Fallacies

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. It is a mistaken belief, especially one based on
an unsound argument. The three general types of fallacies include fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption
and fallacies of ambiguity. (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259) – Austine Cline

I. Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are a kind of fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. The kinds of
fallacies of relevance are argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem,
argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad misericordiam, argumentum ad baculum, red herring and straw man
fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) is a logical fallacy that provides that a statement is true
only because it has not been proven false, or a statement is false only because it is not proven true.
(https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/argumentum-ad-ignorantiam/). An example would be when one asserts that
dragons once roamed the earth since no one can prove their inexistence.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) pertains to an appeal to the testimony of an authority
outside the authority's special field of expertise. (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html). It could be
illustrated when a person asserts that the meat bought from a stall in the market is fresh since the meat he bought
there yesterday tasted delicious.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument to the person) refers to a fallacy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at
hand is avoided by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or
persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Dr. Michael C.
Labossiere (2002–2010). "42 Fallacies: Ad Hominem" (PDF). p. 2. Retrieved 2013-10-17). This is exhibited by one
who insists that people should not listen to a person’s political opinions because he is a “yellowtard” or supporter
of the liberal party.

Argumentum ad populum (argument to the people) is a fallacy that concludes that a proposition must be true
because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." (Austin
Cline. Argumentum ad Populum). This is manifested by a person claiming that Capiz is full of ghosts or supernatural
beings since a lot of people claim that they had ghost encounters in Capiz.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from misery) is a logical fallacy based on a strong appeal to the
emotions. It is and appeal to pity or misery. (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-ad-misericordiam-1688966).
When a person caught in the act of theft requests for clemency on the ground that he is living in poverty sustaining
a lot of children, this fallacy is present.

Argumentum ad baculum (argument to the stick) is a logical fallacy commited whenever a person makes an implicit
or explicit threat of physical or psychological violence against others if they refuse to accept the conclusions
offered. (https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-force-fear-250346). This occurs when a police officer insists on
the admission of a suspect to a purported crime otherwise the former would beat the latter with his gun.

Red herring is a logical fallacy that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. (Oxford English
Dictionary). The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having
used a kipper, a strong-smelling smoked fish, to divert hounds from chasing a hare. (Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A
Concise Introduction to Logic). An example of such fallacy occurs when a proponent asserts that the sexual
orientation and gender identity equality is unconstitutional for favouring a certain class but the response states
that it is more pertinent to discuss the impact to the livelihood of the farmers regarding the decline of the prices of
rice in the market.

Straw man is a fallacy which misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute. Straw man
arguments oversimplify opposing views or disregard inconvenient points in favor of points that are easy to argue
against. The person committing the straw man fallacy highlights the most extreme position or actions of a minority
of the opposing side. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
(https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/straw-man-fallacy/). For example, a proponent asserts that violence caused by
some minors is due to their indulgence in violent video games and the community should educate them about it.
But the person who commits the straw man fallacy refutes the proponent by stating that video games never
caused violence among children since terrorists like Osama Bin Laden have never been known to have played any
video games.

II. Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of presumption are arguments that depend on some assumption that is typically unstated and
unsupported. http://www.mesacc.edu/~barsp59601/text/lex/defs/i/informalfallacy.html. The kinds of fallacies of
presumption are complex questions, non cause pro causa, petition precipii, ignorantio elenchi, accident, converse
accident and false dilemma.

Complex questions are fallacies in the form of a question asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some
conclusion buried in the question. (Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl (June 20, 2001). Introduction to Logic.). An example
is illustrated by an investigator who initially asks a suspect the question: “Where did you hide the body?”. This
presupposes the conclusion that the suspect has killed or assisted in killing someone.

Non cause pro causa (not the cause for the cause) is a fallacy where the cause is incorrectly identified.
(https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Non%20Causa%20Pro%20Causa.html) This could be illustrated by
the following example: Due to an strong earthquake, the fruit of a coconut tree owned by A fell on B’s car. B’s
windshield was broken. B argues that A is liable for damages since it was the impact of the fruit falling on the car
which was the cause of the damage to the car’s windshield. B’s argument in this case is non cause pro causa.

