FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT

EVIDENCE
Argumentum Ad Antiquum
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
Accident
Hasty Generalization
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
False Dilemma

Submitted by:
Caryl Zamudio
Chelsea Naval
Ma. Kristine P. Arejola-Federizon
1st Year - Block A

Submitted to:
Atty. Charissa Torrecampo-Noble
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence are mistakes in reasoning that occur because
the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient
evidence to support the conclusion.

1. ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUUM (Appeal to the Ages)

Attempts to persuade others of a certain belief by appealing to their feelings of

reverence or respect for some tradition, instead of giving rational basis of such
belief.

EXAMPLE:

“I don’t understand why the Church allowed cremation of the dead. In our time,
we have not been taught to burn the bodies of our dead loved ones. It was not done
when my lolo and lola died, as well when tatay and nanay died. We should not also
do that to any of our relatives.”
(The example argues that cremation is wrong on the ground that such practice is
not in accordance with the traditional beliefs.)

“There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have practiced it since
time immemorial. Do you mean to tell me that they were wrong all the while?”
(The practice of kaingin is defended on the basis of what was traditionally done.)

2. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM (Appeal to Inappropriate

Authority)

This fallacy consists in persuading others by appealing to people who command

respect or authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at hand.

An authority in a particular field is one who has sufficient knowledge of the

matters belonging to that field, is qualified by training or ability to draw appropriate
inferences from that knowledge, and is free from any prejudices or conflicts of
interest that would prevent him or her from formulating sound judgement.

Appeal to authority occurs most frequently in the form of a transfer of an

authority’s competence from one field to another.

In determining whether the fallacy is INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY is present,

one has to pay attention on the background or circumstances of the supposed
authority being relied on with regard to a particular issue.
 An entertainer , for example, is appealed to as an authority on dairy
products; or a sports star is treated as an expert on appliances.

EXAMPLE:

The doctrine of biological evolution cannot be true, for it contradicts the biblical
account of creation; the church never accepted it and the fundamentalists explicitly
condemn it.
(What is wrong in the above argument is its reliance on certain influential
authorities who, although respected and looked upon by many people, are not the
appropriate authority on this matter as the issue is not about morals and religion but
about science).

3. ACCIDENT

This fallacy consists in applying a general rule to a particular case when

circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule should apply
General rules usually have their exception. This is especially true in the law. It is
sometime explicitly stipulated in the law. Thus, the lawyer must become familiar
with exceptions (or “accidents”) in the application of the law.

This fallacy occurs when such general rules are applied to special circumstances.
The application of the general rule is inappropriate because of the situation’s
“accident” or exceptional facts. In other words it unnecessarily applies a general
truth.

One way of pointing out the fallacious character of particular misapplication of a

principle or rule is to examine very carefully the purpose of the principle or rule and
then to discuss how exceptions would be in order when that purpose is not being
violated or when it is superseded by more important, conflicting principle. Then try
to show in the particular case that either the exception is not inconsistent with the
purpose of the principle or that there is more important principle at stake.

EXAMPLE:

Birds normally can fly.

Penguin is a bird
Therefore, Penguins can fly

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Leo Beltran

should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
(Chavez v Gonzales, GR no. 168338 Feb. 15, 2008)
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
and GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998

FACTS
Petitioners challenge the validity of §92 of BP881 (Omnibus Election Code of the
Philippines) on the ground (1) that it takes property without due process of law and
without just compensation;(2) that it denies radio and television broadcast
companies the equal protection of the laws; and(3) that it is in excess of the power
given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of
communication or information during the period of election.

Section 92 provides that the COMELEC shall procure radio and television time
which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates. This is free of
charge.

Petitioners contend that this provision violates the due process clause and the
eminent domain provision of the Constitution because air time is taken without
payment of just compensation. The primary source of revenue is the sale of air time
to advertisers. In 1992, The GMA Network lost millions providing free air time due to
this provision

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,

vs.
HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa
City, ARNE STROM and GRACE REYES, respondents.
G.R. No. 116049 March 20, 1995

FACTS:
For failure to check the citations of the prosecution, the order of respondent
RTC Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the SC.
The respondent judge was also sanctioned with a reprimand and a fine of P10,000.00
for gross ignorance of the law. The judgment was made by the Second Division of the
SC.
Sec. 11, Art. VIII 1987 Contitution:
“…The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”

4. HASTY GENERALIZATION

This fallacy occurs when an arguer draws a general conclusion from a sample
that is either biased or too small.

 A biased sample is one that is not representative of the of the target

population.
 The target population is a group of people or things that the generalization
is about.

This fallacy is also known as converse accident because its reasoning is the
opposite of the fallacy accident- taking a particular case (which may be an exception)
and make a general rule or truth out of that.

Hasty generalization can often lead to false stereotype

It bases its arguments on the merits of just some aspect of the truth and not its
entirety. It is the mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few
samples to prove a point.

It is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some
sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement or
exaggeration.

A simple way to avoid hasty generalizations is to add qualifiers like “sometimes”,

“maybe”, “often”, or “it seems to be the case that…”. When we don’t guard against
hasty generalization, we risk stereotyping, sexism, racism, or simple incorrectness.
But with the right qualifiers, we can often make a hasty generalization into a
responsible and credible claim.

EXAMPLE:

A survey of the members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and their
families showed that more than 85% of them favor the proposal to have a separate
independent government in Mindanao, 10% disapprove of it while 5% are
undecided. These survey results clearly show that majority of Filipino Muslims
support the said proposal.

5. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM (Appeal to Ignorance)

This fallacy means that an argument is formed from ignorance. The arguer
asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false, or conversely,
the arguer asserts that a claim must be false because no one has proven it to be
true.

Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to
allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting
in an argument.
 An appeal to ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that you don’t
know something. It doesn’t prove any claim to knowledge.

The best example of this fallacy is the presumption of innocence in criminal

cases. An accused is considered to be innocent until proven guilty. It is the principle
of criminal law that if there is a mere lack of evidence of innocence on the part of the
accused, then it will not constitute an evidence of guilt of him. Obviously, someone
can be legally innocent, but actually guilty of a crime.

Usually, the burden of proof is on the person who has presented such statement
as an argument. It works on the principle that if an issue is not provided with any
support and which doesn’t enable others to prove a high degree of probability that
what has been asserted is true in all sense, then the interpretation that it is incorrect
is the most probable scenario.

The appeal to ignorance is generally not fallacious in a criminal court where an

accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has to
present enough evidence to convict someone — proof that goes beyond
a reasonable doubt — or else the person goes free.

Though it's good to keep an open mind in case evidence for an assertion comes
to light, critical thinking will be what comes to your aid when examining an appeal to
ignorance. 

EXAMPLE:

Premise: There is no evidence UFO's exist. Conclusion: UFO's do not exist.

[This claim suffers from the basic flaw that it assumes that the lack of evidence
for (or against) the claim is good reason to believe that the claim is false (or true)].

Ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist.
(This is a logical fallacy because they are using lack of evidence/knowledge to
prove a point.)

6. FALSE DILEMMA (False Dichotomy)

This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two alternatives and
assumes that they are exhaustive when in fact there are more options to choose
from. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that
one is false and one is true-or one is acceptable and the other is not.

Alternatives are exhaustive when they cover all the possibilities (meaning, they
are the only choice we have).
 This fallacy can be considered a variation on the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.
By leaving out important possibilities, the argument is also leaving out relevant
premises and information which would lead to better evaluation of the claims.

The false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.

This fallacy is often a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience. It is

common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into supporting
controversial legislation or policies.

They are also frequently used intentionally to oversimplify complex

situations by turning them into misleading dichotomies, or to frame issues in a way
that pressures people to accept a certain stance.

EXAMPLE:

Either you support this law which will give the police more power, or you must
be a criminal.
(Here, the false dichotomy makes it appear as if anyone who opposes the
proposed law must be a criminal, by ignoring the reasonable possibility that people
might oppose the law for other reason, in order to pressure listeners into accepting
it. This example also demonstrates how false dilemmas are often combined with
other techniques and fallacies, in order to magnify their rhetorical effect. Specifically,
in this case, the false dilemma can be said to be a part of an ad hominem argument,
which is meant to attack an opponent directly, instead of addressing the stance that
they are arguing for).

The choice is simple: if you want better salaries for low-level employees, we will
have to significantly increase prices, which will hurt consumers.
(This statement falsely dichotomizes the issue at hand, by pretending that there
are only two possible options to choose from, in an attempt to make it seem as if the
opposing stance (increasing employees’ salaries) will have to come at the expense of
increased prices. However, there are other options that aren’t mentioned here. For
example, it might be possible to get the necessary budget by reducing the company’s
profit margins, or by taking the necessary budget from somewhere else).

HOW TO RESPOND TO A FALSE DILEMMA?

There are several ways to respond to a false dilemma in order to counter it,
most of which focus on proving why such an argument is logically unsound. The ways
to accomplish this revolve around explaining why the dilemma in question is false in
the first place.

 Refute the premise of mutual exclusivity. Specifically, explain why two or more

 of the available options can both be selected (or be true) at the same time,
which shows that they aren’t mutually exclusive.

 For example, if the false dilemma suggests that your feelings toward
someone can be either positive or negative, explain that it’s possible to have
mixed feelings. This method is known as escaping between the horns of the
dilemma.

 Refute the premise of collective exhaustivity. Specifically, provide a

counterexample which shows that there are additional options beyond the ones
which were presented.

 For example, if the false dilemma includes only two options, show that a
third alternative is also possible.

 Refute the validity of one of the options that it contains. 

 For instance, if the first proposition in a false dichotomy is wrong in some

way, demonstrating this could, in some cases, negate the core of the argument,
despite the fact that it doesn’t involve pointing out why the dilemma itself is
false.

CAVEATS ABOUT FALSE DILEMMA:

 Not every dilemma is a false dilemma. In some cases, a dilemma or a dichotomy

might be entirely valid, and you shouldn’t automatically assume that every
dilemma that you encounter is fallacious. If you’re unsure whether a certain
dilemma is false, examine its underlying premises, and check whether its
assumption of mutual exclusivity and collective exhaustivity is reasonable or not.

 Not every use of a false dilemma is intentional. People often use false dilemmas
unintentionally both in their internal reasoning process, as well in their
arguments. This is important to keep in mind, because it means that you could
be using false dilemmas yourself without being aware that you are doing so, and
because you need to account for this when you respond to someone’s use of a
false dilemma. In this regard, a good concept to keep in mind is the principle of
charity, which denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you
should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one
that the speaker meant to convey.

CITATIONS:

Evangelista F., Aquino D. (2015), Legal Logic

G.R. No. 132922 (1998), TELEBAP v COMELEC
G.R. No. 116049 (1995), People v Gacott
https://effectiviology.com/false-dilemma/