Formal and Informal Fallacies
which says that – the basis
-Formal fallacies are those that may be
identified through mere
inspection of the form and structure of the
argument
“All turtles are reptiles.
All frogs are not turtles.
Therefore, all frogs are not reptiles.”
Through mere inspection, one can see that
the argument is
illogical.
-Informal fallacies are those that can be
detected only through
analysis of the content of the argument.
“It’s just right to give this student a passing
mark. You see, she is
troubled by serious family problems at
present.
Her family can’t afford her education; it’s
her aunt who pays her
tuition fee. If she fails in M-101, she might
not be supported
anymore by her aunt.”
If simplified:
“All students with serious family problems
should not be given a
failing mark.
Q is a student with serious family problems.
Therefore, Q should not be given a failing
mark.”
In this case, one would find it valid and
logical but the erroneous
reasoning can be found in the content
in giving a passing or failing mark is his or
her family situation
rather than his or her performance in class.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation – leading an opponent to an
unwarranted
conclusion by using a term in its different
senses and
making it appear to have only one meaning
“Gambling should be legalized because it is
something we can’t
avoid.
It is an integral part of human experience;
People gamble everytime they get in their
cars or decide to get
married.”
The first use of gambling refers to games of
chances while the
second use refers to the risk feature of life
itself.
(Using one term and applying two meanings
in a statement.)
Lambino vs COMELEC – a case regarding
the initiative of
changing the 1987 Constitution, such
changes that would shift the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Unicameral�Parliamentary government.
The framers of the Constitution
intended to adopt relevant American
jurisprudence on people’s
initiative, and the people must first see the
full text of the
proposed amendments before they sign and
that people should
sign on a petition containing such full text.
“Police help dog bite victim.”
3. Improper Accent – consists in misleading
people by
placing improper emphasis on a word,
phrase or

However, the Lambino group only gathered particular aspect of an issue or claim, can
signatures be found not

and they theorized that the difference of only in advertisements and headlines but
amendment and revision also in other

is only one of procedure and not of very common forms of human discourse
substance.
This newspaper headline for example:
Court ruled that the express intent and plain
“President to Declare Martial Law.”
language of
This may lead one to infer that the
the Constitution contradict the Lambino
President has immediate
group’s theory. With the
plans to declare martial law but the article
language of the law being clear and plain,
might simply be
courts do not deviate
reporting an interview with the President
from such intent and language.
which she said she
2. Amphiboly – presenting a claim or
might declare martial law if military officers
argument whose
defy the chain
meaning can be interpreted in two or more
of command, and other probable reasons
ways due to
for such.
its grammatical construction, in
4. Vicious Abstraction – misleading the
equivocation the
people by using
ambiguity comes from changing the
vague or abstract terms.
meaning of the
Example.
word while in amphiboly, ambiguity comes
from the If one assumes that the specific meaning of
the SC’s
way the sentence is constructed
notion of “community standards” can be
“The loot and the car were listed as stolen
reduced to a
by the Manila
formula like “whatever presently offends
Police District.”
more than 50%
“CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice.”
of the people in the community” and then
“Mayors can’t stop gambling.” uses a highly
questionable assigned meaning to the term
to draw a
conclusion about the legality of an act, then
one can be
said to be misusing a vague expression.
“Since the act involving pornographic
materials was not
in accordance with community standards,
then this act
should be regarded as against the law.”
It would appear that perhaps no effective
use of the term
“community standards” could be applied to
any situation
without misusing a vague expression.
5. Composition – wrongly inferring that
what holds true
of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group
made up of those individuals
Example, it is fallacious to argue that,
“because a lawyer earns more than a
secretary, therefore all
lawyers earn more than all secretaries”
Another example:
“Roger Federer and Martina Hingis are two
of the best tennis
players in the world, so if these two Swiss
players team up,
they’d make one of the best mixed doubles
teams.”
Indeed, the two players are very difficult to
defeat when they
play individually, but it does not follow that
they will also be
very difficult to defeat when they play
together as a team.
6. Division – consists in wrongly assuming
that what is
true in general is true in particular, this is
the reverse of
the fallacy of composition
To argue that, since PNP is one of the most
corrupt
agencies, therefore these three policemen
cannot be
trusted, is to commit the fallacy of division.
Fallacies of Irrelevance
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal
Attack) – this
fallacy ignores the issue by focusing on
certain personal
characteristics of an opponent, instead of
addressing the
issue presented by an opponent this
argument makes the
opponent the issue
Two kinds of Argumentum ad Hominem:
a. Abusive – attacks the argument based on
the
arguer’s reputation, personality or some
personal
shortcoming
“X’s statement must be wrong because X is
a socialist.”
“According to this action star, he supports
the death
penalty because it is an effective deterrence The speaker committed tu quoque (you’re
against another)

murder. This is nonsense. He is just an because he or she focused on what the

actor and knows opposition

nothing about death penalty. Besides, he did when it was in power before which is
likes violence not the

as shown by his many movies which depict issue in this case.

a lot of
Sample cases:
killings.”
In re Borromeo – Joaquin Borromeo is not a
These examples focuses its attention on the lawyer
character of
but learned a few legal principles and
the person which is not the issue. procedural

b. Circumstantial – consists in defending rules. He represented himself in several

one’s court

position by accusing his or her critic or proceedings where he disrespected the SC

other people several

of doing the same thing times.

