Hypothetical Syllogism – one whose major premise is a hypothetical proposition while its minor premise and conclusion are

categorical proposition Kinds of Hypothetical syllogism Conditional syllogism – one whose major premise is a conditional proposition consisting of an antecedent and consequent, while the minor premise affirms or denies either the antecedent or the consequent of the major premise, and the conclusion merely expresses whatever follows from its affirmation or denial. Rules: 1. Posit the antecedent, posit the consequent. 2. Negate the consequent, negate the antecedent. 3. Posit the consequent, no conclusion. 4. Negate the antecedent, no conclusion.

Posit the antecedent, posit the consequent = Modus Ponens. The truth of the consequent follows from the truth of the antecedent. Example: (antecedent) (consequent) If someone wins in the million-peso lotto draw, he becomes a millionaire; But Nikki wins in the million-peso lotto draw; Therefore, Nikki becomes a millionaire. Negate the antecedent, negate the consequent = Modus Tollens The falsity of the antecedent follows from the falsity of the consequent. If someone wins in the million-peso lotto draw, he becomes a millionaire; But Nikki does not become a millionaire; Therefore, Nikki does not win in the million-peso lotto draw. Posit the consequent, no conclusion. (antecedent) (consequent) If someone wins in the million-peso lotto draw, he becomes a millionaire; But Nikki becomes a millionaire; Therefore, Nikki wins in the million-peso lotto draw. = Fallacy of Affirming the consequent Negate the antecedent, no conclusion If someone wins in the million-peso lotto draw, he becomes a millionaire; But Nikki did not win in the million-peso lotto draw; Therefore, Nikki did not become a millionaire. =Fallacy of Rejecting the Antecedent

If you will come, then I will join. Modus Ponens: Modus Tollens: Fallacy of Affirming the consequent: Fallacy of Rejecting the antecedent:

If someone gives you flowers, then he loves you. Modus Ponens: Modus Tollens: Fallacy of Affirming the consequent: Fallacy of Rejecting the antecedent: If someone gives you flowers, then he loves you. Modus Ponens: Modus Tollens: Fallacy of Affirming the consequent: Fallacy of Rejecting the antecedent:

Disjunctive Syllogism: one whose major premise is a disjunctive proposition consisting of alternatives (disjuncts), while the minor premise affirms or denies any of the disjuncts, and the conclusion merely expresses whatever follows from its affirmation or denial. Posit one alternative, negate the other (ponendo-tollens) The accused is either guilty or not guilty; But he is guilty; (affirmed) Therefore, he is not not guilty. (rejected) The accused is either guilty or not guilty; But he is not guilty; (affirmed) Therefore, he is not guilty. (rejected) Negate one alternative, posit the other (tollendo-ponens) The military operation is either successful or unsuccessful; But it is not successful; (rejected) Therefore, it is unsuccessful. (accepted) The military operation is either successful or unsuccessful; But it is not unsuccessful; (rejected) Therefore, it is successful. (accepted) Conjunctive Syllogism – one whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition consisting of alternatives (conjuncts), while the minor premise affirms or denies any of the conjuncts, and the conclusion merely expresses whatever follows from its affirmation or denial. Posit one alternative, negate the other

The passenger cannot be in the tricycle and in the bus at the same time; But, he is in the tricycle; (affirmed) Therefore he is not in the bus. (rejected) Negate one alternative, no conclusion. The passenger cannot be in the tricycle and in the bus at the same time; But, he is not in the tricycle; (rejected) Therefore he is in the bus. (affirmed) FALLACY – is an erroneous reasoning or an incorrect argument - it came from the Latin word fallere which means “to deceive” SOPHISM/SOPHISTRY – fallacy committed intentionally to deceive or mislead an audience PARALOGISM – fallacy employed unknowingly or through the ignorance of rules TWO TYPES OF FALLACY a. formal fallacy – involves error in the form, arrangement, technical structure of an argument b. informal fallacy – committed when irrelevant psychological factors are allowed to distort the reasoning process

