Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 5
ARGUMENT &INFERENCE

Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Instructor
Logic and Critical Thinking

Desired Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to…

1. .
2. Demonstrate the ability in establishing logical relations.
3. Practice the appropriate technique for logical reasoning

What is an Inference?

 any process by which the mind proceeds from one or more propositions to other
propositions seen to be implied in the former.

 it signifies the operation by which the mind gets new knowledge by drawing out the
implications of what it already knows.

 The word inference is applied to a series of propositions so arranged that one, called
the consequent flows with logical necessity from one or more others, called the
antecedent .

Antecedent - ( antecedo ) that which goes before.

Consequent - ( consequor ) that which follows after or that which is inferred by the
antecedent.

The Relation of the Antecedent and the Consequent

a. The truth of the antecedent entails the truth of the consequent.

b. The falsity of the consequent entails the falsity of the antecedent.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

In other words:

 If the antecedent is true, the consequent is true.

 If the consequent is false, the antecedent is false

 If the antecedent is false, the consequent is doubtful.

 If the consequent is true, the antecedent is doubtful

 Consequence / Sequence - the connection by virtue of which the consequent flows

with logical necessity from the antecedent. It is known to be “ the heart of the
inference”.

Consequence/Sequence is usually signified by the terms: “therefore”, “consequently”,

“accordingly”, “hence”, “thus”, “and so”, “for this reason”, and so on.

IMMEDIATE AND MEDIATE INFERENCE

Immediate Inference
 Consists in passing directly, without the intermediary of a middle term or a second
proposition, from one proposition to a new proposition that is a partial or complete
reformulation of the very same truth expressed in the original proposition. Strictly
speaking it does not involve the advancement of knowledge because the consequent
is only the reformulation of the truth expressed in the antecedent.

Ex. Dogs are animal;

Therefore, some animals are dogs.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Mediate Inference
 draws a conclusion from two propositions and does involve an advancement in
knowledge.

Ex. Every animal is mortal; but every dog is an animal; therefore, every dog is mortal.

The Discipline of Logic in the perspective on ARGUMENTS AND INFERENCE

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe.
Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about
what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions
in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize
that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also
make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed
with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable
way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new
one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Crisostomo Ibarra was Filipino because I
believe that Crisostomo Ibarra was a character in a novel by Jose Rizal and that some
characters in the Noli Me Tangere are Filipinos, then even someone who shares my belief in
the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the
points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the
discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the
truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing
attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth.
This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which
we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure
that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.

In this review of elementary logic, we'll undertake a broad survey of the major varieties
of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical tradition.
We'll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth while other
patterns do not, and we'll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding the latter. It will
be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe human reasoning in
general.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT

Our fundamental unit of what may be asserted or denied is the proposition (or
statement) that is typically expressed by a declarative sentence. Logicians of earlier centuries
often identified propositions with the mental acts of affirming them, often called judgments,
but we can evade some interesting but thorny philosophical issues by avoiding this locution.

Propositions are distinct from the sentences that convey them. "Malakas loves
Maganda" expresses exactly the same proposition as "Maganda is loved by Malakas," while
the sentence "Today is my birthday" can be used to convey many different propositions,
depending upon who happens to utter it, and on what day. But each proposition is either true
or false. Sometimes, of course, we don't know which of these truth-values a particular
proposition has ("There is life on the third moon of Jupiter" is presently an example), but we
can be sure that it has one or the other.

The chief concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the
truth of another. Thus, we will usually consider a group of related propositions. An argument
is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of
them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion).
The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection between
them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.

Notice that "premise" and "conclusion" are here defined only as they occur in relation
to each other within a particular argument. One and the same proposition can (and often
does) appear as the conclusion of one line of reasoning but also as one of the premises of
another. A number of words and phrases are commonly used in ordinary language to indicate
the premises and conclusion of an argument, although their use is never strictly required,
since the context can make clear the direction of movement. What distinguishes an argument
from a mere collection of propositions is the inference that is supposed to hold between them.
Thus, for example, "The class is composed of girls, and men are by nature polygamous. My
dog has fleas." is just a collection of unrelated propositions; the truth or falsity of each has no
bearing on that of the others. But "Joie is a physician. So Joie went to medical school, since
all physicians have gone to medical school." is an argument; the
32

truth of its conclusion, "Joie went to medical school," is inferentially derived from its premises,
"Joie is a physician." and "All physicians have gone to medical school."