It is not logical to absolve one’s self of his Court declared him guilty of contempt of
or her court. His

own guilt by saying that the opponent has actions as well as allegations are clearly
done the examples

same thing. of what we call as argumentum ad

hominem.
Example.
Mane vs Judge Belen – Atty. Mane charged
“I don’t think the opposition party has a
the
valid reason
judge for humiliating, demeaning and
for criticizing the move of the present
berating him
administration to privatize government-run
during a hearing when he was counsel.
industries. Based on the

When the opposition party was in power in transcript, the judge criticized the
the complainant that

previous regime, it sold several government he did not graduate from UP Law.

companies like NAPOCOR and MWSS to the SC declared the judge guilty of conduct

private sector.”
unbecoming of a judge and reprimanded the judge is persuaded to accept an
him for argument not for its

such actions. In addition, for a judge to strength but because of the counsel’s
determine emotional appeal

the fitness or competence of a lawyer based to pity, this fallacy convinces people by
on alma evoking feelings

mater is a clear example of an argumentum of compassion and sympathy when such

ad feelings, are not

hominem. logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion

Santos vs Aranzano – Civil case praying a A classic example is the closing speech of
decree of Clarence

adoption to be null and void ab initio that Darrow when he defended Thomas Kidd.
the
“I appeal to you not for Thomas Kidd, but I
application was not signed by both adopting appeal to

parents. you for the long line – the long, long line
reaching back
Petitioner claimed that CFI has no
jurisdiction and through the ages and forward to the years
to come – the
contended that if the spouses were alive,
they would long line of despoiled and downtrodden
people of the
never question the adoption because what
is more earth. I appeal to you for those men who
rise in the
important to them is the welfare of their
adopted morning before daylight comes and who go
home at
daughters.
night when the light has faded from the sky
Court granted the petition due to
and give
jurisdictional
their life, their strength, their toil to make
grounds but observed that the statement is
others rich and
an
great. I appeal to you in the name of those
argumentum ad hominem since it attributes
women who
without
are offering up their lives to this modern
basis, an attitude to someone long dead.
god of gold,

and I appeal to you in the name of those

2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to children, the
Pity) –
living and the unborn.”
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Fineza was suspended for acting with
Force) – malice and bad

persuading others to accept a position by faith when he raised the bail of an accused.
using threat or
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) –
pressure instead of presenting evidence for designed to
one’s view.
persuade people by means of the wording
The strength of this lies on the fear it of one of its
creates to people
premises
which leads them to agree with the
A. Arguing in Circle – makes use of its
argument
conclusion to
Example.
serve as its premise
“The President wants the Congress to pass
“Gina: This person has committed bribery.
this bill, I
Jeff: What reasons do you have that will
think you have to support it. Of course, you
convince
don’t want
me that your claim is true?
Malacañang to reduce your Priority
Development Gina:Because he tried to influence a public
official
Assistance Fund which will finance your
infrastructure by giving money.”
projects in your town.” In this argument, Gina only explained what
the act
However, not all threats involve fallacies. If
certain of bribery means. Jeff asked her for reasons
for
consequences are a natural outcome of an
action, calling making the claim. Gina, however, gave no
such
its attention would be very much
appreciated. reasons; she merely repeated her claim.
Parent to a teen. “You must not stay late at B. Question – Begging Language – consists
the party. in
There is a lot of danger in traveling late at discussing an issue by means of language
night. You that
might get raped or robbed.” assumes a position of the very question at
issue, in
Sy vs Fineza – case where the court
suspended Fineza, such a way as to direct the listener to that
same
that his actions constituted abuse of
authority
conclusion, this prematurely assumes that a It asks: if the respondent went to the mall
matter with the

that is or may be at issue has already been victim, if the respondent gave the drug to
settled the victim,

Prosecutor to witness: “Would you tell us, if the respondent’s brother went to the mall
Ms. with the

Diaz, about the nature of your relationship victim, if the respondent’s brother gave the
with the drug to

rapist, Mr. Sanchez?” the victim.

The prosecutor uses language in his D. Leading Question – directing the

question that respondent to

begs the very question in the courtroom. An give a particular answer to a question at
alert issue by the

defense attorney would object vigorously to manner in which the question is asked, this
the usually

implicit argument embedded in this involves asking only one question that
question�begging language. contains an

C. Complex Question – consists in asking a unsupported claim

question
Consider a lawyer who leads her client in
in which some presuppositions are buried in the
that
following manner:
question, another term used to this is
“You were outside the country when the
loaded
crime was
question, which suggests that more than
committed, weren’t you?”
one

question is being asked in what appears to

be a The defense lawyer is leading the witness
by
single question
assuming a position on the very question at
Example. “Did you and your brother went to
issue.
the
Even though the lawyer maybe convinced
mall with the victim and gave him the
that the
drug?”
defendant was not in the country – that is,
A closer look at the question reveals that it
her client
involves

at least 4 questions.
is innocent – a proper procedure for getting may not be true at present given the social,
at the cultural and

truth would be to encourage the witness to physical changes in our society and the
explain world at large.