INFORMAL FALLACY FALLACY OF LANGUAGE/AMBIGUITY Equivocation – when a word carrying different meanings is used in the same context in a particular argument. This is also known as the Fallacy of Four Terms. Example: Erap, Cory and FVR were captured by the Abu Sayyaf. They were brought to an island and were informed that they were going to be executed one by one. Cory was the first in line, and she thought of a way to distract the rebels. She shouted. “Earthquake!” The rebels panicked. Cory took this chance to escape. The rebels, seeing that Cory had fled, decided that FVR be executed next. FVR did the same thing Cory did, and shouted, “Tidal Wave!” The rebels scampered, and FVR took the opportunity to escape. Realizing that he was the only one left, Erap thought of doing the same; and he shouted: “Fire!”. After three seconds, Erap dropped dead. 2. Amphiboly – when the awkward construction of one’s sentence allows a double meaning caused by inexactness of expression Example: Question: What’s the difference between ignorance and apathy? Reply: I don’t know and I don’t care.

Question: What’s the synonym of forgive? Reply: Pardon? Iraqi Head Seeks Arms Include Your Children When Baking Cookies Enrollees in College Cuts in Half

3. Accent or Prosody – arises from a false accent or false emphasis in speech. Example: A dessert is a course of fruit served after the meal. But a desert is a forsaken region. Therefore, a forsaken region is a course of fruit served after meal. I résent the letter. I resént the letter. No husbands please. Beware, dogs bite and likes children. 4. Composition – when a property of the parts is illicitly taken to belong to the whole Example: Each of the pebbles in this jar is light; therefore the entire jar is light. Manny Pacquiao is a great boxer. But Manny Pacquiao is a Visayan. Therefore, Visayans are great boxers. Maria is honest. But Maria is a Filipino. Therefore, all Filipinos are honest.

5. Division – taking individually what should be taken collectively Example: The human person is wonderfully made by God; therefore his nose was wonderfully made by God. Letran College is one of the oldest schools in the country; therefore, its students are the oldest in the country. Maureen’s hair is damaged; therefore each strand is damaged. The Catholic Church is a sacred institution; therefore, every Catholic priest is sacred. 6. Word Construction – a similarity of meaning from the similarity of the material pattern of the two words

Examples: It is he, his, and him for male; Therefore it is she, shis, and shim for female Cough is pronounced as kôf. Rough is pronounced as rôf. Tough is pronounced as tôf. Therefore, dough is pronounced as dôf. The people of Burma are called Burmese. The people of China are called Chinese. The people of Canada are called Canadese Exercise: He is into mining; he is a gold-digger. I received a visit from a strange man the other day, and then everything started going wrong. The phone stopped working, the car broke down, the post office lost a letter headed my way. I wonder who that man was and why he is doing this to do. Osama is a Muslim. Osama is a terrorist. All Muslims are terrorists. It’s can’t for cannot, aren’t for are not, isn’t for is it not. Therefore it willn’t for will not, shalln’t for shall not and amn’t for am not. One is I, two is II, three is III and four is IIII. He traced the robber with binoculars. His fingernails are clean. Therefore, his entire body is clean. He gave me a ring last night. The audio sounds clear. The sign says: DISNEYLAND LEFT. When two kids saw the sign, they felt lonely. They said; “Sayang di natin naabutan.” One who bakes is a baker. One who builds is a builder. One who writes is a writer. One who cooks is a cooker.

Its sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and twenteen. Filipinos are conservative. Rosanna Roces is a Filipino. So, Rosanna Roces is conservative. Prostitutes are appealing to the Pope. Dog for sale. Eats anything and is especially fond of children. I have a watch that rings and has three hands. FALLACY OF RELEVANCE – when there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion FALLACY OF ACCIDENT – when an exception to the general rule is ignored Example: Cutting people with a knife is a crime. Surgeons cut people with knives. So, surgeons are criminals We have to be generous to others. So, during examinations we have to share our answers with our seatmate to show that we are generous. Men should help kids when crossing the street. But Lolo Jose is an 85 year old Man. So he should kids cross the street.

