debate or discussion or court proceedings. The ability to call a fallacy by name will give us a great advantage over an opponent in debate, discussion or court proceedings. A person unfamiliar with fallacies often has a vague suspicion that an argument is defective or even knows for certain that it has some flaw, but still cannot say exactly what is wrong with it. A person familiar with fallacies, on the contrary, can put his finger right on the flaw and thus protect himself from being embarrassed or abused by SOPHISM (a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive). 2. Studying fallacies is an important part of logic and one that can immediately enrich your life. It will help you develop the vocabulary and skills needed to better evaluate the arguments of politicians, neighbors, advertisers, authorities, and people. 3. A readiness in recognizing fallacies will help us apply the principles of logic to everything we read or hear and put us on our guard against the more common sources of deception. Books, magazines, newspapers advertisements, etc. are full of fallacies; if one is skilled in recognizing them, then one is less likely to be deceived. 4.2 CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES Formal Fallacy -

a fallacy that arises from an error in the logical form or structural grammar of an argument; it is usually independent of the reasoning or content.

EXAMPLES RULE IN LOGIC: There must be three terms in the argument (syllogism)

Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle—happens when the terms used in the argument (syllogism) are analogous or ambiguous Brown is a color But Andrew is brown Therefore, Andrew is a color Fallacy of Four Terms-- happens when there are more than three terms in the argument (syllogism) All Filipinos are Asians But all Tagalogs are human beings Therefore, all Tagalog are Asians Informal Fallacy -

a fallacy that arises from the content of an argument (the what is said), not the logical form or structure of the argument (the how it is said). Informal fallacies usually arise in ordinary language contexts from mistakes in everyday argumentation and persuasion.

4.3 Fallacies of Relevance - Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion 1. Appeal to emotion (ad populum) The appeal to emotion with legal maxim argument ad populum relies on expressive language instead of evidence and a rationale argument. Example: It is time to put an end to this. Thousands have lost justice because of the power and wealth of the elites. Hopes have been dashed. Lives have been ruined. This cannot be allowed to continue. For all these reasons I urge you to find the defendant guilty as charged. 2. Appeal to pity ( ad misericordiam) 3. Appeal to force ( ad baculum) The appeal to force with legal maxim argument ad baculum are strong-arm methods to coerce and persuade by resorting to force the opponent to the truth. Example: If you don’t agree to my conclusion that the accused killed the victim, I will not consider you logical.

4. Appeal against a person ( ad hominem) The attack on the person with legal maxim argument ad hominem are arguments being unfair to the adversary. Hurtful and inflicting serious personal damage. Example: A lawyer tells a jury that the evidence presented by an ex-convict witness is not reliable. 5. Missing the point ( agnorantio elenchi) The missing the point with legal maxim ignoratio elenchi is the premise and the conclusion which do not connect with each other. This fallacy occurs when the premises “miss the point” and fail to substantiate the conclusion, instead supporting some other, perhaps unstated, conclusion. Often, this fallacy arises when we advocate for a particular objective, but offer only generalized support for that objective that could equally well support an alternative approach. An irrelevant conclusion may also be called a non sequitur. Example: The police escorted the famous band in the town. A member must have committed a crime. 6. The straw man The straw man relies on shifting the argument from its original issue to another. Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument. Example: People who think abortion should be banned have no respect for the rights of women. They treat them as nothing but baby-making machines. That's wrong. Women must have the right to choose. 7. The red herring The red herring Relies on distraction where attention is deflected away from the issue. Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. Example:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that? Ken: But what is morality exactly? Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures. Ken: But who creates this code? 4.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction -

fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion 1. Appeal to Ignorance ( ad ignorantiam) An argument is fallacious when it maintains that a proposition is true because it has not been proved false or false because it has not been proved true. Example: Kalani took the bar examinations. No one ever proved that she failed the bar exam. Therefore, she is now a lawyer. 2. Appeal to inappropriate authority ( ad verecundiam) The appeal to inappropriate authority with legal maxim argument ad verecundiam is an appeal made to parties with no legitimate claim. This fallacy arises when the authority invoked has no legitimate claim in the matter at hand. In legal writing, this fallacy occurs when we cite a secondary authority or a case from another jurisdiction as controlling authority. It also occurs when we cite the opinion of an expert in a matter outside his or her expertise. Example: The Pope told me that priests could turn bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood. The Pope is not a liar. Therefore, priests really can do this. 3. False cause This fallacy consists in treating something as a cause that is not, or should not be assumed to be, a cause. Most commonly, the mistake is in assuming that A caused B simply because A preceded B. Example: The defendant fled the state just hours after the crime was committed. Therefore, he was

clearly involved in one way or another with its planning or execution.

