GRADE 12

FACTS & FALLACIES

 Analyzing Faulty
Arguments: Informal
Fallacies
A fallacy is a broad category of appeal (or
argument) that resembles sound reasoning but
should not be taken seriously.

Fallacies, both formal and informal, are errors in logic

or reasoning that are brought on by incorrect
premises. Formal fallacies are arguments with a
wrong 'form', whereas informal fallacies are
arguments with false or irrelevant premises.
Fallacies of Insufficient
Evidence

Reasoning errors in which the

premises are related to the
conclusion but do not provide
enough support for it
 A.

Fallacy of assumption without proof

Example:

Stating without The sun is shining

supporting brightly today.
proof that a Therefore we should
conclusion is not bother bringing
true because of an umbrella
tomorrow because it
a premise or
will definitely not
reasons
rain.
 B.

Fallacy of hasty generalization

Example:

Claiming that the

conclusion is true on
Majority of my
the basis of evidence
classmates are boys.
that is of
insufficient quantity
Therefore, most of
to logically support my schoolmates are
the extent of the boys.
conclusion
 C.

Fallacy of false or misleading premise

Example:

My mother is a Filipina
Claiming that the but my father is Spanish
premises are since ny great-great
incorrect or only grandparents on my
partially true in father's side were of
order to support the Spanish descent.
Therefore, I can call
conclusion
myself Spanish Filipino.
 Fallacies of relevance

Irrelevant conclusion fallacies

appear under this category when
they draw a conclusion or make a
statement that is illogical in light
of the current line of reasoning.
Red herrings are deliberate
instances of these fallacies.
 A.

Argumentum and hominem (argument against the person)

Example:

Used in debates to
It's hard to take
refute an argument
your claims
by attacking the
seriously
character of the
because you
person making it,
spend your days
instead of the logic
playing video
or premise of the
games.
argument itself.
 1. Abusive (appeal of the "poisoning the well")

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of

informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is
preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to
say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad
hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry
Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The etymology of
the phrase lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of
pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to
diminish the invading army's strength.
2. Circumstantial

also known as: appeal to bias,

appeal to motive, appeal to
personal interest, argument from
motives, conflict of interest, faulty
motives, naïve cynicism,
questioning motives, vested
interest

Suggesting that the person who is making

the argument is biased or predisposed to
take a particular stance, and therefore, the
argument is necessarily invalid.
 To queque (You Also)

claiming the conclusion is true by placing blame on

the person with an opposing view for previously
subscribing to the conclusion being opposed.

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in

which an accused person turns an allegation back
on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy.
 B. Argumentum ad Misericordian
(Appeal to Pity)

Student to his teacher:

claiming that the Ma'am, you should give me a
passing grade in your class. If
conclusion is true you don't, I will definitely lose
on the basis of my scholarship. I have six
other siblings my parents
that attempt to
barely earn enough to pport
previous that all of us. I am their only hope
evoke pity or brighter future. I don't think
you have the heart to deprive
mnathy. my family of their only chance
for a better life.
 C. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

https://www.reallygreatsite.com

(argumentum ad baculum, literally

“argument from the stick”) A fallacy
committed when an arguer appeals to force
or to the threat of force to make someone
accept a conclusion. (Sometimes made when
rational argument has failed.)
Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority/General
Eminence/Famous Person) -

Lane: Downy Fabric

claiming that the Conditioner is a very good
conclusion is true on the product because Kris
basis of a person's for Aquino endorses it. Surely
she will not endorse a
persons') testimony
product that is not good.
whereas the person/s Obviously, Kris Aquino is
is/are not the proper not the appropriate
authority to vouch for the authority to vouch for the
effectiveness of Downy. She
truth of the conclusion.
was chosen
 Quoque (You Also) claiming that the conclusion is true by
placing blame on the person with on opposing view for
previously subscribing to the conclusion being opposed.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)- claiming

that the conclusion is true on the basis of premises that
attempt to evoke pity or sympathy.

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)- claiming that

the conclusion is true on the basis of threat, force, coercion,
fear, or intimidation.
 Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority/General
Eminence/Famous Person)- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis
of a person's (or person) testimony whereas the person/s is/are not the
proper authority to vouch for the truth of the conclusion.

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Popular Sentiment/Mob-Appeal

Fallacy- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of the collection
sentiment of the people, rendering the conclusion popular.

Genetic Fallacy- claiming that the conclusion is true on the

basis since it banks on historical or temporal origin as the
foundation of its logical credibility.
 Complex Question- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of a
response to a question wherein the conclusion is disguised as an assumption
that is part of the question.

Ignoratio Elenchi ( Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion/Red Herring Fallacy)-

claiming that the conclusion is that supports another conclusion.

False Cause- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of an assumed
causal relationship between A and B despite the lack of cause of B. False
cause argument can either be post hoe or simple correlation.
 1. Post Hoc Fallacy (derived from post hoe ergo proper hoc, which means
"after this, therefore, before this'')- claiming that the conclusion is true on
the basis of A being the cause of B for the simple reason that A happened
before B.

2. Simple Correlation- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of an

assumed relationship between A and B.

1. Straw-Man Fallacy- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basic of proving false
an argument that is a weaker or watered-down version of the original argument that one
intends to oppose. The straw-man fallacy is made up of two steps: 1. One weakens the
original argument that one wishes to oppose by misrepresenting it; and 2. One attacks
the weakened version of the argument.
 Accident- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of applying a rule
that is true only for general cases.

Converse accident- claiming that the conclusion is true on the applying the
rule that is true and exceptional cases

Slippery slope fallacy- claiming the conclusion is not true on doing the universality of the
conclusion proposed.
Arithmetical Fallacy- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of the
unqualified application of arithmetical rules and principles to practical
situations.

False Analogy- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of an

analogy that does not exactly represent the argument presented.

Black or White Fallacy (Fallacy of False Dilemma)- claiming that the

conclusion is true on the basis of only two possible contracy alternatives
without recognizing that there may be other possible alternatives that can be
considered.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity- premises provided convey meanings that are not
clear.

a. Fallacy of Equivocation- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis

of a word or phrase that may have more than one meaning.

b. Fallacy of Amphiboly ( Syntantic Ambiguity)- claiming that the conclusion

is true on the basis of the vagueness of the meaning of a word or phrase
because of how it is placed in a sentence.
 Fallacy of Accent- claiming that the conclusion is true on the basis of a
falsely placed accent

Fallacy of composition- claiming that the conclusion is true on the based of

treating individual characteristic or attributes as applicable to the whole
group.

Fallacy of Division (or composition) - claiming that the discussion is true on

the basis of treating moral trait of a group as applicable to each of its
members.
THANK YOU