2. PETITIO PRINCIPII – begging the question; the argument fails to prove anything because it somehow takes for granted what it is supposed to prove. Girlfriend: Why are you late? Boyfriend: Because of I’m not early. The shape of the book is square because it has four sides. Beebee: Why are you here? Booboo: Because I’m not there. I don’t want to go to dance because I don’t feel like it. Son: I want to eat. Mother: Why? You just have eaten five minutes ago. Son: Because I want to eat.

3. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Attacks against man) – an argument meant to attack the character of the person a. Abusive: attacking the person instead of disproving the point at issue Example: Don’t listen to him. He’s gay! Why should I believe what you are saying? You are an ex-convict. b. circumstantial: (poisoning the well) attacking the argument by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self-interest or because of personal circumstances. Example: He is not good in math. He failed in the math exam. How come you know a lot about cars? Why should I listen to you. You don’t even have a car! He stole my bag. He must be. He lives in a squatter area.

c. Look who’s talking! (Tu quoque – You too) – defending oneself from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser Example: Dolphy says that the institution of marriage must be respected. Yeah right! You get married first. How come priests give advise about parenting? They don’t have wives. They don’t even have children.

Father: Son, stop smoking, its dangerous to your health. Son: Yes father. But you first. 4. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (Appeal to the people) – the claim is assumed to be correct just because people generally believe it Example: This shampoo must be the best. Surveys says that 9 out of 10 users prefer it. Boy 1: What should we write in the form? Boy 2: I do not know. Let’s just look at what the others are doing. They are doing this. It must be right. Everyone believes that the Chief Justice is guilty. Therefore, he must be guilty.

5. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (Appeal to emotion – PAAWA EFFECT) – pleading for mercy and disregarding the point in question Example: We should not fire him though he’s lazy. Have pity on his family. He has six children. If he loses this job his family will get hungry. Please sir, don’t fail me in the exam. I was absent because my father got sick.

6. FALSE CAUSE (Post hoc ergo propter hoc – this, therefore, that) – it mistakes what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause Example: Daughter: It’s raining so hard! Mother: Next time don’t sing! It is raining because you sang! Carol fitted the gown the night before her wedding; that’s why the weeding was called off. He met an accident because its Friday the 13th

7. ARGUMENTUM AD VERICUNDIAM (appeal to misplaced authority) – improper appeal made to an alleged expert Example: A dentist in a TV commercial is endorsing that toothpaste product. Come on let’s buy it. John Loyd Cruz is using that shampoo. The commercial must be telling the truth. Albert Einstein said that when it comes to matters of heart, we have to think things over many times. He’s a genius , he’s one of the best scientist. We should listen to him.

The fifty-year old fireman, a veteran of many firefighting, told me that the best way to stay healthy is not to smoke. What he is suggesting must be true. He’s a recipient of so many award. 8. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (Appeal to force) – appeals to physical force or moral pressure rather than the merit of the argument Example: Mother: Come over here! If you don’t, I’ll slap you in the face! Marry me or if you refuse, I shall kill you! Try to disobey me and you will be hurt.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM (Appeal to Ignorance) – something must be true because it has not been proven to be false If you can’t prove me wrong, then I am right! Liposuction must be effective. There has not been a single patient who came back and Complained. Hubert and company was acquitted by the court. Therefore they are not guilty. 1. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT – when an exception to the general rule is ignored 2. PETITIO PRINCIPII – begging the question; the argument fails to prove anything because it somehow takes for granted what it is supposed to prove. 3. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Attacks against man) – an argument meant to attack the character of the person 4. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (Appeal to the people) – the claim is assumed to be correct just because people generally believe it 5. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (Appeal to emotion – PAAWA EFFECT) – pleading for mercy and disregarding the point in question 6. FALSE CAUSE (Post hoc ergo propter hoc – this, therefore, that) – it mistakes what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause 7. ARGUMENTUM AD VERICUNDIAM (appeal to misplaced authority) – improper appeal made to an alleged expert 8. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (Appeal to force) – appeals to physical force or moral pressure rather than the merit of the argument Eight Rules of Categorical syllogism Rule No. 1: The middle term must be taken in the same sense Violation: Fallacy of Equivocation or Fallacy of Four terms Example: A father is a male parent; But the Holy Pope is a father; Therefore, the Holy Pope is a male parent Cancer is a deadly disease; But Cancer is a zodiac sign;

Therefore a zodiac sign is a deadly disease The ring is made of diamond. But the ring is where Manny Pacquiao works out. Therefore, (the place) where Manny Pacquiao works out is made of diamond. Rule No. 2: The major term and the minor term cannot have a greater extension in the conclusion than in the premise Violation: a) Illicit Major term – the predicate is universal in the conclusion not in the major premise b) Illicit Minor term – the subject is universal in the conclusion but not in the minor premise Example: All cars are machines; (major term in major premise is particular) But no car is running on electric fuel; Therefore, those running on electric fuel are not machines. (major term is universal) All reptiles are cold-blooded. But All reptiles lay eggs. (minor term in minor premise is particular) Therefore, All (animals) that lay eggs are cold-blooded. (subject Some national government officials are elected politicians. But all national government officials are public servants. Therefore, some public servants are not elected politicians. All journalists are media practitioners. Some media practitioners are writers. Therefore, writers are journalists. Gold is a precious metal. But precious metals are made of natural elements. Therefore, Things made of natural elements are gold. Perfumes are fragrant. But not all flowers are fragrant. Therefore not all flowers are perfumes. Rule No. 3: The middle term should not occur in the conclusion. Violation: Fallacy of Misplaced Middle Term A lioness is a big cat. But a lioness is a female. Therefore, the lioness is a big female cat. Soldiers are brave. But soldiers are defenders of the nation. Defenders of the nation are brave soldiers.

Rule No. 4: The middle term must be distributed universally, at least once, in the premises. Violation: Fallacy of Undistributed middle term Valid:

All students are enrolled. Some fruits are mangoes. Some students are studious. All mangoes are nutritious. Some studious (persons) are enrolled. Therefore, some nutritious (food) are fruits.

Invalid: Chocolates are sweet. But some sweet (food) are not healthy. Therefore, some unhealthy (food) are chocolates. Some creatures are invertebrate animals. Some creatures are crawling. Crawling (insects) are invertebrate animals. Plants have leaves. But the plant employs many workers. Therefore, that which employs many workers have leaves. Some fruits are round. Some desserts are fruits. Desserts are round. All vehicles use diesel engines. Some vehicles are buses. Buses use diesel engines. That chest is heavy. But my chest is aching. Therefore, that which is aching is heavy. Some televisions are not using picture tubes. All picture tubes are emitting cathode rays. Everything that emits cathode rays is a component of televisions. Airplanes are the most expensive means of transportation. But airplanes are also the fastest way to travel. The fastest way to travel is the most expensive means of transportation. 7. A secretary is an office worker. But a secretary is computer literate. Therefore, a secretary is a computer literate office worker. 8. The LED TV is an electronic equipment. But the LED TV is expensive. Therefore, the LED TV is an expensive electronic equipment

Rule No.5: Two affirmative premises cannot give a negative conclusion. Violation: Conclusion drawn from Affirmative Premises All human persons are thinking beings. Some human persons are liars. Therefore, some liars are not thinking beings. Popular sportsmen are dedicated. But some basketball players are popular sportsmen. Therefore, some basketball players are not dedicated.

Rule No. 6: From two negative premises, nothing follows. Violation: Fallacy of negative conclusion An airplane is not a car. But a car is not a animal. An animal is not an airplane. The school is not a church. But a church is not saloon. Therefore, a saloon is not a school. Rule No. 7: From two particular premises, nothing follows. Some women are young. But some women are responsible leaders. Some responsible leaders are young. If both premises are particular, then the violation is: Undistributed Middle Term Some politicians are not doing their job. Some politicians are not serving the nation. Then, what? Some rats are pets. But some dogs are not rats. Therefore, some dogs are not pets. Some criminals are not robbers. But some robbers are philanderers. Some philanderers are not criminals.

Rule No. 8: The conclusion follows the weaker premise. All electronic devices are dependent on electrical power. But some toys are electronic devices. So, all toys are dependent on electrical power. All government officials are public servants. But some public servants are not elected politicians. So, some elected politicians are government officials.