Fallacies of Relevance:

In these fallacies, the mistaken arguments rely on premises that may seem to be relevant to the
conclusion drawn but in fact are not.

R1. Appeal to Emotions (ad populum)

Definition:

The argument ad populum (“to the populace”) is the baldest of all fallacies, and yet it is one of the most
common. It is the instrument on which every demagogue and propagandist relies when faced with the
task of mobilizing public sentiment. It is a fallacy because, instead of evidence and rational argument,
the speaker (or writer) relies on expressive language and other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm
for or against some cause. (Copi and Cohen, 2012)

An emotional defense of belief lacks intellectual merit, but the conclusion of that bad argument may be
supportable by other premises of a more rational sort. Still, offered as the premises of an argument,
sheer emotion is fallacious (Ibid).

If the passions of the speaker are used to convince his listeners that some beliefs are true, the argument
is indeed fallacious. However, if the speaker and his listener are in complete agreement in their beliefs,
and the speaker aims only to spur his listeners to act in support of those mutual beliefs, the emotion he
exhibits may serve a useful purpose (Ibid, 113).

There is a distinction to be drawn between emotions used improperly as premises in argument and
emotions used reasonably as triggers for appropriate conduct. However, this distinction will always be
problematic because, when the speaker succeeds in spurring to action, it may be said that he has relied
on emotion to convince his audience of the truth of some claim—the claim that now is the time to act,
or the claim that the way to act in pursuit of the common goal is his way. In controversy, in deciding
what conduct is appropriate, the appeal to emotion is unavoidably troubling (Ibid, 113).

Example:

“If I will become president, corruption has to stop” –Rodrigo Duterte1

1 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/743211/duterte-vows-to-fight-corruption-criminality-if-elected-president
Explanation:

Then presidential candidate, and now president-elect Rodrigo Duterte, in a 41-minute talk
opening the Munato Festival in Sarangani Province argues that if he is elected president, corruption in
the government, a problem that has plagued the country since pre-formation of the Republic would be
put to an end if people would elect him as the country’s next president.

The long time Mayor of Davao City did not elaborate on the specifics of how he plans to address
the issue of corruption, only that his election would bring about an end to corruption, and along with it,
criminality.

This rhetoric of trying to inspire anger and at the same time hope in people is a prime example
of an appeal to emotion uttered by one of the presidential candidates of the 2016 Philippine General
Elections. Copi and Cohen could not have described Appeal to Emotion better when they claimed that it
is “the instrument on which every demagogue and propagandist relies when faced with the task of
mobilizing public sentiment” (Ibid, 12). Rodrigo Duterte successfully mobilized public sentiment of anger
against the Aquino administration and turned this into 16 million votes, under the promise that the
election of the Mayor from Davao would suddenly usher in Xanadu for the 110 million of us Filipinos.
R2. Appeal to Pity (ad misecricordium)

Definition:

Appeal to pity “A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather
than on reason. Also known as argument ad misericordiam (Ibid, 14). The Latin word misericordiam
literally means “merciful heart”; this fallacy is the emotional appeal to pity.
Pity is often an admirable human response. Justice, it is wisely said, should be tempered with
mercy. Surely there are many situations in which leniency in punishment is justified by the special
circumstances of the offender. In such situations—in the sentencing phase of a trial, for example—the
identification of those circumstances and the reasons they might apply to a criminal already convicted
are appropriately put before the court. That is no fallacy. It would be a fallacy, however, if such
considerations were registered in the effort to cause a jury to acquit a defendant who is indeed guilty of
the acts with which he or she is charged. When the premises (or intimated premises) of an argument
boil down to no more than an appeal to the merciful heart, the argument is plainly ad misericordiam,
and fallacious. What is special about this variety is only that the emotions appealed to are of a particular
kind: generosity and mercy (Ibid).

Example:

“Bakit kung sino pang nognog siya pa’ng nagbigay liwanag?” –Jejomar Binay Ad
Explanation:

When then-Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay was elected as Vice-President in a highly-contested

elections with then-Senator Manuel Roxas II, it was apparent that for the former human rights lawyer,
the presidency was his ultimate ambition.

