PASSI CITY COLLEGE

City of Passi. Iloilo

SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ADGE
Logic: Deduction and Inductive Reasoning
FIRST SEMESTER, A.Y. 2022-2023

Logic:
Deduction 8
And
Inductive
Reasoning ATTY. HERSIE A.
BUNDA
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 Informal Fallacies

Informal Logic, a correct argument consist of premises that are related to the
conclusion in such a way that the assumed truth of the premises provides good grounds
for assenting to the conclusion. In correct inductive argument, for example, the truth of
the premises provide or makes it more or less likely that the conclusion is true.
Moreover, a deductive argument, the truth of the premises implies that the conclusion
must be true, except of course, if the syllogism does not follow an order or sequence.
Nevertheless, both deductive and inductive arguments may contain unsound and non-
cogent reasoning.

Fallacy comes from the Latin word fallere, which means, to deceive. It is a type
of argument which may appear to be true but upon examination will be proven to be
false. A fallacy, therefore, is a false argument that has the appearance of truth. Fallacy
may be identified as sophism or paralogism.

Sophism is a fallacy committed with the intention to deceive or mislead an

opponent. On the one hand, Paralogism is a fallacy employed unknowingly or due to
one’s ignorance of the rules of correct reasoning.

A fallacy may be formal or informal. Formal Fallacy are those error that are
committed due to lack of skills in reasoning and this is due in turn to lack of training in
the logical process. A Formal Fallacy is one that may identified by merely examining the
form or structure of an argument. Fallacies of this kind are found only in deductive
arguments that have identifiable forms.

In order to distinguish formal or informal fallacies remember that formal fallacies

occur only in deductive arguments. Therefore, if a given argument is inductive, it
cannot contain a formal fallacy. In cases of categorical and hypothetical syllogism, if an

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
argument contains an improper arrangement of terms or statements, such argument
commits a formal fallacy.

Informal Fallacies, on the other hand, are those errors that are committed
when either irrelevant psychological factors are allowed to distort the reasoning process
through the use, for example of pity or threat or when one is confused by linguistic
ambiguities in one’s premise or conclusion.

Types of Informal Fallacies

There is actually no limit as to the numbers of ways in which errors in reasoning

occurs. As we have mentioned, the errors in reasoning can occur either intentionally or
unintentionally. Added to this is the fact that human person’s reasoning is so dynamic
that he becomes so creative in creating deceptive argument.

In his treatise entitled De Sophistici Elenchi, Aristotle identified thirteen (13)

types of fallacies. During the course of time, later philosophers and writers are able to
identify another hundred or so that apparently escaped Aristotle’s attention. For our
purpose, let us divide the informal fallacies into give groups. (1) fallacies of relevance,
(2) fallacies of weak induction (3) fallacies of presumption (4) fallacies of ambiguity and
(5) fallacies of grammatical analogy.

1. Fallacies of Relevance
This fallacy occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the
conclusion of that argument. To put simply, the premises of the arguments in
the fallacies of relevance supports a different conclusion and the conclusion
of such arguments require different premises if an argument is to be
established. In this case, the fallacies of relevance relies on the premises that
not relevant to its conclusion, and therefore, will not establish the truth.

1.1 Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force or an Appeal to the

Threat or Force)
This fallacy is an illegitimate mode of persuasion wherein the arguer
makes use of force, or threat against the person’s security as
instrument of persuasion. This is committed if one is constrained to
believe something because he is forced to believe otherwise is order to
jeopardize his job or social standing.
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 1.2 Argumentum ad Misericodium (Appeal to Pity)
This occurs when pity is evoked in order to support a statement even
though pity is logically irrelevant to the truth of the statement in
question. It is committed when one appeals to compassion or pity in
order to win an argument.

1.3 Argumentum ad Populum (An Appeal to People to Popular

Sentiment
This fallacy is also known as mob appeal fallacy, which uses emotion-
laden terminology to sway the en masse. In other words, this fallacy
occurs when one attempts to influence the judgment of listener or
reader by appealing to the prejudices and attitude of the people that
have nothing to do with the matter on which one is attempting to
secure agreement.

There are two approaches involved in this fallacy; direct and indirect.
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, who is addressing a large
group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to
win acceptance for his conclusion. The indirect approach, the arguer
claims for her appeal not at the crowd as a whole but one or more
individuals, separately.