Recognizing Arguments

It's important to be able to identify which proposition is the conclusion of each argument, since
that's a necessary step in our evaluation of the inference that is supposed to lead to it. We
might even employ a simple diagram to represent the structure of an argument, numbering
each of the propositions it comprises and drawing an arrow to indicate the inference that
leads from its premise(s) to its conclusion.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Don't worry if this procedure seems rather tentative and uncertain at first. We'll be studying
the structural features of logical arguments in much greater detail as we proceed, and you'll
soon find it easy to spot instances of the particular patterns we encounter most often. For
now, it is enough to tell the difference between an argument and a mere collection of
propositions and to identify the intended conclusion of each argument.

Even that isn't always easy, since arguments embedded in ordinary language can take on a
bewildering variety of forms. Again, don't worry too much about this; as we acquire more
sophisticated techniques for representing logical arguments, we will deliberately limit
ourselves to a very restricted number of distinct patterns and develop standard methods for
expressing their structure. Just remember the basic definition of an argument: it includes more
than one proposition, and it infers a conclusion from one or more premises. So "If John has
already left, then either Jane has arrived or Gail is on the way." can't be an argument, since
it is just one big (compound) proposition. But "John has already left, since Jane has arrived."
is an argument that proposes an inference from the fact of Jane's arrival to the conclusion,
"John has already left." If you find it helpful to draw a diagram, please make good use of that
method to your advantage.

Truth and Validity

Since deductive reasoning requires such a strong relationship between premises and
conclusion, we will spend the majority of this survey studying various patterns of deductive
inference. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the standard of correctness for deductive
arguments in some detail.
A deductive argument is said to be valid when the inference from premises to conclusion is
perfect. Here are two equivalent ways of stating that standard:

• If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
• It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises
are true.
33

(Considering the premises as a set of propositions, we will say that the premises are true only
on those occasions when each and every one of those propositions is true.) Any deductive
argument that is not valid is invalid: it is possible for its conclusion to be false while its
premises are true, so even if the premises are true, the conclusion may turn out to be either
true or false.

Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement

In fact, an excessive reliance on emotively charged language can create the appearance of
disagreement between parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as easily
disguise substantive disputes under a veneer of emotive agreement. Since the degrees of
agreement in belief and attitude are independent of each other, there are four possible
combinations at work here:
 Logic and Critical Thinking

1. Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude: There aren't any problems in this
instance, since both parties hold the same positions and have the same feelings about them.
2. Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude: This case, if unnoticed, may become
the cause of endless (but pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ sharply
about some fact upon which they are in total agreement.
3. Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude: In this situation, parties may never
recognize, much less resolve, their fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled
by their shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.
4. Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude: Here the parties have so little in
common that communication between them often breaks down entirely.

It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or disagreement at work in any
exchange of views. That won't always resolve the dispute between two parties, of course, but
it will ensure that they don't waste their time on an inappropriate method of argument or
persuasion.

Questions for Discussion

1. Among the aforementioned kinds of agreements and disagreements which among them
is conflict most likely to occur and which one could be resolved and managed rather lightly?

2. Give situational or case examples for each of the kinds of agreements and
disagreements.

3. Which among these agreements/disagreements are culturally prevalent among

Filipinos? Explain.

4. In your own opinion, how do you think will logic and the study thereof aid in the settling
of differences brought about by the mentioned disagreements or prevent them from occurring
at all?

THE RULES OF INFERENCE

 By an argument, we mean a sequence of statements that end with a conclusion. By

valid, we mean that the conclusion, or final statement of the argument, must follow
from the truth of the preceding statements, or premises, of the argument.

