NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC

Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

UNIT 3

FALLACIES

INTRODUCTION

Two competing conceptions of fallacies are that they are false but popular beliefs and that
they are deceptively bad arguments. These we may distinguish as the belief and argument
conceptions of fallacies. Academic writers who have given the most attention to the subject of
fallacies insist on, or at least prefer, the argument conception of fallacies, but the belief
conception is prevalent in popular and non-scholarly discourse. As we shall see, there are yet
other conceptions of what fallacies are, but the present inquiry focuses on the argument
conception of fallacies.
Being able to detect and avoid fallacies has been viewed as a supplement to criteria of
good reasoning. The knowledge of fallacies is needed to arm us against the most enticing
missteps we might take with arguments—so thought not only Aristotle but also the early
nineteenth century logicians Richard Whately and John Stuart Mill. But as the course of logical
theory from the late nineteenth-century forward turned more and more to axiomatic systems and
formal languages, the study of reasoning and natural language argumentation received much less
attention, and hence developments in the study of fallacies almost came to a standstill. Until well
past the middle of the twentieth century, discussions of fallacies were for the most part relegated
to introductory level textbooks. It was only when philosophers realized the ill fit between formal
logic, on the one hand, and natural language reasoning and argumentation, on the other, that the
interest in fallacies has returned. Since the 1970s the utility of knowing about fallacies has been
acknowledged (Johnson and Blair 1993), and the way in which fallacies are incorporated into
theories of argumentation has been taken as a sign of a theory’s level of adequacy (Biro and
Siegel 2007, van Eemeren 2010).

PHI 102:Logic Page 1

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Fallacies – The Basics

The etymology of the word “fallacy” is the Latin word “fallo” which means “ I deceive”.
The intention therefore of a debater, speaker or writer is to deceive his target audience or
client/s. Fallacies as deceptive arguments happen within the realm of language whether verbal or
non-verbal. Fallacies may be resorted to by a speaker or debater who orally delivers his or her
speech using oral expressions and body languages in order to be persuasive. Fallacies may
happen also through printed and/or posted signs and symbols, e.g. the phrase “baby on board”
with the image of a baby M-16 assault rifle, or a statement in the gate- with the image of a Glock
pistol- states “Never mind the dog. Beware of the owner!”

Fallacies are generally divided into formal and informal fallacies.

1. Formal fallacies are those deceptive arguments that arise by reason of violation or
some violations of rules governing statements and formal inferences, hence, these
fallacies have invalid forms.
- Is one that can be detected by examining the form of an argument.

2. Informal fallacies are deceptive arguments that do not involve violations of rules
governing statements and formal inferences, but the premises and the conclusions
have no logical connection or are irrelevant to each other or to the issues.
- Is tone that can only be detected by examining the content of the argument.

Formal Fallacies

A. Fallacies of Ambiguity. In presenting an argument, a statement should be sound in form

and in substance. It should be clear in its meaning and not open to various interpretations.
Fallacies of ambiguity are unacceptable inferences because the statements are not entirely
clear by intent where the reasoning is deliberately misleading or by accident, where the
error is due to its grammatical structure. The fallacies discussed here are erroneous
arguments arising from misinterpretation either in the premise, in the conclusion, or in
both.

PHI 102:Logic Page 2

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

1. Fallacy of Equivocation. The use of equivocal terms in a syllogism causes the

ambiguity of meaning. Equivocal terms are terms that have the same spelling ( and
maybe pronunciation but they differ in meaning.
Example 1: A halogen light is bright,
But all that is bright is intelligent,
Hence, all that is intelligent is a halogen light

Notice that the word “bright” in the first premise means differently in the second
premise thus causing confusion in meaning. In other words, the meaning of the term
“bright” is deceiving because it has double meaning. Thus, it makes the syllogism
fallacious.

Example 2: The package is light

But all light travels faster than sound,
Therefore, the package travels faster than sound.