As the battlelines for the highest office in the land were being drawn in latter days of 2014,
whether by coincidence or not, various allegations and investigations regarding corrupt practices in
government practiced by the Vice-President along with his son, ousted Makati Mayor Junjun Binay
started springing up. Due to his dark complexion, the embattled Vice-President was called as a “nognog”
which is a derogatory term for a dark-skinned person, as a further insult to the elder Binay.

By some stroke of campaign genius, the Binay camp turned this derogatory term into a
campaign material for the Vice-President. Various television commercials showing how the “Nognog”
was actually the one helping the Filipinos in the margins were being broadcasted. The intent of the
Binay camp could not be any clearer.

Binay’s skin color coupled with a highly westernized culture (that looks down upon those with
darker skin tones) and a brand of politics that focuses on personalities was made into an elaborate PR
campaign for the Vice-President to make him look like an oppressed dark-skinned Filipino much like the
common Filipino laborer bathing in the scorching sun just to get through the day. The implication is
clearer than summer sun turning the Filipino worker into “nognogs”: The Filipino people should vote for
Binay because he is just like you.

The entire “Nognog” episode of Jejomar Binay shows an example of an appeal to pity, by
showing that this person who wants to be president is just like the rest of us, and that should be enough
reason for us to vote for him.

Unfortunately for the outgoing Vice-President, it was not. His failure to capture the imaginations
of the Filipino electorate will open the floodgates to suits left and right once he steps down as Vice-
President on June 30, 2016.
R3. Appeal to Force

Definiton:

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled threat of force. Also known as
“argument ad baculum.”

Threats or strong-arm methods to coerce one’s opponents can hardly be considered arguments
at all. Traditionally, a category of fallacies of this kind has been identified as the appeal to force or the
argument ad baculum (appeal ad baculum means literally “appeal to the stick”!), and it surely is clear
that however expedient force may prove to be, it cannot replace rational methods of argument. “Might
makes right” is not a subtle principle, and we all reject it.

Example:

“Ako’y tao lang kaya binabati ko pa rin ang mga drugista, magnanakaw, mga kurap, mga criminal, at
yong mga nagpapahirap sa mga Pilipino. Kung ayaw ninyong huminto at patuloy pa rin ang karahasan,
ito na ang huli ninyong Merry Christmas.” -–Rodrigo Duterte, Christmas Commercial
Explanation:

The tough-talking Mayor, and now-President-elect of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte outlined
what would probably be the theme of his expected six-year presidency in a 31 second commercial which
is supposed to be his Christmas greeting to the drug lords, criminals, and corrupt officials who he claims
is the cause of poverty for Filipinos: Reform or die.

For Duterte, and probably for a huge percentage of the 16 million Filipinos who voted for him,
the courts and the stringent laws and processes it has to take before punishing a suspected criminal is
too burdensome or too slow. Recourse has to be quick, bloody and lawless.

While in the commercial, Duterte did not expressly say that he will have these social and
political undesirables killed, his previous pronouncements that show his wanton disregard for the rule
of law, his preference to use violent means to eliminate social ills, as well as his ominous last words in
the commercial: “this will be your last Merry Christmas” unquestionably point to the obvious conclusion,
that if the 16th President of the Philippines cannot make make you stop ingesting and pushing
psychedelic substances, you will be killed.

This 2016 elections, fallacies are turned into rhetorics and slogans. None of the other four
presidential candidates used these two better and more effective use than Rodrigo Duterte, who will be
the face of the Filipino people for the next six years.
R3. Argument Ad Hominem

Definition:

The phrase ad hominem translates as “against the person.” An ad hominem argument is one in which
the thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at some person who defends the conclusion in dispute.
This personalized attack might be conducted in either of two different ways, for which reason we
distinguish two major forms of the argument ad hominem: the abusive and the circumstantial (Ibid,
118).

R3(A). Ad Hominem Abusive

Definition:

Ad hominem abusive has many variations. The opponent may be reviled (and his claims held unworthy)
because he is of a certain religious or political persuasion: a “Papist” or an “atheist,” a member of the
“radical right” or the “loony left,” or the like. A conclusion may be condemned because it has been
defended by persons believed to be of bad character, or because its advocate has been closely
associated with those of bad character (Ibid).