Petitio principii (begging the question) is the logical fallacy of assuming in a premise a statement which is taken to
have the same meaning as the conclusion of the argument. Thus, what is to be proved has already been assumed
in the premises. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html. An administrator of a condominium who
asserts: “No one is permitted to use the swimming pool on weekends since people are only permitted to use the
pool on weekdays”, commits this fallacy.

Ignorantio Elenchi (ignoring refutation) or known as “missing the point” is the logical fallacy of proving a conclusion
not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html. An example is when a concerned parent asserts that:
“Students waste most of their time on online games rather than studying; therefore, the internet should be
banned.”

Accident or sweeping generalization is a logical fallacy committed when a general rule is made to apply to all
situations when, clearly, there are exceptions to the rule. (https://www.logicallyfallacious.Com/tools/lp/Bo/
LogicalFallacies/2/Accident-Fallacy). An example is a person arguing that to kill a person is unlawful and evil since
the Bible says, “Thou shall not kill”.
Converse accident or hasty generalization is the logical fallacy of considering certain exceptional cases and
generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. The fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of accident. A person
who argues: “A person who killed someone in self-defense can be acquitted. Therefore, I can kill anyone I want
and also be acquitted”, commits this kind of fallacy.

False Dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation,
when in fact there is at least one additional option. Antifa members in the United States of America who claim that
one could only be against Donald Trump or a fascist, commit this type of fallacy.

III. Fallacies of Ambiguity

The fallacy of ambiguity occurs when an unclear word or phrase with multiple definitions is used within the
argument and, therefore, does not support the conclusion. https://www.logicallyfallacious.Com/tools/lp/Bo
/LogicalFallacies/17/Ambiguity-Fallacy. The kinds of fallacies of ambiguity are equivocation, amphiboly, accent,
composition, and division.

Equivocation is a fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an
argument leading to a false conclusion. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments).
An example of this fallacy occurs in a situation where a person asserts that to be gay is a sin as the Bible condemns
gay persons. In this situation, the meaning of the word “gay” in the earlier part of the sentence pertains to the
adjective of being a happy person, while the latter use of the same word pertains to a homosexual person.

Amphiboly is fallacy which occurs in a sentence wher e, because of its grammar, structure, or punctuation, the
latter can be interpreted in multiple ways. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_amphiboly. An example is a
police report asserting: “The offender was caught in the act of stealing the gold watch of the victim wearing a
green shirt”. In this statement, either the offender or the victim could be interpreted as the one wearing the green
shirt.

Accent is a fallacy that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing stress to a particular word or
words, or when, in a written passage, it is left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on. (Damer,
T. Edward (2009), Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments). An example is when
the word “Alexis” is emphasized in the sentence: “Alexis would never cheat in the exam. Therefore, it can be
concluded that someone else cheated on the exam.”; or when the word “exam” is emphasized in the same
sentence: “Alexis would never cheat in the exam. Therefore, it can be concluded Alexis cheated on something or
someone else.”

Composition is a fallacy where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of
some part or every proper part of the whole. . (Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free
Arguments). This fallacy could be illustrated by the following example: “My friends’ Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7
phones suddenly exploded at unexpected moments. We should not buy these phones since all Galaxy Note 7
phones issued by Samsung are defective.” These proponent in this case commits the logical fallacy of composition.

Division is a fallacy where one deduces that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of
its parts. This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. The foregoing statements illustrate this fallacy:
The Golden State Warriors in the NBA is the best all-around team since they are the 2018 champions. The bench
players of the Golden State Warriors are part of their team. Hence, the bench players are the best players on the
NBA.
 Definition

The term definition is derived from the Latin word defenire, meaning “to state the limits of” or “to enclose within
limits.” It is a statement that explains the meaning of a word or phrase (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/definition). A definition has 2 parts namely: the definiendum or the word or words which are
defined and the definiens or the word or words which does the defining. The kinds of definition are stipulative
definition, lexical definition, précising definition, theoretical definition, persuasive definition, denotation and
connotation.

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new specific
meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. Unlike a lexical definition, stipulative
definition cannot be correct or incorrect. (Cline, Austin. "Definitions”). An example is defining NPA to mean “No
permanent address”.

A lexical or real definition, also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage.
Unlike a stipulative definition, lexical definitions are either true or false. If the definition is the same as the actual
use of the word then it is true, otherwise it is false. An example is the word “algorithm” which is defined as a set of
steps that are followed in order to solve a mathematical problem or to complete a computer process.

A precising definition extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria
that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition. An example is the definition of “discernment” of a child
in conflict with the law in criminal law which means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the
offense to understand the differences between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.

A theoretical definition defines a term in an academic discipline, functioning as a proposal to see a phenomenon in
a certain way. (A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley.). An example is the term “Pakyaw”; Under P.D.
1948, "Pakyaw" contracts partake of the nature of undertaking public works projects under the Filipino bayanihan
spirit where the workers, moved by the sense of unity, put up a common capital and render services on a
cooperative basis.

A persuasive definition is a type of definition which incites either favourable or unfavourable responses to the
object so defined. http://logicwrendolf.blogspot.com/2013/12/definition.html. The terms defined will often
involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions. Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2004). "Persuasive definition". An
example is the statement of Abraham Lincoln: “Democracy is a government of the people for the people and by
the people.”

A denotative definition or extension consists of a concept, idea, or sign of the things to which it applies. This is a
definition which identifies the extension of a term by listing members of the class of objects to which the term
refers. The types of denotative definitions are definition by example, ostensive definition and quasi-ostensive
definition.

Definitions by examples are a type of denotative definition where something or someone is used as a
model. The statement: “A governor is a kind of politician.”, is a definition by example.

Ostensive Definition is a type of denotative definition accompanied with a gesture pointing to the object
serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by pointing". Passmore,
John (1966). A Hundred Years of Philosophy (2nd ed.) An illustration is when a person points to various red
objects in order to define the word “red”.
 Quasi-ostensive definition is a type of denotative definition which does not only point the object referred to
by the term but also gives a description about the object being pointed out. An example is when one points
to the shrine of Lapu-lapu in Cebu stating: “That is an example of a monument”.

A connotative definition or intension consists of the ideas, properties, or corresponding signs that are implied or
suggested by the concept in question. This pertains to a definition by stating any property or quality connoted by
a word, phrase, or another symbol. Antony Flew (1979). Dictionary of Philosophy. The three senses of connotative
definitions or intension are subjective intension, objective intension and conventional intension. The techniques of
defining terms, using intension are etymological definition, definition by synonym, operational definition and
definition by genus and difference. http://logicwrendolf.blogspot.com/2013/12/definition.html

Subjective intension occurs where the object is defined by the set of attributes the speaker believes that the
object possesses. An example is defining the word “Dog” as loyal, loving, stress relieving friend.

Objective intension is made by stating the total set of attributes common to all the objects in the extension
of a term. An example is defining the “Lawyers” as persons who have graduated from law school and passed
the bar exam.

Conventional intension is the commonly accepted intension of a term. Terms have stable meanings because
there is an implicit agreement to use the same criterion for deciding about any object whether it is part of
the term’s extension. The statement: “A circle is a closed place curve, all points of which are equidistant
from a point within called the center.”, is an example of this.

An etymological definition defines a word by giving the meaning of the word or words from which it is
derived. An example is the word “Philosophy” which is derived from philos, a Greek word which means
“loving,” and Sophia, which means “wisdom”.

A definition by synonym defines a word by giving another word, either of the same language as the word to
be defined or of a different language, whose meaning is already understood with the same meaning as the
word being defined. An example is defining the word “rectify” as “to correct”.

An operational definition opts to define a term by tying the definiendum to some clearly describable set of
actions or operations. It defines a word or an occurrence by stating the necessary conditions that are
required in order for something to be called such a term. An example is the statement: “An elective
candidate is deemed a member of the House of Representatives once there has been a valid proclamation,
a proper oath before the House Speaker while Congress is in open session and there must be assumption of
office by the said elective candidate.

Definition by genus and difference defines a term by identifying the genus and the difference. The genus
states a general class to which the object belongs and the difference how the object differs from others in
the group. An example is the statement: “A mayor is an elective official that governs over a city”. The genus
in this case is “elective official” and the difference is “governs over a city”