as to his whereabouts when the crime was 2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to

committed. Inappropriate Authority) – Consists in

persuading
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
others by appealing to people who
1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the
command respect or
Ages) –
authority but do not have legitimate
This attempts to persuade others of a
authority in the
certain belief by
matter at hand.
appealing to their feelings of reverence or
respect for Example 1:

some tradition, instead of giving rational “The doctrine of biological evolution cannot
basis for such be true, for

belief. This is illogical since pointing out that it contradicts the biblical account of
a creation; the church

particular practice has the status of a fathers never accepted it and the
tradition sheds no fundamentalists

light on whether it should be followed or explicitly condemn it.”

not.
What is wrong in the argument above is its
Example. reliance to

“I don’t understand why the Church allowed certain authorities who, although respected,
cremation are not the

of the dead. In our time, we have not been appropriate authority on this matter since
taught to burn the issue is

the bodies of our dead loved ones. It was about science.

not done when
-Another type of inappropriate authority is a
my lolo and lola died, as well as when tatay
biased one. Some people may be qualified
and nanay
in a particular
died. We should not also do that to any of
field, yet they are vitally interested in or
our relatives.”
affected by the
The reasoning is fallacious because what
issue at stake that there would be good
was true before
reason to treat
their testimony with suspicion. TBAP vs COMELEC – Petitioners challenged
the
Example 2:
validity of BP 881 which requires broadcast
“Jose Javier Reyes, director of the movie
companies
Live show, said in a press conference that
to provide free airtime to COMELEC for the
MTRCB has
use of
unjustly banned the movie from being
candidates for campaign.
shown.
Court ruled that all broadcast companies
According to Reyes, the movie is not
whether radio
pornographic since
or tv are licensed by the government and
it has a very relevant plot and a well-written
the franchises
storyline.
granted to them are mere privileges. As
Since Reyes is a veteran in Philippine
regards the
cinema, we can
contention that the law singles out radio
say that indeed MTRCB acted wrongly in
and tv stations
banning the
to provide free air time rests on the fallacy
said movie.”
that broadcast
3. Accident – Applying a general rule to a
media are to be treated the same as print
particular case.
media.
Example.
Their plea to invalidate the said law would
“Freedom of speech is a constitutionally pave the way
guaranteed
for rich candidates monopolizing the media
right. giving

Therefore, Leo should not be arrested for disadvantage to candidates with less
his speech that resource.

incited the riot last week.” People vs Gacott – Case where judge
dismissed a
In this argument, the general rule is that
freedom of criminal case despite failure in checking the
citations of
speech is normally guaranteed, and the
specific case is the prosecution. SC annulled the dismissal
and sanction
the speech made by Leo. Because the
speech incited a the judge with reprimand and a fine for
ignorance of the
riot, the rule does not apply.
law.
Sample Cases:
The Constitution provides that the SC en which do not represent the whole Filipino
banc shall have Muslim

the power to discipline judges of lower population.

courts. However,
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing
a decision en banc is only needed when the from
penalty to be
Ignorance) – Consists in assuming that a
imposed in the dismissal of a judge is for particular
more than 1
claim is true because its opposite cannot be
year or a fine exceeding 10k or both. proven.

4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) Using the absence of evidence against a

– Consists claim as

in drawing a general or universal conclusion justification that it is true.

from
Example.
insufficient particular case. We take a
“Since science cannot prove that breathing
particular case and
the same air
make a general rule or truth out of that.
as an AIDS victim will not result in the
Example. spread of the

“A survey of the member of the MILF and virus, children with AIDS should not be
their families allowed to

showed that more than 85% of them favor attend public schools.”
the proposal
6. False Dilemma – Arises when the premise
to have a separate independent of an
government in
argument presents us with a choice
Mindanao, 10% disapprove and 5% are between two
undecided.
alternatives and assumes that they are
These survey results clearly show that exhaustive when
majority of Filipino Muslims supports the
in fact they are not. Being pregnant and not
said proposal.”
being pregnant are exhaustive alternatives
since there is
The basis for claiming that majority of
no other alternative.
Filipino Muslims
Example.
supports the proposal is not adequate to
support this “Many people are protesting the
implementation of
claim since it only pertains to MILF and their
families
warrantless arrests. I think it is just right for
that can

facilitate the military’s crackdown on

terrorist groups.

You surely don’t want terrorism to prevail in

our

country.”

The arguer here presupposes that there are

only two

alternatives: implement warrantless arrests

to stop

terrorism or not and let terrorism prevail.

What is wrong

here is that it overlooks the fact that there

can be other

ways of dealing with terrorism.

A common way to commit false dilemma is

to treat

contraries as if they were contradictories.

The color is either black or non-black

(contradictories –

a term and its negative).

The color could be neither black nor white

(both

extremes to be false – contraries – a term

and its

opposite)