The butcher sharpened his knife just after he argued with his customer. Therefore, he is intending to stab the latter. 4. Hasty generalization The hasty generalization draws conclusions covering all persons or things in a class or cluster. This fallacy is the converse of the preceding one. It occurs when we move too quickly to establish a broad principle or general rule based on specific factual observations. Example: “They say deep-fried food is bad for you. Nonsense. I’ve been eating corn dogs and french fries my whole life, and I’m in perfect health.” 4.5 Fallacies of Presumption Any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false. An argument that depends on such unwarranted leaps Three (3) major fallacies: Fallacy of Accident Complex Question Fallacy Begging the Question P1. Fallacy of Accident Latin: dicto simpliciter A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the generalization does not apply. It is also known as Sweeping Generalization. Example: We motorists should not run red lights so it must be wrong for an ambulance to run a red light when it is taking someone to the hospital in an emergency. P2. Complex Question Fallacy Latin: plurium interrogationum An informal fallacy in which a questions is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question. It is also known as Loaded Question.

Example: “Are you going to admit that you are wrong?” This question is complex. What is implied if you answer yes? What is implied if you answer no? P3. Begging the question Latin: petitio principia An informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in any one of the premises. It is also known as Circular Argument and Petitio Principii.

Circular Argument is certainly fallacious, but the premises are not irrelevant to the conclusions drawn. They are relevant: indeed, they prove the conclusion, but they do so trivially ‘they end where they began.’ Petitio Principii is always technically valid, but always worthless. Example: The death penalty is wrong, therefore killing people is immoral. Freedom of speech is important because people should be able to speak freely. 4.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity An informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings of words or phrases within an argument. Also known as Sophism. Sophism is an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid: especially: such an argument used to deceive. Ambiguous are word or phrase has multiple meanings in different situations. Example: When the Judge asked the defendant why he had not paid his parking fines, he said that he should not have to pay them because the sign said, “Fine for parking here” and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there. Five (5) varities are distinguished: 

Fallacy of Equivocation



Fallacy of Amphiboly



Fallacy of Accent



Fallacy of Composition



Fallacy of Division

A1. Fallacy of Equivocation A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used, accidentally or deliberately, in different parts of an argument. Example : All laws require lawmaker. Galileo’s principle of inertia is a law. Therefore, Galileo’s principle of inertia requires a lawmaker.

1st premise: law – statute 2nd premise: law – scientific generalization based on observed regularities in nature A2. Fallacy of Amphiboly 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. Amphiboly is derived from the Greek, its meaning in essence being “two in a lump” or the “doubleness” of lump. Example: The police were told to stop drinking on campus after midnight. So, now they are able to respond to emergencies much better than before. A3. Fallacy of Accent A fallacy of ambiguity that 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. Accent fallacies are a type of Equivocation. Example: I resent that letter. resent – one sent that letter again resent – one that has a feeling of resentment

A4. Fallacy of Composition A fallacy of ambiguity in which 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.

This fallacy is committed: a) When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a part to the attributes of the whole, or b) When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of an individual member of some collection to the attributes of the totality of that collection

Example: Maria likes strawberries, burgers, rice, butter, carrots, and cereals. (However, imagine that you blend all these items together, and present a dish to her.) Fallacy of Composition and Hasty Generalization distinguished Fallacy of Composition when the reasoning is that what is True of a part of something must also be True of the entire thing it is a part of. Hasty Generalization when the reasoning is that what is True of a member of a group is also True of other members of the group. Example: Fallacy of Composition: A machine is defective because one of the parts is defective. A machine may work quite well even if a part is defective; how well it works depend on which part is defective. Hasty Generalization: That every part of a machine is defective because one of the parts is defective.

A5. Fallacy of Division A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously assigns attributes to parts of a whole (or to members of a collection) based on the fact that the whole (or the collection) has those attributes.

This fallacy is committed: a) When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a whole to the attributes

of one of its parts, or b) When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a totality of some

collection of entities to the attributes of the individual entities within that collection. Example: Water is liquid. H2O is water which is a liquid. Therefore, H2O molecules are liquid.

References: Textbook Sources: Copi, I.,Cohen, C.v(2009). Introduction to logic (13th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education International. Internet Sources: Brown, C. (2017). Craig’s sense of wonder. Retrieved on February 2, 2017 from the World Wide Web: https://craigssenseofwonder.wordpress.com/tag/fallacies-of-presumption/ Kemerling, G. (1997). The philosophy pages. Creative commons attribution. Retrieved on February 2, 2017 from the World Wide Web: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm Logically fallacicious. (2017). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 3 February 2017 from: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy Logically fallacicious. (2017). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 3 February 2017 from: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring Ramme, N. (2002). Logic and legal reasoning: A guide for law students. Retrieved on February 3, 2017 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/~ramckinn/Documents/NealRameeGuide.pdf