1. MODUS PONEMS

 Consider the following argument involving propositions (which, by dentition, is a

sequence of propositions):

“If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network.”
“You have a current password.”
Therefore, “You can log onto the network.”
 Logic and Critical Thinking

FORM:

Use “p” to represent the whole variable “You have a current password ” and “q” to
represent “You can log on to the network.”

pq
p
…q

We can say that this form of argument is valid because whenever all its premises (all
statements in the argument other than the final one, the conclusion) are true, the conclusion
must also be true.

2. MODUS TOLLENS

 Modus Tollens (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by
denying denies") and denying the consequent.

FORM:

Ex. If Zeus is human, then Zeus is Mortal

Zeus is not mortal
Therefore, Zeus is not human.

pq (if p then q)

~q
…~p

By Modus Tollens you can conclude that Zeus is not human.

3. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 The disjunctive proposition is one , which presents two or more alternatives , one of
which is true. Its member is linked by the conjunctions “either, or”

Ex. The ice cream is either vanilla flavoured or chocolate favoured”

The ice cream is not vanilla flavoured
Therefore, the ice cream is chocolate flavoured

Legend: V=or

pvq
~p
…q
 Logic and Critical Thinking

4. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

 Hypothetical syllogism conditional (if/then), 3 statement argument.

FORM:

Ex. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

If Socrates is mortal, then Socrates can be killed by poison
Therefore, if Socrates is a man, then Socrates can be killed by poison.

P q
Q r
p r

5. CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 No matter what the premises are, the conclusion is simply a conjunction of the two
premises.

FORM:
Ex.
He studies very hard
He is the best boy in the class
Therefore, He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class”

p
q
...p^q

6. ADDITION

Ex. I read the newspaper today, therefore I read the newspaper or I ate apple.

…pvq
 Logic and Critical Thinking

7. SIMPLIFICATION

He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class”

He studies very hard

p^q
…p

CHAPTER 6
THE THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

Desired Learning Outcomes

1. Expose students to different theories on the origin of knowledge and their criticisms.
Allow students to critique the validity of theories.

The Five Theories of Knowledge

1. EMPIRICISM  It is a theory which states that

knowledge comes only or
Empiricist: primarily from sensory
experience.
David Hume
John Locke  Empiricism is the theory that the
origin of all knowledge is sense
experience. It emphasizes the
role of experience and evidence,
especially sensory perception, in
the formation of ideas, and argues
that the only knowledge humans
can have is a posteriori (i.e. based
on experience).
 Logic and Critical Thinking

2. RATIONALISM  Rationalism is an epistemological

position in which reason is said to
Rationalist: be the primary source of all
Rene Discartes knowledge, superior to the
Wilhelm Leibniz senses.
 In general, rationalists believe that
abstract reasoning can produce
undeniable, absolutely certain
truths about nature, existence,
and the whole of reality.
 These truths are called a priori, or
innate, ideas – because they are
discovered independently of
experience, without empirical
observation or experimentation.
3. SKEPTICISM  is generally a questioning attitude
or doubt towards one or more
Rene Discartes putative instances
of knowledge which are asserted
to be mere belief or dogma.

 It the belief that some or all human

knowledge is impossible. Since
even our best methods for learning
about the world sometimes fall
short of perfect certainty, skeptics
argue, it is better to suspend belief
than to rely on the dubitable
products of reason.
4. IDEALISM  Matter doesn’t exist
 External world-Construction of
mind
 Reality consists exclusively of
“ideas”
 Reality is due to the sensory
abilities of the human mind and not
because reality exists in itself
 Rejects the idea that objects are
independent of our minds.
5. REALISM  Physical World alone is Objective •
 Knowledge acquired through
senses only is real
 Universe is independent of ideas
 Things exist whether or not the
human mind perceives them.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 7
CRITERIA OF TRUTH

Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Instructor
Logic and Critical Thinking

Desired Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to…

4. Identify the criteria of truth

5. Differentiate the different theories of truth
6. Orient students to the different criteria for truth and allow them to evaluate their
veracity

Introduction

Ano ba ang totoo? May langit ba? May impyerno ba? Dito ba tlaga ang mundo? Totoo ka
ba?

Why do people have different religious beliefs, moral and ethical standard, worldviews and
ideologies? As a human, are we happy having different and contradicting ideas and beliefs? Do
we seek something that we can uphold in common?