Example:

“Ang mahirap sa 'yo, Mar, you are always a pretentious leader." -Rodrigo Duterte
Explanation:

In one of the series of Presidential debates organized by the Commission on Elections, the
standard-bearer of the Administration, former Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas was partnered with
Rodrigo Duterte for a face-off. The topic of the debates was a topic undeniably made relevant by the
Mayor of Davao who put the elimination of drugs as a centerpiece of his program of government.

Roxas, who during his stint as Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government, was also involved in his own form of eliminating crime in his capacity as ex-officio
Chairman of the National Police Commission. During the heated debates, Roxas presented data from the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency showing the progress the government has made towards the
elimination of drugs in the country. Duterte, instead of attacking the salient points of Roxas’ arguments
proceeded to call the former Secretary a pretentious leader for supposedly claiming credit for what he
does not deserve credit for.

For Duterte, the figures and data presented by Roxas do not mean anything. The fact that the
person presenting was Roxas, his closest rival for the presidency, and the fact that Roxas was the face of
the administration who supposed incompetence he used to springboard his career, fallacious arguments
such as an argument ad hominem abusive are enough to win a debate and the presidency
R3(B). Argument ad Hominem Circumstantial

Definition:

The circumstances of one who makes (or rejects) some claim have no more bearing on the truth
of what is claimed than does his character. The mistake made in the circumstantial form of the ad
hominem fallacy is to treat those personal circumstances as the premise of an opposing argument (Ibid,
119).

Thus it may be argued fallaciously that an opponent should accept (or reject) some conclusion
merely because of that person’s employment, or nationality, or political affiliation, or other
circumstances. It may be unfairly suggested that a member of the clergy must accept a given proposition
because its denial would be incompatible with the Scriptures; or it may be claimed that political
candidates must support a given policy because it is explicitly propounded in the platform of their party.
Such argument is irrelevant to the truth of the proposition in question; it simply urges that some
persons’ circumstances require its acceptance (Ibid).

Explanation:

"Ngayon inuusig ako dahil ayaw nilang mapagpatuloy ang mga programa. Palibhasa sila'y anak-
mayaman." –Jejomar Binay
Explanation:

As early his successful Vice-Presidential campaign, and probably before it when he successfully
ran as Mayor of Makati City for six terms, Jejomar Binay has put his past to good use. The former
human-rights lawyer separates himself from his opponents by making reference to his poverty-stricken
past. Just in the recently concluded 2016 elections, Binay famously showed a commercial reenacting the
death of his mother who was not able to procure for herself proper medical assistance due to their
family’s poverty.

Binay, then the front-runner for the highest post in the land was suddenly faced with
accusations of corruption from political rivals as well as senate investigations which he refused to
appear in. Yet again, even in the face of what he feels as political persecution, Binay is able to use his
past in poverty as a means of creating a convenient, and for a while, twist to all the accusations thrown
against him: a question of class struggle. Whether he honestly believes it or not, Binay feels that the
accusations against him was a case of the upper echelon of society trying to topple someone from the
margins who by luck or by destiny was able to penetrate into their power-base by winning the Vice-
Presidency and during that time, a very great possibility of winning the presidency.

The abovementioned statement of Jejomar Binay is a form of argumentum ad hominem

circumstantial as his sole basis for dismissing the allegations and investigations against him find their
basis only in the material conditions of the people against him -- the rich elite. Their investigations and
accusations, if Binay is to believed is of no weight as these are made by the “anak-mayaman” which for
the outgoing Vice-President, makes them less credible.
R5. Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)

Definition:

A fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion from the one that is proposed
(Ibid, 122).
Aristotle, the first to give a systematic classification of the informal fallacies, explains the fallacy
we call missing the point, or ignoratio elenchi, as a mistake that is made in seeking to refute another’s
argument. The Latin word elenchi is derived from a Greek word that means a “disproof,” or a
“refutation.” An ignoratio elenchi is a mistaken refutation, one that goes haywire because the person
present (Ibid).
There is a sense in which every fallacy of irrelevance is an ignoratio elenchi, because in all these
fallacies there is a gap between the premises and the conclusion. Premises that are not relevant—red
herrings, straw men, personal attacks—all miss the point; that is true. But we reserve this name for
those fallacies of irrelevance that do not fit into other categories. The ignoratio elenchi is, we may say, a
catchall class of fallacies: fallacies in which the premises simply fail to connect to the intended
conclusion with the coherence that rational argument requires (Ibid).

