Legal Technique and Logic (Notes on Fallacies)

Reynel Cetrien G. Ligan

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

Appeal to Populace, also known as appeal to popularity – Argumentum ad Populum

- argues that a claim or idea is true simply because more people are inclined to accept such
claim or idea. The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s conclusion or decision is
not evidence but an external factor which is widespread acceptance of a belief. 1

Examples:
1) To my beloved Filipinos: I’m running. After all, I received a million signatures that urged
me to run for office. It is the will of the province.
2) When the law on violence against women and children was passed, I questioned what
about the rights of battered husbands? But then I realized most lawyers and professionals
did not object to the law. I’m thinking maybe I was wrong.

Appeal to Emotion – Argumentum ad Misericordiam

- deliberately generates feelings in people so that they will act in a certain way. Appeal to
emotion assumes that truth comes from with good feelings, and falsehood with bad feeling,
e.g., if it feels bad it must be wrong. This becomes fallacious when a person bases his
conclusions on emotion rather than logic. Commonly used by politicians, cult leaders and
advertisers, the fallacy had become a tool for manipulation to control behavior.2

Examples:
1) Our sofa with electronic massager will soothe your stress everytime you watch TV. Thus,
“Sofa Cum Massage” is what you and busy family needs these days.
2) The Ponton people in the mountains of Patalangan are raiding our warehouses. They are
training children to become armies. How bad can you feel reading the news each day. If you
vote for me, I will make reading the news a pleasure. You will read how I would eradicate
these people.

Attack on the person – Ad Hominem

- from the Latin “argument to the man,” is an argument rejecting person’s views by attacking or
abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc, as opposed to
providing evidence why the views are incorrect.3

Example:
What Lolino testified in court should not be believed. After all, he is a known communist
sympathizer.

The form followed by argumentum ad hominem is usually:

Mr. A makes a claim or assertion.
Mr. B attacks on the person of Mr. A.
Therefore, Mr. A’s claim or assertion is false.

This is fallacious because the person may (or may not) have a bearing on the truth of his
assertions. The truth of Mr. A’s assertion should be subjected to tests other than a mere
attack on the personality, character, or motivation of Mr. A, the claimant.

“You too” fallacy, also known as Appeal to Hypocrisy – Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1
Dean Gil Marvel Tabucanon. Legal Writing: A Competency-based approach. Rex Book Store.
2
Id.
3
Id.

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

- from Latin “you too,” argues that a person’s claim is false because it is inconsistent with what
that persons earlier statement or action.4

Examples:
1) Antonina teaches the message of love and peace. Yet she does not practice it. I have
seen her berate her students.
2) Evonne’s pro-divorce stance should be rejected. After all, she was an anti-divorce activist
just a year ago.

This is fallacious because Evonne may have changed in the meantime. The validity of the
claim should be tested by a criteria other than the claimant’s view or character.

Argument from Personal Incredulity

- This fallacy is based more on lack of understanding than lack of information. Often used as a
means to distrust science on the basis of it being highly technical and difficult to put into
layman terms, this fallacy is the standby of regressives who wish everything to remain the
way things used to be. To avoid changing one’s mind, the person merely avoids advancing
their understanding of the topic at hand.5

Examples:
1) I don’t understand how life can just move from bacteria to humans all on its own. There
had to be an intelligent designer behind it!
2) The human mind is so complex, you can’t conclude there is no soul released after death.

Argument from ignorance – Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

- Intelligent design, or creationism, is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core
argument for intelligent design is that there are biological structures that have not been fully
explained by evolutionary biologists, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have
created them.

This fallacy is also the basis of every ‘god of the gaps’ claim.6

Example:
Doctors can’t explain the coma awakening. It looks like my prayers were answered!