THREE REQUISITES FOR TRUTH

1. Truth must admit its opposite

2. Truth and falsehood are properties of belief statement
3. Truth depends upon independent fact. Truth as an objective property of statement, is
dependent of the mind.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

THREE THEORIES OF TRUTH

1. CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

a. The dominant theory, especially popular with empiricists Correspondence Theory

proposes that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts

b. Often traced back to Thomas Aquinas’ version: “A judgment is said to be true when it
conforms to the external reality” ( Summa Theologiae, Q. 16) Also leaves room for the
idea that “true” may be applied to people (a “true friend”) as well as to thoughts

c. Two main versions of Correspondence Theory: object-based, and fact-based

(currently prominent)

d. Two statement are consistent if they are both true at the same time and do not
contradict each other. A thing is consistent if it remains the same even if it placed in
different situations.

2. COHERENCE THEORY

a. Preferred by many idealists. For idealists, reality is like a collection of beliefs, which
makes the coherence theory particularly attractive.

b. The coherence theory of truth states that if a proposition coheres with all the other
propositions taken to be true, then it is true

c. The truth of a belief can only consist in its coherence with other beliefs; truth comes in
degrees.

d. Coherence theorists hold that truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or with
a set of propositions held to be true, not just an arbitrary collection of propositions.

3. PRAGMATISM THEORY

a. William James is considered the father of pragmatism .However, in order to

understand James’ presentation of pragmatism we must draw a distinction between
meaning and truth.
 A sentence is meaningful only if believing it would make a practical difference in
your life as opposed to believing some alternative to it.
 Example: Proposition A: There is a gaping hole in the middle of the cafeteria.
Would believing this proposition to be true make a practical difference in your life?
It is safe to assume that one would take a path that avoids the middle of the
cafeteria if one believed that there was a gaping hole there.

 The previous example is an illustration of a meaningful proposition – belief in it (or

lack thereof) makes a practical difference in one’s life.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

 What about truth? Only meaningful sentences can be true or false James’ take on
both the coherence and correspondence theories of truth is that they are not
competing theories, but rather different tools to be applied to beliefs to see if those
beliefs work.

 “ Ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just insofar
as they help us to get into satisfactory relations with other parts of our
experience,…truth in our ideas means their power to ‘work’” – William James,
Pragmatism. The key thing for James and pragmatism is that of an idea “working”
If believing that there is a gaping hole in the middle of the cafeteria prevents you
from falling and breaking a leg, or making a fool of yourself in front of that cute boy
from chapel, then that belief works. It is “true.”

CHAPTER 8
CATEGORICAL STANDARD SYLLOGISM

What is a Categorical Syllogism?

Categorical Syllogism- a deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions with

exactly three shared terms, two terms per proposition.

The Structure of Syllogism

 One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the
syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major
term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its
conclusion.
 The third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be
employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.

A categorical syllogism in standard form always begins with the premises, major first and then
minor, and then finishes with the conclusion.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Here’s an example of standard form:

No geese are felines.

Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.

The above example is a combination categorical propositions to create what are called
categorical syllogisms.

To be in standard form a categorical syllogism meets the following strict qualifications:

1. It is an argument with two premises and one conclusion.

2. All three statements are categorical propositions.
3. It contains exactly three different terms.
4. Each term is used exactly twice.

The following notes apply to standard form categorical syllogisms:

a. Major term (P) = Predicate of conclusion

b. Minor term (S) = Subject of conclusion

c. Middle term (M) = Term that occurs in both premises

NOTE:
 Don't let the fact that in this chapter S and P stand for "minor term" and "major
term," and last chapter they stood for "subject term" and "predicate term" confuse
you. It would have been good to use different letters, but, sadly, Major, Minor and
Middle all start with "M." Just remember that they now mean something somewhat
different.

· Major Premise = Premise containing major term

· Minor Premise = Premise containing minor term

List major premise first and minor premise second (conclusion, of course, is last).