Notice that the term “light” has double meaning thus it is an equivocal term.
Therefore, the term “light” creates confusion or it deceives the readers for it
superficially shows the same meaning, when in fact, the term has to be understood
differently in the premises.

2. Fallacy of Amphiboly. This is caused by syntactic deficiency (wring arrangement of

words in a sentenced), grammatical and punctuation errors, hence, it can be
interpreted in different ways .
Example 1: Woman without her man is nothing.

There are two possible meanings of this statement when we use commas. One is
“Woman, without her, man is nothing”. The other is “Woman, without her man, is
nothing”. Thus, as implying two meanings, the inference dis fallacious for being
ambiguous.

Example 2: Either Juan or Pedro is going to Vintar,

But he is going to Vintar,
Thus, Pedro is not going to Vintar.

PHI 102:Logic Page 3

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

There is ambiguity in the conclusion because the personal pronoun “he” may refer
to Pedro or Juan. Hence, the inference is a fallacy.

3. Fallacy of Composition. It happens when one attributes a quality of the parts to the
quali8ty of the whole or the quality or nature of some to the nature and quality of all.

Example 1: Maria, Petra, and Tekla are domestic helpers,

But they are Filipinos’
Therefore, all Filipinos are domestic helpers.

Example 2: Juan Tamad is indolent,

But he is a Filipino,
Therefore, all Filipinos are indolent.

4. Fallacy of Division. It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It happens when

one applies the nature or the quality of the whole to the quality or nature of the parts
or it is to attribute the quality and nature of all to the quality and nature of some parts.

Example 1: Philippines is a Catholic nation,

But Muslim regions are part of the Philippines,
Hence, Muslim regions are Catholic (regions).

Example 2: The Franciscan Order is one of the richest orders,

But Father Mark is a Franciscan,
Therefore, he is one of the richest members.

The preceding examples cite facts that are true to the totality of the subjects of the
major premises and such truth is applied to some parts or individual members. These are
deceptive inferences because what is true to the whole or totality is not necessarily true to
some parts or individual members.

PHI 102:Logic Page 4

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Informal Fallacies

A. Ignoratio Elenchi. This set of fallacies is based on the ignorance of the

refutation, issue or question. Meaning to say, out of ignorance of a refutation,
issue or question a person evades from responding by resorting to other concerns
irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is also called fallacies of relevance because
the issue of relevance of the premise/s and the conclusion in relation to the
refutation, issue or question arises.

1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Attacking to Personality) . this fallacy happens

when a person attacks or demoralizes the personality of his or her opponent
instead of addressing the issue, argument, or question.

Example 1: John says that every human being has rights to be protected. This
statement is false because John is an illiterate person.

In this example, instead of validating whether human beings have rights

and that these rights are to be protected, one attacks the person of John claiming
that he is illiterate. But his being an illiterate has nothing to do with the validity or
truthfulness of his claim.

Example 2: Women are equal with men. So women must be given the same
opportunity with men, says Lorna. However, the people do not
believe in her because she is a lesbian.

In this example. Instead of arguing against or for women’s equality with

men, the people attacked the person of Lorna. Her being a lesbian has nothing to
do with her argument on women’s equality with men.

Attacking the person instead of the issue usually happens in a debate nor
discussion where a debater insults or maligns the other debater. The conduct of
the debate demands that one must attack the issue or arguments, not the character
or personality of the person speaking.

PHI 102: Logicl Page 5

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

2. Argumentum ad Baculum ( Appeal to Force). Baculum in Latin is club or staff

used to threaten or force people. It is used to force or threat to win an argument
instead of rationally defending or attacking an issue or the argument itself.

Example 1: A complainant needs to file a case against a thief who stole her wallet.
However, the thief threatened her life if she reports to the authority.
So the complainant remained silent.

Example 2: The principal told the teachers that if they will give her a poor
evaluation, she will do her best to find faults on them so that they
will be terminated.

3. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the People). This fallacy is an appeal to

the sympathy of the crowd, the majority or the populace and uses the number of
supporters or the sentiment of the populace as basis of truth so as to win an assent
to a conclusion unsupported by substantial proofs. It is a fallacy because the
majority or the populace is not always right and that truth and correctness is not in
the number of supporters or in the population.

Example 1: Premarital sex is acceptable in the Philippine society because almost

everybody is doing it.

Example 2: This product must be of good quality because most people are using
it.

4. Argumentum as Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity). This fallacy uses pity or

mercy as basis of truth so as to convince the people to assent to a conclusion
without substantial evidence or proof.

Example 1: Since the snatcher is very poor, we will just set him free because we
pity the family members who will lose their father, brother or son.

Exampled 2: We will not fail the student even if he is not attending classes
because his father is in the intensive care unit.

PHI 102:Logic Page 6

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

5. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Misplaced or Unreliable

Authority). It happens when one uses somebody or someone without authority or
with less authority as the sourced or basis of his or her argument on the issued or
question.

Example 1: Pedro followed the advice of a quack doctor instead of the advice of
a surgeon who is a specialist.

Example 2: An advertisement uses celebrity endorsers as basis of the quality of

the product.

6. Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance). It occurs when one

declares that his or her argument or claim is true because it cannot be proven false
and vice versa.

Example 1: There is no such thing as cells because I have not yet seen it by my
naked eye.

Exampled 2: My argument is true because you failed to disprove it.

7. Fallacy of Red Herring. The origin of the figurative name of this fallacy is the
old method of training dogs in hunting foxes. The trainer drags some red
herring—a dried smoked herring (fish) turned red by the smoke—across the trail
of a fox used in training so as to confuse the trainee dogs in smelling the trail of a
fox. Thus, as figuratively applied in fallacies, it happens when one, instead of
arguing for an issue, uses another issue to divert the attention of his opponent
from the real issue in question.

Example 1: The members of the supreme student council were debating about
which design and color of the uniform for the school is best for the
students. One of the members said that it is not the design or the
color of the uniform that matters but it is the one wearing the
uniform.

PHI 102:Logic Page 7

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Example 2: Two brothers were arguing which country is the best place to
migrate, Canada or the United States. One brother said that what
matters most is not where we go but rather where we are happy.

B. Fallacies of Presumption. A presumption is a conclusion drawn from the

implication of the existence or non-existence of evident or fact. Fallacies of
presumption, though not an error of reasoning in logical form, are classified as
erroneous reasoning because these are arguments that begin with false or
unsubstantiated statement, thus its conclusion could not be established or verified
with certainty.

1. Fallacy of False Dilemma (False Dichotomy or Fallacy of Bifurcation). It

happens when one unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be
considered into two only. In other words, it is solving problems by limiting the
options to two alternatives only and nothing more.

Example 1: If you find the kitchen hot, it is either you remain in the kitchen and
endure or you get out of the kitchen. Since you cannot endure then get
out of the kitchen.

Example 2: Right after the department head gave the teachers their teaching load,
he said to them that they only have two options, either to take it or
leave it.

Notice that the preceding examples are fallacious because they do not consider
other options or alternatives to address or answer the concerns and problems.

2. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. It happens when one makes a generalized

conclusion out of a limited sample or data. A generalized conclusion applies to
the majority, but if the conclusion is applied to the totality or whole group of
people, it is the fallacy of composition. Thus, the generalized conclusion
differentiates the fallacy of hasty generalization from the fallacy of composition
where the conclusion is applied to the whole group. Besides this difference, the
former is an informal fallacy because it does not allow the formal structure of
inference while the latter is a formal inference because it is in accordance with
the formal structure of inference.

PHI 102: Logic Page 8

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Example 1: I have interviewed 30 students and according to them, they prefer a

presidential form of government for the student council than a
parliamentary system. Therefore, most students of the university
prefer a presidential form of government than a parliamentary form.