False Cause – Non Causa Pro Causa

- Otherwise referred to as confusing correlation with causation. This is one of the more
obvious fallacies, but still a major contributor to magical thinking.7

4
Id.
5
ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY, Truly Fallacious, August 16, 2013, available at
http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity (last accessed
January 10, 2015)
6
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, Truly Fallacious, August 16, 2013, available at
http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-ignorance (last accessed January 10,
2015)
7
FALSE CAUSE, Truly Fallacious, August 16, 2013, available at http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-
fallacies/presumption/false-cause (last accessed January 10, 2015)

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

Example:
Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; therefore, pornography causes
violence toward women.

"After this, therefore because of this" – Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- literally: “after this, therefore because of this,” argues that just because event A occurred
ahead of time, event A was the cause of event B.8

Examples:
1) Marin does not send her applications to courier A. Everytime she does, she gets rejected.
2) Everytime Jim wears red, he passes an exam. “Red” contributed to his passing the exam.

Generally, superstitious beliefs are examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Slippery Slope
- argues that once a person allows an event to happen, another event will inevitably follow.
The argument is fallacious in that there is no objective evidence to suggest that the second
evidence will necessarily follow.9

Examples:
1) You know young ladies. Once you allow your boyfriend to touch you beyond the elbow,
there is no stopping after that.
2) Do not give in. If you do, you will find squatters occupying each and every inch of your
property.

Hasty Generalization, also known as fallacy of hasty induction

- occurs when a general statement is asserted which is based on limited information,
inadequate evidence or unrepresentative sampling. The argument is fallacious because not
enough support is given to base the conclusion on. In a court setting, not enough evidence is
offered to support a decision.10

Examples:
1) A foreign actress checked in a hotel in Manila found cockroaches. In the press interview,
she concluded that the Philippines is full of cockroaches.
2) A State vice president was in an elementary school and wanted to help a 12 year-old boy
spell “potato.” When the vice president wrote “potatoe,” he got a rounding from the media
who thereafter concluded, based on a single boo-boo, that the vice president is a dummy in
spelling.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (Final Consequences) - Argumentum ad Consequentiam

8
Dean Gil Marvel Tabucanon. Legal Writing: A Competency-based approach. Rex Book Store.
9
Id.
10
Id.

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

- argues that a belief is true if it leads to desirable consequences. Conversely, a belief is false
if it leads to undesirable consequences. 11

The argument is fallacious in that the consequences of a belief could not be a determinant as
to the truth or falsity of the belief.

Example:
1) If my belief that Jose Rizal “is alive” makes me happy, this belief in no way makes it true
that Jose Rizal is alive.
2) My belief that every time I wear a red shirt I will pass an examination, has not bearing on
my actually passing the examination. It may be that I prepared for the exam.

Non Sequitur, literally: "It does NOT follow"

- is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur,
the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a
disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases
of non sequitur.12

Examples:
1) If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog."

Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to
emotion.

2) I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining."

The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.

Begging the Question – Petitio Principii

- is a fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premises. Also called petition principii
(“assuming the initial point”), is fallacious in that the conclusion to be proved is assumed
implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion
word-for-word into the premises.13

According to Paul Herrick, “seldom is anyone going to simply the conclusion word-for-word
into the premises… Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the
conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and
is then placed in the premises.

11
Id.
12
Non sequitur, Princeton, available at
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Non_sequitur_(logic).html (last accessed January 10,
2015)
13
Dean Gil Marvel Tabucanon. Legal Writing: A Competency-based approach. Rex Book Store.

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

Examples:
1) She’s a lover of music. After all, she plays the piano everyday.
2) You better follow what I say because I told you so. I’m your father, and you better follow
me.
3) He is mad right now, because I could see that is really angry.
4) I know that your decision is not illegal or immoral. My proof is it is not prohibited by law.

False Analogy
- This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects,
they are necessarily alike in some other respect.14

Examples:
1) Medical Student: "No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical
books. Why, then, shouldn't students taking a difficult examination be permitted to use their
textbooks?"
2) People who have to have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no
less a problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them.

Equivocation
- For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its
premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words
equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change
in subject.15

This fallacy generally occurs with polysemic words.