1.4 Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Against the Person or

Attack Against the Man)
When someone, who wishes to oppose a certain view, made an
attempt to discredit the person who holds the view, instead of
assessing the merits of view itself, this person is said to be guilty of
this Fallacy.

1.5 Genetic Fallacy

This is basically similar to Ad Hominem in an attempt to discredit the
statement. However, ad hominem attacks the person instead of the
issue, genetic fallacy attacks the source instead.

1.6 Fallacy of Accident

This fallacy arises as the result of careless of deliberately deceptive use
of generalizations. When the general rule is applied to specific case
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 without qualification. Example; jogging is good for the health therefore
a person with heart disease could also improve his health by jogging.

1.7 Straw-Man Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when a person distorts an opponent’s
argument for the purpose of more easily attacking, demolishes the
distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real
argument has been demolished.

1.8 Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point Fallacy)

Ignorance of the proof fallacy, is the fallacy committed when the
premise of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a
different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is
drawn. The fallacy is called ignoratio because the arguer is ignorant of
the logical implications of his own premise.

1.9 Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy is closely related to ignoratio elenchi. This is committed when
the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by changing the subject to
a different but sometimes subtly related one.

1.9 Arithmetical Fallacy

This fallacy in applying the rules of arithmetic to practical situations
without qualifications. Inasmuch as it is applying some mathematical
principles, it appears that the argument is true. Inasmuch as it is
applying some mathematical principles it appears that the argument is
true.

2.0 Fallacies of Weak Induction

If fallacies of relevance occur because the premise are found to be
irrelevant to the conclusion, the fallacies of weak induction occur because
the premises do not sufficiently support the conclusion. Here, the
premises provide the least a shred of evidence of support of the
conclusion.

2.1 Argumentum ad Verecundium (Appeals to Inappropriate

Authority)

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 This fallacy is committed when the appeal is made to parties who do not
have the proper authority or who do not have a legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand. This fallacy lays claim on the fact that
expertise field-specific, one can be expert only on a specific field but no
one can be expect about everything.

2.2 Argumentum ad Ignoranium (Appeal to Ignorance)

This fallacy occurs when it is asserted that a given statement is accepted
as true simply because it cannot be proven to be false, or false simply on
the basis that it cannot be proven true.

2.3 Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

This fallacy is committed when one argues that what is true of a few
members of class must also be true of all members of that class. There
maybe cases when what is true to one may be true to all members of that
class. Nevertheless, if one offers little evidence or no evidence at all to
support the claim in the general conclusion, then this syllogism will be
guilty of this fallacy.

2.4 False Cause Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when an event A is identified as the cause of the event B,
on grounds that not by themselves established sufficiently as a causal
relationship.

False Cause Fallacy takes several forms:

1. Post Hoc Fallacy: this is taken from the latin principle
post hoc ergo propter hoc, which can be translated as
after this therefore before this. In this manner, this
fallacy consist in arguing that A is the cause of B solely
because A occurred before B.
2. Non Causa Pro Casa: “not the case for the cause”
this fallacy of cause is committed when what is taken
to be the cause of something is not really the cause at
and the mistake is based on something other mere
temporal succession.
3. Oversimplified Cause: This form of the fallacy of
false cause is committed when a multitude of causes is
responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 just one of these causes and represents it as if it were
the sole cause.

2.5 Slippery Slope

This fallacy is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It is committed when the
conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is
no sufficient reason to think that the chain should necessarily occur.

3.0 Fallacies of Presumption

The fallacies of presumption arise because the premise presumes a conclusion that
they want to presume. If the fallacy of relevance occurs simply because the premise
are irrelevant to the conclusion or they provide insufficient reason believing the
validity of the conclusion, the fallacies of presumption, on the one hand, occurs when
the premises presume a conclusion that the speaker wanted to assert.

3.1 Petitio Principii (Begging the Question Fallacy)

The term petitioo principia means “request for the source”. This fallacy
is committed when the arguer requests an opponent to grant what the
opponent seeks a proof. The most common way of committing this
fallacy is by leaving a possibliy fake premise out of the argument while
creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the
conclusion.

You have to study your lessons because you have to study your
lessons.