Example:

“Hindi mo ba alam ang sakit, tumataas o bumababa o nawawala? Magtatanong ka bakit may sakit ka,
bakit tumatakbo ka? E diretso ko ‘yan, karapatan ko ‘yan sa ilalim ng, under our Constitution.Wala
naming constitutional provision na if you are sick of something, you are disqualified.” –Miriam Defensor-
Santiago
Explanation:

The last-placer in this 2016 Elections, was Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who had already ran for
president twice -- losing a closely contested one against Fidel V. Ramos, and also losing against the
overwhelmingly popular Joseph Estrada. While not as scrutinized as the other four candidates, Miriam
Defensor-Santiago was still plagued by the issue of her health.

The usually on-point senator, in defending herself from critics who argue that she should just
drop from the race as she would not make through the six years of being the mother of the nation, up to
the very end used the law to aid her. This defense of the Senator, while legally sound, is logically
unsound. Critics were questioning her capacity to fulfill the mandates of the office, not her legal
qualifications to run for the office, which was never questioned. Defensor-Santiago committed the
fallacy of ignoratio elenchi when, instead of addressing her physical and mental capacity to lead, she
proceeded to defend her legal qualifications. Unfortunately for the senator, that was only good enough
to convince 1.4 million Filipinos that she was what the country needs going forward.
Fallacies of Defective Induction

These are fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion.

D1. Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam)

Definition:

When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been proved false, or when it is
argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true.

Many true propositions have not yet been proved true, of course, just as many false propositions have
not yet been proved false. The fact that we cannot now be confident rarely serves as a good reason to
assert knowledge of falsity, or of truth. Such an inference is defective; the fallacy is called the argument
from ignorance, or the argument ad ignorantiam. Ignorance sometimes obliges us to suspend judgment,
assigning neither truth nor falsity to the proposition in doubt (Ibid, 130).

Example:

“Your SALN says 200 M-500 M pesos, but you never worked outside government, where would you get
that amount of money” –Allan Peter Cayetano

“Ito ay hindi naman na confirm. Wala naman dokumento tungkol sa kanilang sinasabi. At wala naman
po tayong nakikita. Lahat po ng mga bagay bagay na iyan ay naging bahagi ng mga kaso sa korte. At
kami naman po kahit anong iuutos ng korte susunod lang. Kaya hindi po natin alam kung saan galing
yun, kung hindi sa iba’t ibang tao. Kaya tignan po natin ang mga facts na kaniyang binibintang. ” –
Bongbong Marcos, Jr.

Explanation:

Sen. Bongbong Marcos argues that Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano’s cannot hold water as the allegations
haven’t been confirmed since there were no documents given out to serve as sufficient evidence for his
alleged graft and corruption. This is a fallacy of Appeal to ignorance since Sen. Marcos states here that
Sen. Cayetano’s proposition is false because it has never been proven true.
D2. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Ad Verecundiam)

Definition:

It is a fallacy committed when the premises of an argument appeal to the judgment of some person or
persons having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.

Even one who does have a legitimate claim to authority may well prove mistaken, of course, and we
may later regret our choice of experts. However, if the experts we chose deserved their reputation for
knowledge, it was no fallacy to consult them even if they erred. Our mistake becomes a fallacy when our
conclusion is based exclusively upon the verdict of an authority (Ibid, 134).