Examples:
1) Logic teaches you how to argue. Arguing gets us nowhere. Therefore, teaching people
logic is unproductive.
2) Evolution is just a theory!

"No True Scotsman"

- This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about
something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.16

Example:
No true Christian accepts the theory of evolution.

Genetic Fallacy

14
False Analogy, Texas State University, available at http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-
definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html (last accessed January 10, 2015)
15
EQUIVOCATION, Truly Fallacious, August 16, 2013, available at http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-
fallacies/ambiguity/equivocation (last accessed January 10, 2015)
16
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN, Truly Fallacious, August 16, 2013, available at
http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/ambiguity/no-true-scotsman (last accessed January 10, 2015)

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

- argues that the origin of a thing is identical with that from which it originates. The argument is
fallacious in that the product or consequence of a thing is not necessarily the same as that
from which it came from.17

Examples:
1) He is a criminal’s son. He must have criminal genes, or worse, is nothing but a criminal
himself.
2) People from hat section of the city are notorious pick-pockets and drug addicts. Thus,
beware of him.

False Continuum
- The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as
precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.18

The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered
distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.
According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.

Example:
Fred isn’t bald now, and if he loses one hair, that won’t make him go from not bald to bald
either. If he loses one more hair, that also does not make him go from not bald to bald.
Therefore, no matter how much hair he loses, he can never be called bald.

False Dichotomy, also known as false dilemma

- argues that there could only be two choices for the problem, or when one attempts to make
the middle point between two extremes as one of the extremes. The argument is fallacious in
that there may be more than two choices involved in the problem, or the middle point may
not be the other extreme of the continuum.19

Example:
1) Either he is a communist or secretly religious.
2) I am sorry you are a homosexual. You would have been a decent person.

Reduction to Absurdity – Reductio ad absurdum

- a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically
to an absurd consequence.20

Example:
"The opposite of every great idea is another great idea."

17
Dean Gil Marvel Tabucanon. Legal Writing: A Competency-based approach. Rex Book Store.
18
Continuum Fallacy, The Fallacy-a-day Podcast, September 10, 2011, available at
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/09/continuum-fallacy/ (last accessed January 10, 2015)
19
Dean Gil Marvel Tabucanon. Legal Writing: A Competency-based approach. Rex Book Store.
20
Reductio ad absurdum, Princeton, available at
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reductio_ad_absurdum.html (last accessed January 10,
2015)

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL TECHNIQUES AND LOGIC

If this statement is true, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically
lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the
statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("It is not true that the opposite of every great
idea is another great idea") must also be a great idea. The original statement is disproven
because it leads to an absurd conclusion: that an idea can be great regardless of whether it
is true or false.

Tautology
- a circular argument, or when each stage of an argument refers back to the previous stage, or
uses the previous stage as justification for that one.21

Moving the Goalposts

- Moving the goalposts (or raising the bar) is a logical fallacy that is committed when the
standard of proof is changed by one side during a discussion in order to gain advantage.
That is, evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed or additional
evidence is demanded. This creates the false impression that an argument had a fair hearing
while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.22

Example:
Tom: Rand Paul is alright! He said that he too opposes the bail-out of the biggest banks.
Dick: No, the interview shows that he’s a biased, Christian, conservative Republican
because he made no mention of the bail-out of other big corporations.

"Correlation does not imply Causation"

- argues that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes
the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible
causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint).23

Example:
Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.
Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.

---

AMDG †

21
Logical Fallacies: Circular Reasoning, AKA the Tautology, Exposing PseudoAstronomy, November 27, 2009,
available at https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/logical-fallacies-circular-reasoning-aka-the-tautology/
(last accessed January 10, 2015)
22
Moving the Goalposts, The Fallacy-a-day Podcast, October 8, 2011, available at
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/moving-the-goalposts/ (last accessed January 10, 2015)
23
Correlation does not imply causation, Princeton, available at
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html (last
accessed January 10, 2015)

LIGAN NOTES | XAVIER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW