Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Division of Pampanga
PAMPANGA CENTRAL COLLEGE (SAN SIMON) INC.
(Formerly: Pampanga Central High School (San Simon) Inc.)
San Agustin San Simon, Pampanga

English for Academic & Professional Purposes

Fallacies in Reasoning
2 Semester, Wk.5 - Module 5
nd

_______________________
(Name of Student)

_________________
(Grade and Section)

Thalia S. Betanio
Subject Teacher
 Fallacies in Reasoning

Content standard: The learner acquires knowledge of appropriate reading strategies for a better
understanding of academic texts.
Performance Standard: The learner produces a detailed abstract of information gathered from
the various academic texts read.
At the end of this module, I can:
 illustrate what sound reasoning is;
 distinguish the different types of fallacies from one another.

Sound Reasoning
Sound reasoning is used every day. In fact, we make decisions and judgements based on sound
reasoning, even in the most insignificant thing we do for the day. There are two well-known types
of sound reasoning: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is from a general statement to a specific one. For example, your prior
knowledge tells you that Moslems do eat pork. Your boss is a Moslem. You will not take him to
restaurant that serves only lechon because you know that eating pork is not allowed in his faith.
You can present the statements in the following way:
Moslems do not eat pork.
My boss is a Moslem.
Therefore, he doesn’t eat pork.
Another type of sound reasoning in inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is from specific to
general. For instance, because you are sick with influenza, you just stayed home and didn’t go to
school. You texted your classmate and asked him to tell your teacher that are sick with the flu.
Your classmate texted back and told you that he also has the flu. You logged in to your social
media account. You saw the most people are complaining of getting sick with the flu. Form theses
similar incidences, you concluded that there’s an outbreak of the flu. Your logical reasoning can be
arranged like this:
I am sick with influenza.
My classmate is also with influenza.
Most of my friends in social media are complaining of getting sick with influenza.
There is an influenza outbreak.
The conclusion for both deductive and inductive reasoning is only acceptable if the preceding
premises are acceptable.
Take caution in the fallacies of reasoning that can be very subtle yet deceptive. Do not use them
and neither be persuaded by any of them.
Fallacies in Reasoning
A common in reasoning makes an argument false or unreliable. Here are a few most common
fallacies in reasoning:
1. Bandwagon – this is a reasoning based on popularity rather than on scientific evidence or
facts. This gives one a feeling of “you are the only one not doing (or using) it, so why not join
now?”
Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people
think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such
instance of an ad populum appeal.
Example:
If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle
they want.
In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be
associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want
even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

2. Hasty generalization – this is reaching a conclusion without enough pieces of evidence or

further studies.
Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other
words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.
In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which
is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and
reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even
examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the
course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

3. Red herring – this is a term that originated from the legend that criminals in England during the
17th century would use a red herring (a fish) to confuse the bloodhounds on the trail that pursue
them. The bloodhounds would then veer away in the opposite direction, which is away from the
where the criminal was. A red herring is an argument that distracts the opponent away from the
real issue and leads them to an irrelevant issue.
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing
arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks
instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect
the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic
consequences to a few individuals.

4. Attack on a person – This reasoning attacks the person instead of the issue. This happens a
lot in politics. If you hear politicians attacking their opponents instead of the issue, beware!
Using faulty logic to make a point is called fallacy. One type of fallacy is personal attack. This
fallacy occurs when someone refutes another's ideas by attacking the person rather than the
ideas.
Examples of Personal Attack:
1. A senator claims that his new tax plan will help the middle class. His opponent says that the rich
senator doesn't care about the middle class.
2. A Supreme Court nominee must be approved by the senate. A female judge has impeccable
qualifications, but one senator objects because she is an outspoken lesbian.

5. Either or – reasoning - this presents only two alternatives and acts as f there are no other
choices.
This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.
Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range
of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities
and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Assessment:
Activity 1
What will you do in each situation? Write a short answer on the space provided.
1. You noticed that your favorite cup is at the edge of the table. you will
______________________________________________________________________________
2. You smell smoke coming from the kitchen where you are cooking a cup of rice for an hour. You
will ___________________________________________________________________________
3. You seek dark clouds above, and you are about to take a short walk to the store to buy
something. You will
_______________________________________________________________________
4. You see flies over the food on the table. You will
_______________________________________
5. you noticed that your colds are not getting any better after taking the prescribed medicine for a
week. You will __________________________________________________________________
Activity 2
Answer the following questions:
1. Based on the discussion, give at least two example each of deductive and inductive
reasoning.
2. choose one fallacy. Give your own example.
3. how do you check if the information given to you is a fallacy or not?
Reference:
Mondez, Romelyn G. English for Academic and Professional Purposes 2016 pp. 4-18. Makati City,
Diwa Learning System
.