ENTHYMEME – an abridged syllogism in which
either one premise or two premises or the
conclusion is omitted or suppressed but implied
or understood.
Ex. Sex is natural. Therefore, it is moral.
FOUR TYPES OF ENTHYMEME
1. FIRST ORDER – The major order is omitted
but implied or understood.
Ex. He is the president.
Therefore, he has the power.
When completed, it becomes:
(Whoever is the president has the power.)
(suppressed major)
But he is the president.
Therefore, he has the power.
2. SECOND ORDER – The minor premise is
suppressed but implied or understood
Ex. Whoever is the president has the power.
Therefore, he has the power.
When completed, it becomes:
Whoever is the president has the power.
(Now he is the president.) (suppressed
minor)
Therefore, he has the power.
3. THIRD ORDER – The conclusion is
suppressed but implied.
Ex. All crimes are punishable by law.
Corruption is a crime.
When completed, it becomes:
All crimes are punishable by law.
But corruption is a crime.
(Therefore, corruption is punishable by law.)
(suppressed conclusion)
4. FOURTH ORDER – Both the minor premise
and the conclusion are suppressed but
implied or understood.
Ex. Ang taong nagigipit, kahit sa patalim ay
kakapit.
When completed, it becomes:
Ang taong nagigipit, kahit sa patalim ay
kakapit.
Si Berto ay nagipit. (suppressed minor)
Kaya kumapit sa patalim. (suppressed
conclusion)
1 of 2
CATEGORICAL ENTHYMEME – shortened
categorical syllogism in which either one
premise or both the minor premise and
conclusion or only the conclusion is
suppressed.
Ex. The soul is spiritual.
Therefore, the soul is immortal
HYPOTHETICAL ENTHYMEME – abridged
hypothetical syllogism in which one premise or
the conclusion is suppressed.
Ex. It’s now twelve noon.
Hence, let’s have our lunch.
If completed, this becomes:
If it is twelve noon, then let’s have our lunch.
It’s now twelve noon.
Therefore, let’s have our lunch.
*To test the validity of the enthymeme, supply
the missing member and then examine the
syllogism according to the rules of syllogisms.
==$==
FALLACY – an erroneous or false reasoning
which has the appearance of truth. It is an
illogical, misleading, and deceptive argument; it
is an aerror resulting from the violation of any
rule of logic.
SOPHISTRY/SOPHISM – fallacy committed
with the intention to deceive or mislead an
opponent
PARALOGISM – fallacy employed unknowingly
or through the ignorance of the rules of
reasoning
*There is no universally accepted classification
of fallacies because such will not be entirely
satisfactory.
FORMAL FALLACIES – errors that arise from
the violations of the rules of definition, division,
conversion, obversion, and the categorical and
hypothetical syllogisms.
INFORMAL FALLACIES (material fallacies) –
errors that arise from the confusion in the
connotation or denotation of terms used, from a
wrong assumption of facts, or from ignoring the
issue.
THE FORMAL OR LOGICAL FALLACIES
A. FALLACIES OF DEFINITION
1. Fallacy of too wide definition – violates the
rule of definition which prescribes that the
definiens should not be wider than the
definiendum. This violation arises when we
unduly decrease the connotation of the
definition thus widening its denotation.
Ex. Man is an animal. (Animals: dogs, cows,
elephants = man)
2. Fallacy of too narrow definition – violation
arises when we unduly increase the
connotation of the definition, thus narrowing
its denotation.
Ex. Man is an irritable rational animal.
(excluding all rational animals that are not
irritable)
3. Fallacy of redundant definition – arises when
we widen the connotation of the definition by
adding an attribute or property that is not
essential.
Ex. Man is a rational animal capable of
learning calculus. (Redundant because the
capability to learn calculus is not essential to
being a man.)
B. F A L L A C I E S O F C A T E G O R I C A L
SYLLOGISMS (from the syllabus)
1. F A L L A C Y O F F O U R T E R M S
(QUATERNIO TERMINOREM) – occurs
if there are actually four terms in the
syllogism, and there is no middle term
that serves as the medium of comparison
between the minro and the major terms.
Ex. All Filipinos are Orientals.
All Bulakenos are Tagalogs.
Therefore, all Bulakenos are Orientals.
2. FALLACY OF AMBIGUOUS MIDDLE –
occurs when the middle term is
ambiguous, i.e. it has two shades of
meaning.
Ex. Whatever is fair is beautiful.
To kill an enemy in war is fair.
Therefore, to kill an enemy in war is
beautiful.
The middle term fair is ambiguous. In the
major premise, it refers to beauty; in the
2 of 2
minor premise, it refers to justice; hence,
the fallacy.
3. FALLACY OF NEGATIVE PREMISES –
(fallacy of ntwo negatives) occurs when
we draw a conclusion from two negative
premises.
Ex. No Filipinos are Australians.
No Filipinos are Russians.
Therefore, no Russians are Australians.
4. FA L L A C Y O F U N D I S T R I B U T E D
MIDDLE – violates the syllogistic rule
which prescribes that the middle term
must be used at least once as universal
in any of the premises.
Ex. Some Filipinos are physicians.
All Tagalogs are Filipinos.
T h e r e f o r e , s o m e Ta g a l o g s a r e
physicians.
The middle term Filipinos is used twice
as particular in both premises; in the
major premise, being the subject of a
particular proposition; in the minor
premise, being the predicate of an
affirmative proposition.
5. FALLACY OF PARTICULAR PREMISES
– (fallacy of two particulars)
Ex. Some Filipinos are Cebuanos.
Some Visayans are Cebuanos.
Therefore, some Visayans are Filipinos.
6. FALLACY OF ILLICIT MINOR – arises
when the minor term becomes universal
(distributed) in the conclusion, while it is
only particular (undistributed in the minor
premise).
Ex. All plants are living organisms.
All plants are insentient.
Therefore, all insentient beings are living
organisms.
7. FA L L A C Y O F I L L I C I T M A J O R –
develops when the major term becomes
universal in the conclusion whereas it is
only particular in the major premise.
Ex. Filipinos are heroic people.
Malaysians are not Filipinos.
Therefore, Malaysians are not heroic
people. /bry