Example:

“You all fit in the statement of Mr. Goebbels. He said ‘the more you repeat a lie, the more you believe in
it.’” –Jejomar Binay, translated from his statement from the first Presidential Debates

Explanation:

Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was the Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany. He is a politician and
not a psychologist, and is thus not an appropriate authority to cite for a psychological issue.
D3. False Cause

Definition:

When one treats as the cause of the thing that which is not really the cause of the thing, often relying
(as in the subtype post hoc ergo propter hoc) merely upon the close temporal succession of two events.

There are two varieties of false cause. The first one is called the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc
which means “after this, therefore because of this.” It is the presumption that one event is caused by
another because it follows the other closely in time. The second refers to the fallacy of slippery slope, in
which change in a particular direction is asserted to lead inevitably to further changes in the same
direction.

Example:

“Dahil kay Binay, yumaman ang Makati” –Jejomar Binay, Commercial Ads

“Dahil sa kagustuhang kong maiahon tayo sa kahirapan, siniraan ako at ang aking pamilya ng mga
bagay-bagay na walang katapusan” –Jejomar Binay, Opening Statement, 1 st Pilipinas Presidential
Debates

“Ang una talaga para sa akin ay dapat magkaroon ng libreng pangahalian sa ating mga public schools,
dahil ‘yan ay diretso sa mga tiyan ng mga bata. Hindi po matutuo ang ating mga bata at hindi po
tatalino kung sila po ay nagugutom.” –Grace Poe, First Presidential Debates

Explanation:

In the first example, the statement treats Binay as if he is the only cause of prosperity of Makati City.
While this may be partly true, there are many other factors which could have played a much more
important role in the success of Makati City, not Binay.

In the second example, Binay asserts that the allegations against him are made solely for the purpose of
destroying his family’s name and reputation when all he wants to do is to help everyone get out of
poverty. While this may also be partly true, there are really other more important reasons why such are
made. A probable and more direct one would be all the graft and corruption charges that some
members of his family are facing. This would most probably include him upon the end of his reign as
Vice President.

In the third example, Sen. Poe states that the children in school would not learn and become intelligent
if their stomachs are empty. This statement also makes it seem like hunger is the reason why they would
not learn and should be shunned since there are many other factors which would contribute to the
mental growth of the students.
D4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

Definition:

It is a fallacy committed when one moves careless or too quickly from one or a very few instances to a
broad or universal claim.

Example:

“It can happen in Davao. It can be done in the whole Philippines. We can suppress crimes in six months.”
–Allan Peter Cayetano, Vice-Presidential Debates

Explanation: In the statement above, Sen. Cayetano claims that if the suppression of crimes could be
done in Davao City, then it could also be done in the Philippines within a short amount of period. This is
a fallacy of Hasty Generalization since a principle that may be true in Davao, may not be true when
applied carelessly or deliberately, to the great run of cases as circumstances may vary.
Fallacies of Presumption

In this kind of fallacy, there is a mistake in argument arising from unwarranted assumptions where the
inference to the conclusion depends mistakenly on such assumptions.

P1. Accident

Definition:

A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied to a particular case.

Example:

“My advice to Mar, if you want to become an effective president, then you should not be afraid to die or
kill.” – Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Explanation:

In this case, the capability of one to kill another person was applied to another case. While this may be
true for other positions like for people in the military, whether or not this is applicable in the case of a
President is heavily frowned upon.
P2. Complex Question

Definition:

A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that presupposes the truth of some proposition buried
within the question.

When a question is complex, and all of its presuppositions are to be denied, they must be denied
individually. The denial of only one presupposition may lead to the assumption of the truth of the other
(Ibid, 140).

Example:

“This administration allowed shabu to be cooked inside prison. Is that performance?” – Rodrigo Roa
Duterte

Explanation:

This question was asked by Duterte to Mar Roxas to presuppose the truth that of some proposition
buried in the question – that is, that allowing shabu to be cooked inside prison is not the kind of
performance the citizens ask for from their government
P3. Begging the Question

Definition:

When a conclusion is stated or assumed in any one of the premises. It is also known as "circular
argument".

It is the mistake of assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove. The “question” in a formal debate is
the issue that is in dispute; to “beg” the question is to ask, or to suppose, that the very matter in
controversy be conceded. This is an argument with no merit at all, of course, and one who makes such
an assumption commits a gross fallacy (Ibid, 140).

In the fallacy of begging the question, it involves using the premise to support itself.

Example:

"Mike Enriquez: Isa pa, isa pang.. Mayor, sabi niyo may mga girlfriend kayo, dapat bang tularan yan ng
mga kabataan?

Rodrigo Duterte: Totoo... Well, kung hiwalay ka sa asawa anong gagawin mo sa sarili mo? Eh anong
gawin ko itong karga karga ko, di ko naman ipagbili ‘to ni hindi mo nga masanla eh. Eh gamitin mo
dapat, kundi mamatay ka." - First Presidential Debates

Explanation:

The reason given by Duterte is no reason at all because it only re-words the claim and to make it as a
support for the claim. The argument made by him becomes circular in such a way that his answer/claim
and the premises he asserted does not have any proof to stand on with regard to the issue being asked.

Another example:

“VP Jejomar Binay: Alam po ninyo, Luchi, kelangan ho itong Freedom of Information. Ito ho ang sagot sa
graft and corruption eh, transparency. Huwag na ho natin lahat ‘yan mga deba-debate pa o ano, FOI,
Freedom of Information sa executive department, mai-implement ko po yan.
Luchi Cruz Valdes: Senator Poe, gusto nyo po bang sagutin ang reaksyon na yan?
Sen. Grace Poe: So, gusto po ba ninyo ngayon mag-sign kayo ng bank waiver sa inyong mga accounts?
VP Jejomar Binay: Aba! Ako nga ho eh – eto nga isa sa dokumento kong – dokumento ko hong dala-dala
dito eh. Pinirmahan ko na ho ito, yayakagin ko kayong tatlo na pirmahan natin ho, waiver ho ‘yung
AMLA, na tayo ay imbestigahin” – Second Presidential debate

Explanation:
In this exchange, VP Binay is trying to insinuate that he is abiding with the Freedom of Information and
has agreed to sign a waiver that will answer allegations against him. However, such document is
disputed and is not verified as to its nature or kind. In answering Sen. Poe’s question if he will sign bank
waiver documents, he was trying to say that he has signed already however he is only pertaining to that
document he holds that he already signed.
Fallacies of Ambiguity

An informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings of words or phrases within an
argument. The deliberate use of such devices is usually crude and readily detected—but at times the
ambiguity may be obscure, the error accidental, the fallacy subtle. (Ibid).

A1. Equivocation

Definition:

It is a fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different parts of an
argument.

Example:

Ramos: “Erap, why do you cry while eating Chippy? And why do you shed your tears on the wrapper?”

Erap: “Because it says here on top “Tear here” ”

Explanation:

In this ‘Erap Joke,’ the word “Tear” on the label “Tear Here” was misinterpreted by the Former President
Erap. The first sentence referred to it as the fluid secreted by the eye when one is crying or when the
eyes become irritated. In the second, however, “Tear here” was supposed to connote the verb of pulling
apart something by force.
A2. Amphiboly

Definition:

A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted more than one way; the
argument contains a premise based on one interpretation while the conclusion relies on a different
interpretation.

The word “amphiboly” is derived from the Greek, its meaning in essence being “two in a lump,” or the
“doubleness” of a lump (Ibid).

Example:

“Binay: Para masabing ikaw ay corrupt, kailangan may hatol ang hukuman na ikaw ay corrupt….pero
kung ano man ang decision susundin natin. We must be a government with a rule of law.”

Grace Poe: Eto na lang Ms. Luchi siguro ay ito, rule of law, pero meron din tayong mga rules ngayon na
dapat ay sinunod.

Explanation: The combination of the words “rule of law”, as shown in the debate between Vice
President Binay and Senator Grace Poe, was interpreted in two ways. Binay used these words to convey
his message that we must respect the judgment of the Court. On the other hand, Sen. Poe utilizes these
words to make a statement that the participants in the debate should follow the rules or the guidelines
as set by the network.
A3. Accent

Definition:

A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within an argument, and the
difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase.

When the premise of an argument relies on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion drawn from it relies
on the meaning of the same words emphasized differently, the fallacy of accent has been committed
(Ibid).

Example:

"Hindi mo alam kasi wala ka talagang alam." - Rodrigo Duterte, Second Presidential Debates

Explanation:

The statement by Duterte may be given different interpretation depending on the emphasis. It may be
asserted that the person he was referring to does not know anything from a particular issue or it may be
argued that the statement meant that the person lacks intelligence.
A4. Composition

Definition:

A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole, to the
attributes of the whole.

There are two closely related types of mistaken argument in which the term of fallacy of composition is
applied. The first one is described as reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to
the attributes of the whole itself. The second one is reasoning from attributes of the individual elements
or members of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements.

Example:

“Duterte: Alam mo iha ganito ‘yan eh. Kung papatayin ka talaga papatayin ka. There is no way to note
that the next victim would be a journalist. Sa karamihan, prangka prangka, may nagawa yan. Kasi hindi
ka naman talaga papatayin diyan kung wala kang ginawa, eh… Karamihan yan mga nabigyan na and
you want to take sides. Or tumatanggap na sa mga sugarol tapos bira pa rin. You really want the truth?
‘Yun ang truth. There is still corruption in your side. Marami yan hindi lang ang pulis. Harap harapan
tumatanggap yan tapos sa kabila babanatan mo. That is the best example bakit namamatay ang mga
journalist. Ganoon.

Reporter: Is that an excuse to kill journalist? Just because he is corrupt or whatever is that a reason?

Duterte: Well that is the reason! You are asking why? That is the reason! Now sinabi mong hindi dapat,
you have to debate with the killer not me because of course I know who killed him. Kasi binastos niya
yung tao eh. … Kasi nagtatanong kayo eh ‘yan. Make it appear that they are clean. Well most of you are
clean, but don't expect that itong mga journalist are all clean. Kaya namamatay yan karamihan sinasabi
ko nababayaran na. They take sides, or sobrahan nila ang atake. Getting it personal… Ganoon ‘yan. It’s
not because you're a journalist you are exempted from assassination. Ang premise mo kasi journalist
siya bakit patayin siya. It's all wrong! … Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from
assassination if you're a son of a b*tch! “ - President-Elect Rodrigo Duterte in a press conference on
May 31, 2016

Explanation:

The statement of the President-Elect on journalist killings stems from a particular example of a journalist
killing in Davao years ago. He uses this one example to conclusively assert that journalist killings are
caused by their exposés while receiving sums of money from government officials or private individuals.
Therefore journalists are not exempted from assassination. However, this one case of journalist killing in
Davao is not a generalization of reasons behind journalist killings because there are other cases of
journalist killing where journalists are killed just because they were doing their job to bring news to their
audience. There is the now classic example of the case of the Maguindanao Massacre where 58
journalists were killed by simply covering a local electoral candidate file her Certificate of Canvass in
Maguindanao. Killing, for whatever reason, should not be justified and is in no way justifiable.
A5. Division

Definition:

A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a parts of a whole to the
attributes of the whole.

Two varieties of the fallacy of division may be distinguished. The first kind of division consists of arguing
fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. The second type of division
fallacy is committed when one argues from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves (Ibid).

Example:

"Tuluy-tuloy ang paghihirap ng ating mga kababayan. Milyun-milyon pa ho, Mr. Roxas, ang naghihirap.
So, wag mong sabihin na maganda na ang nagawa ninyo, etc., etc. Eh kung sinasabi ninyong walang
mahirap kung walang corrupt, eh dumadami nga ho ang mahirap eh kasi laganap ho ang corruption
kasi yung mga ka-alyado mo katulad ni – yung mga nagnanakaw dun sa minahan eh nandyan, hindi
nahahabla." - Jejomar Binay, Second Presidential Debates

Explanation:

The situation regarding poverty wherein millions of Filipinos are still suffering from is made as a basis to
conclude that Roxas' allies are corrupt and the statement discredited the improvements made by the
government on such basis. In this case, the assertion that there is still a million of Filipinos suffering from
poverty is mistakenly drawn from the argument that it is a result of the corrupt allies and failure of the
government.