The second form of petition principia occurs when the conclusions of an

argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different
language. In such an argument, the premise uphold the conclusion and
the conclusion tends to reinforce the premise.

Cheating is a grave sin. Therefore, cheating is mortal sin.

The third form of petition principia involves circular reasoning a chain of

inference having a first premise. In all cases of petition principia, the
arguer uses some linguistic device to create the illusion that inadequate
premise provide adequate support for a conclusion.
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 3.2 Fallacy of Complex Question
This fallacy is committed when two or more questions are asked in the
guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of
the questions. This fallacy is basically a trick in order to induce
someone to assent or to dissent apart from the trick.

This trick consist in asking questions in such a way that if one answers
the question stated, one is at least assenting to or dissent or at least
one statement is assumed by the question.

3.3 Black or White Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when one assumes that there are only two
contrary alternatives available, ignoring the possibility of other alternatives
between contraries.

3.4 Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

An inductive argument (an argument that has a particular premise and
general conclusion) is said to be logical if the premise are true and follows
a good reasoning. Consequently, an argument is said to be sound if the
premise are true and such premises do not ignore some important piece
of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very
different conclusion.

Another way that an arguer can commit the suppressed evidence fallacy is
by ignoring important events that have occurred with the passage of time
that render an inductive conclusion improbable.

4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
Fallacies of Ambiguity arise from the occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the
premises or the conclusion or both. When the conclusion of an argument depends on a
shift in meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase or on the wrong interpretation of an
ambiguous statement, the argument commits a fallacy of ambiguity. This fallacy has
three types:
4.1 Fallacy of 4, 5, 6 or Fallacy of Equivocation
This fallacy occurs because of the fact that a given word or phrase may
have no more than one meaning; thereby producing a different conclusion
than what is really intended.
ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA
Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 4.2 Fallacy of Accent
This fallacy occurs when a false conclusion is drawn from premises at
least one of which has been rendered misleading or false by a misplaced
accent. An argument may become deceptive when the shirt of meaning
within it rises from the changes in the emphasis given to its words or
parts.
4.3 Fallacy of Amphiboly (Fallacy of Syntactic Ambiguity)
Just as the meaning of a sentence is determined in part by where one
places the accent, so also is it determined in part by where one places the
accent or by the grammatical structure. When the meaning of the
argument is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way by which
its words are combined, this fallacy occurs.

5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Fallacies of grammatical analogy occur when the fallacies arguments are grammatical
analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect. Because of the similarity
in linguistic structure, fallacious arguments may appear good yet it can actually be bad
as well. There are two types:

5.1 Fallacy of Composition

This fallacy consist in treating a distributed characteristics as if it were
collective. It consists in taking jointly what should be taken separately. It
occurs when one makes the mistake of attributing to a group or whole
some characteristics that is true only of its individual members or its parts
and then makes inference based on that mistake.
5. 2. Fallacy of Division
This fallacy is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. Fallacy of division
consists in treating a collective attribute distributive, and then drawing
inference from the statement thus obtained.

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 Activity 1: Write True if the statement is correct, and False if the statement is
incorrect. (2 points each)
1. Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy committed when the arguer attempts
to create a kind of mob mentality.
2. If an arguer physically attacks the listener, he is guilty of committing the
argumentum ad baculum fallacy.
3. if a beggar asks for alms from passerby, he is stating argumentum ad
misericordium.
4. genetic fallacy bears resemblance with the argumentum ad hominem except
that genetic fallacy is identifiable with the origin while the argumentum ad
hominem is identifiable with the person.
5. The fallacies of weak induction is committed when the premises do not
sufficiently support the conclusion.

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
MODULE APPROVAL SHEET

Course No. ADGE Descriptive Title : Logic: Deduction and Inductive

Reasoning

Module No. : 8 Course Year & Section BS CRIM3

Prepared and Submitted by:

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Instructor

Checked by:

MR. HERIBERTO G. ULGASAN, MSC

Program Head, School of Criminal Justice

Recommending Approval:

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning
 HEIDE A. PAMA, M. ED.
Dean of Instruction

Approved:

JANICE JENNIFER P. PALMARES, MPA

Acting College President/ SAO/ Registrar Designate

ATTY. HERSIE A. BUNDA

Module No. 8 ADGE: Logic: Deduction and
Inductive Reasoning