Example 2: Many dentists prefer this toothpaste. Therefore, most people are
using this toothpaste.

3. Straw Man Fallacy. This is a figurative name of a weak or imaginary opposition

or argument—like a straw man as an imaginary opponent—so as to easily attack
the opponent. It happens when one misinterprets the proposition or argument of a
speaker and thereby attacks such proposition, argument or speaker based on the
misinterpretation. What is imaginary here is the misinterpretation of the argument
or proposition. Thus, this is fallacy directed against a proposition that is presented
as if it were the real argument but actually it is not.

Example 1: Since the judge said that the hearing has to be postponed and
adjourned, it shows that he is partial and he is favoring the accused.

Example 2: The mayor declares that he will implement a curfew. It means that
he is a dictator and another martial law is at hand. Therefore, we
will not let him win in the next elections.

4. Fallacy of False Analogy. It happens when one presupposes that if two things or
persons are alike in some aspects, they are also alike in some other aspects.

Example 1: Diabetes is an illness, AIDS is also an illness. If diabetes can be

cured, AIDS also can be cured.

Example 2: If prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, it should also be legal in

the Philippines because both countries are democratic.

PHI 102:Logic Page 9

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

5. Non Sequitur (Fallacy of ―It Does Not Follow‖). It happens when there is no
close connection between the conclusion and the premise or premises. In other
words, the conclusion does not logically flow or follow from the premise/s.

Example 1: The girl has Chines blood, therefore she is a good businesswoman.

Example 2: She is not a Filipino because she does not have brown skin.

6. Petitio Prencipii (Begging the Question). This fallacy assumes the truth of the
conclusion even without proving it or even without substantial evidence of the
thing in question. There are two kinds of begging the question fallacy, namely:
assumption non probate or assuming without proving and circulus in probando or
arguing in circles.

a. Assumptio non Probata (Assuming without Proving). This happens when

one assumes the truth of a statement or argument without proving it.

Example 1: The students have no questions because they understood the

discussion well.

Example 2: She must be a genius because she is wearing eye glasses.

b. Circulus in Probando (Arguing in Circles). This occurs when one argues by

using usually the opposite as explanation or reason and answer without
providing a sufficient answer or explanation to the thing in question.

Example 1: He is fat because he is not thin. He is thin because he is not fat.

Example 2: The weather is warm because it is not cold. It is not cold that is
why it is warm.

7. Fallacy of Complex or Loaded Question. It happens when a question is asked

and that question presupposes or implies the truth of certain propositions within
the question.

PHI 102: Logic Page 10

 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY,INC
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Example 1: Do you believe that rebels are always incorrigible and belligerent
people because they are always identified with insurrection?

Example 2: Does the good congressman agree that the Filipino people will just
forget the Pork Barrel Scam after several calamities have struck the country
because they are overwhelmed by the aftermath?

8. Fallacy of False Cause (post hoc, ergo propter hoc—after this, therefore
because of this). It assumes that whatever precedes an event is the cause of that
event. Often a reader will mistake a time connection for a cause-effect connection.

Example 1: Rizal came before Hitler, since Rizal visited Austria before the birth
of Hitler, therefore, Jose Rizal is the father of Hitler.

Example 2: I sat office two years ago as the head of the college, I observed that
the number of enrollees increased since the last two years.
Therefore, the enrolment increased because of me.

9. Slippery Slope Fallacy. It is a variation of the fallacy of false cause. It happens

when one assumes that an event or practice that a person disapproves will initiate
a chain of events that will consequently lead to undesirable effects.
- It occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to
one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that
one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful
conclusion. Along the way, each step or event in the faulty logic becomes more
and more improbable.

Example 1: If we enact any kind of gun control laws, the next thing you know,
we won’t be allowed to have any guns at all. When that happens, we
won’t be able to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, and when
that happens, terrorists will take over our country. Therefore, gun
control laws will cause us to lose our country to terrorists.

PHI 102: Logic Page 11