Fallacies in Legal Reasoning:

1. Equivocation
- consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by
using a term in its different senses and making it appear to have
only one meaning.
Examples:

1. The parties have the same end towards the case. The Honorable Board
rendered its end of the case. Hence, the Adjudicator is in conformity
with the purpose of the parties.

2. The Philippine Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of

expression. Ferlie asserts that it is right to express his opinions may it
be in a negative or positive approach. Therefore, the guarantee of the
right of freedom of expression means that it is right to express ones
opinion or any points regardless of its effect.

2. Amphiboly
- involves a presentation of a claim or argument whose meaning can
be interpreted in two or more different ways due to its grammatical
construction. The ambiguity comes from the way the sentence is
constructed.
Examples:

1. Christian raised his opposition to the learning tools which taught

students to study hard and not to study smart.
2. The Secretary shall promulgate regulations limiting the quantity of
any poisonous substance to such extent as he finds necessary for
the protection of public health.

3. Improper Accent
- this fallacy consists of words, phrase or particular aspect of an
issue or claim that are improperly emphasized in order to mislead
people.
Examples:
 1. Gerah turned in his performance task on time this day. Hence,
Gerah usually turns in his activities late.
2. The counsel of the tenant manifest that his client remitted the
landowner’s share regularly for the past six agricultural harvests.
Hence, the adverse counsel interpreted the same that the tenant is
not regularly remitting the landowner’s share since the
commencement of his tenancy.

4. Vicious abstraction
- this fallacys employ vague or abstract terms to mislead people.
These vague words are misused when these are significant in the
premises used to establish a conclusion.
Examples:
1. Elizabeth said, “Money is the root of all evil.” Lanie has plenty of
money. Hence, Lanie is evil.
2. The counsel of the respondent manifest that the landowner shall
not disregard the fact that there is the existence of cultivation for
the purpose of agricultural production. Hence, the respondent is a
tenant of the agricultural land.
5. Argumentum ad hominem
- this fallacy involves arguments that makes the opponent the issue
instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponentignores
the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an
opponent. This fallacy has two kinds which are abusive and
circumstantial.
Examples:
1.

2. Ivy presupposes that dark chocolate has antioxidants but most

other candies only contain sugar which rots the teeth of a
person. Hence, dark chocolate is better than other sweets.
Oliver on the other hand, characterizes her as a greedy jerk.
6. Argumentum ad misericordiam
- this fallacy is an appeal to pity.
 - convinces the people by evoking feelings of compassion and
sympathy when such feelings are not logically relevant to the
arguer’s conclusion.
Examples:
1. “To this Honorable Board, may the prayer of my client, who is the
breadwinner of his family, his daughter recently suffered from an
infectious disease and they are really in the verged of distress and
this parcel of land is the only hope as they don’t have any other
property, be granted a favorable resolution.”

2. “Honorable Judge, my client should not be convicted of homicide.

His wife has a serious illness and his son is in emotional distress.
This conviction may aggravate the situation that their family is
facing.”
7. Petitio Principii
- this fallacy involves arguments that are stated to beg the question.