 HELPFUL NOTE: The second term in your conclusion will always be in the top
premise. (This follows from the definition of major premise)

Three Propositions: Three terms

1. Major Premise 1. Major term (P)

2. Minor Premise 2. Minor term (S)
3. Conclusion 3. Middle term (M)
 Logic and Critical Thinking

MAJOR PREMISE: MINOR PREMISE:

-is the one wherein the major term(P) is the one wherein the minor term (S) is compared
is compared to the middle term (M) to the middle term (M)
-Universal Class -less Universal Class

MAJOR TERM (P)

Compared to the middle term in a major premise

MINOR TERM (S)

Compared to the middle term in a minor premise

MIDDLE TERM(M)
Term of comparison
Appears twice in the premise but never in the conclusion

Example

All fish (M) are sea creatures (P) - Major Premise

Every Shark(S) is a fish (M) -Minor Premise
Therefore, Shark (S) is a sea creature (P) -Conclusion

Once a categorical syllogism is in standard form, we can then determine its mood and figure. The
form of the syllogism is named by listing the mood first, then the figure.

Mood depends upon the type of propositions ( A, E, I or O) It is a list of the types beginning with
the major premise and ending with the conclusion.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Figure depends on the arrangement of the middle terms in the proposition.

Example:
All fish (M) are sea creatures (P) A
Every Shark(S) is a fish (M) A
Therefore, Shark (S) is a sea creature (P) A

The mood of this syllogism is AAA and its Figure is 1

Its complete description is AAA-1
 Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 9
THE LOGICAL FALLACIES

Prepared by Joerald A. Pepito

Instructor
Logic and Critical Thinking

Desired Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to…
1. critically analyze any philosophical claim.
2. Train students to verify the truthfulness of any claim.

What is a Fallacy?

 A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in

reasoning. •
Fallacies can be divided into two general types:
A. Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion
B. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant
to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the
conclusion.

The Fallacies of Relevance

A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it provides at least
some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or

irrelevant to another:
1. A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides
at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true.
2. A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides
at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false.
3. A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides
no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or
false.

DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of RELEVANCE

A. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)

 When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim by attacking the

person’s character rather than examining the worth of the argument
or claim itself.

Example:
Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in our F2F
classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a selfish big headed fool.
I absolutely refuse to listen to him.
1. X is a bad person. 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad. Pattern

B. Attacking the Motive

 When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a

particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the
argument or claim itself.
Example:
Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But
Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a
fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously,
Trump’s argument is a lot of self- serving nonsense.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

1. X has biased or has questionable motives. 2. Therefore, X’s

arguments or claim should be rejected

C.Look Who’s Talking

 When an arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because
that person is a hypocrite

Example:

Doctor: You should quite smoking. Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit
when you do, Dr. Smokestack! Look Who’s Talking

1. X fails to follow his or her own advice. 2. Therefore, X’s claim or

argument should be rejected.

D.Two Wrongs Make a Right

 When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that
some other act is just as bad or worse.
Example:
1. “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the
class cheats on his quiz.”
2. 2. “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”
1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 2. Therefore my
wrongful act is justified. Pattern

E. Scare Tactics

 When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat

is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

Example:
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful
rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed
forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to

think and behave irrationally

F. Appeal to Emotion (Ad Populum)

 Appeal to Pity When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

compassion, where such feelings, however understandable, are not
relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

Example:
Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all
my quizzes and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend
told me she has found someone else. With all I went through this
semester, I don’t think I really deserve an F. Any chance you might
cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a D?
1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C
is true. Pattern

G. Bandwagon Argument

 Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure) When an arguer appeals to a

person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to
logically relevant reasons or evidence.
Example:
All the really cool Taylors students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you
should, too.
1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X. 2. Therefore,
you should believe or do X. Pattern
 Logic and Critical Thinking

H.Straw Man
 When an arguer misrepresents another person’s position to make it
easier to attack.
Example:
Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:  Suzie:
"We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“  Singh:
"Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean
them out everyday?"  Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them
out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."
1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is
a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. Pattern

I. Red Herring
 When an arguer tries to side track his audience by raising an
irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original issue has been
effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion.

Example:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the
graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we
are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the

guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not
relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned. Pattern

J.Equivocation
 When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two (or more)
different senses. Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot
because they often appear valid, but they aren’t. Remember
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Example:
In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very night.
To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940,
Londoners were intoxicated almost every night.

K.Begging the Question

 When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason) the very
thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion.
 It occurs when the conclusion is assumed to be true in arguments
premises
Example:
I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say
whatever I please.

DIFFENT KINDS OF FALLACIES of Insufficient Evidence

A. False Authority
 Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Example:
My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of Atlantis. So, it’s
reasonable to believe that aliens did build the lost city of Atlantis.
Things to remember
1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
2. Is the source biased?
3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
5. Has the source been cited correctly? 6. Does the source’s claim
conflict with expert opinion? 7. Can the source’s claim be settled
by an appeal to expert opinion? 8. Is the claim highly improbable
on its face?

B. Appeal to Ignorance
 Logic and Critical Thinking

 Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or

vice versa.

Example:
Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he doesn’t exist

“Not proven, therefore false” If such reasoning were allowed, we

could prove almost any conclusion. Remember Agree I do!

C. False Dilemma

 Posing a false either/or choice. Fallacy of false dilemma can involve

more than two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
conditional (if-then) statement.

Example

The choice in this MPP election is clear: Either we elect Zaki as

our next president, or we watch our MPP unity slide into anarchy
and frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that to happen. Therefore,
we should elect Zaki as our next president.

D. Loaded Question

 Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted

presupposition. To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must
distinguish the different questions being asked and respond to each
individually.
Example: Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard? Ali: Yes.
Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser.
E. False Cause

 Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of

something else. 1. A and B are associated on a regular basis. 2.
Therefore A is the cause of B. Pattern
 Logic and Critical Thinking

Example: Effa gets a chain letter that threatens her with dire
consequences if she breaks the chain. She laughs at it and throws it
in the garbage. On her way to work she slips and breaks her arm.
When she gets back from the hospital she sends out 200 copies of
the chain letter, hoping to avoid further accidents.

F. Slippery Slope

 Claiming, without sufficient evidence,that a seemingly harmless

action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome.

Examples: • “The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other

countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then
send in thousands to die."

The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is

permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D. 2. The
arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be
permitted. 3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will
actually lead to D.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

G. Weak Analogy

 Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.

Example:
Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive. Why
then shouldn’t two mature UiTM students live together before they
decide whether or not to get married?

Things to remember:
1. List all important similarities between the two cases.
2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are more
important.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

CHAPTER 10
APPROACHES IN DOING PHILOSOPHY

Four Approaches in Doing Philosophy

1. Analytical Approach
2. Speculative Approach
3. Reductionist Approach
4. Holistic Approach

A. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Two fundamental tasks of Analytic philosophy
1. The analysis and definition of our fundamental concepts
2. The clear and resolute criticism of our beliefs

1. The analysis and definition of our fundamental concepts

Example:
What came first? The chicken or the Egg?
2. The clear and resolute criticism of our beliefs
 These are beliefs which are often based on our prejudices.
Ex. Our bias against Muslims.

Main Goal: Conceptual Clarity > using Logical Reasoning

 Logic and Critical Thinking

B. SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY
 Tries to find an underlying explanation or general principle that could
explain reality in its entirety.

Ex. The attempt of the pre-Socratic philosophers to explain reality

Main Goal: To reach some general conclusions as to the nature of

the universe and its existence in reality.> Using MetaPhysics

C. REDUCTIONIST APPROACH
 A reductionist approach of doing philosophy refers to understanding
of complex ideas by reducing them to their parts or individual
constituents.
Rene Descartes
• He likened the world to a machine with pieces working like a
clockwork mechanism
• He argued that the machine can only be understood if an individual
would take its pieces apart and study its individual components
before putting it back together to understand the bigger picture
Main Goal: Breaking down , to simplify things>Using Deductive
approach

D. HOLISTIC APPROACH

• Works on the assumption that all properties in a given system cannot

be broken down by its component parts alone, but rather the system
as a whole entity decides how the individual parts behave.
 Logic and Critical Thinking

• Holism is the idea that “something can be more than the sum of its
parts:”
• more specifically to the concept of reality

Main Goal: relationship between the parts (interconnectedness)

>Inductive Approach