FALLACY

By: Clint Joseph

Catacutan
JD2-LO1
ORIGINS
The word “fallacy” derives from the Latin word
fallere meaning, “to deceive, to trip, to lead into
error or to trick.” The word also derives from the
Greek phelos, meaning “deceitful.”
I. CONCEPT
Fallacy is an error reasoning. A lawyer spends a lot
of time arguing and reasoning for his client. Thus, it
is a vital that he knows the principles of sound
reasoning to avoid fallacies. He must also be able to
spot fallacy in others.
I. CONCEPT
Errors in reasoning keeps us from arriving at the
truth. One’s thinking is slanted and displaced. Worse,
he would not know it. It takes skill to wade through
layers of arguments and pinpoint fallacies. An
analytical mind is one of truth’s allies, and
falsehood’s foes.
II. MAIN TYPES
Fallacy may be:
A. Formal Fallacy

B. Informal Fallacy
A. FORMAL FALLACY
It is an invalid argument, an erroneous inference. It
is an error in deductive reasoning where the
conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
premises.
B. INFORMAL FALLACY
Also called as Inductive fallacy, is an error in
reasoning in a form which does not follow the
traditional formal structures of logic.
III. DEDUCTION
Deduction is to reason from general principles (or
truth) to particular instance of that truth.

Example:
All cats are mortal. (major premise)
Smila is a cat. (minor premise)
Therefore, Smila is mortal (conclusion)
III. DEDUCTION
For a deductive argument to e valid, it must be
absolutely establish that both major and minor
premises are true. If the premises are true, the
conclusion is valid. If Smila is a cat, then it is mortal.
But if Smila is not a cat, but a cellphone brand
(making the statement “Smila is a cat” false), then
the conclusion is invalid.
III. DEDUCTION
If “all members of the gang participated in the
mauling” and “Pino is a member of the gang,” are
true then the conclusion “Pino is guilty of mauling”
is true.
IV. DEDUCTIVE FALLACY
Otherwise called “formal” or “logical” fallacy,
deductive fallacy presents an error in deductive
reasoning, in that the conclusion arrived at is
logically flawed or absurd. There are several types of
deductive fallacy. The three main types are the
fallacy of illicit major, the fallacy of illicit minor
and the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
This fallacy happens when the major term (predicate
of the major premise) is “particular” (or “not
distributed”) in the major term, but is “universal”
(“distributed”) in the conclusion.
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
A simple way to understand this fallacy: “Some students
of that school drink alcohol; therefore, all students in
that school drink alcohol (“some students” is particular
in the premise but universal in the conclusion). This is
fallacious because no universal conclusion can be
inferred from a particular premise. Otherwise, one
becomes guilty of the hasty generalization.
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
Examples:

All Bicolanos are Filipinos. (True. Here, “Bicolanos” is

universal but “Filipinos” are particular. The reason is while
“all” Bicolanos. Thus “Filipino,” which is the “major term” is
use in a “particular”, mode.) Bicolanos are not Cebuanos.
(True. Both “Bicolano” and “Cebuano” are universals. This
premise may be restricted as “No Bicolano in Cebuano” or
“No Cebuano is Bicolano”)
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
Therefore, Cebuanos are not Filipinos. (The conclusion is
false. The reason is the Fallacy of the Illicit Major, which
made the major premise, e.g., Filipinos) as “universal” in
the conclusion. “Not Filipinos” are universal” in the
conclusion. Be restated as “No Cebuano is Filipino” or
conversely: “No Filipino is Cebuano.” The conclusion
making the major term universal (e.g., Filipino) is
fallacious.
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
Examples:

All Catholics are Christian; Catholics are not Protestants.

Therefore, Protestants are not Christians. (The Fallacy is

self-explanatory, since Protestants are likewise Christians.
“Christians” is particular (undistributed) in the major
premise but universal (distributed) in the conclusion.
Thus, the fallacy)
A. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MAJOR
Examples:
UP law students are excellent students.
San Beda students are not UP students.

Therefore, San Beda students are not excellent

students, (Obviously a fallacy. Many times, San Beda
students had excelled)
B. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MINOR
Fallacy of the Illicit Minor happens wen the minor
term (the predicate in the minor premise) is
particular (or undistributed) in the minor premise
but becomes universal (or distributed) in the
conclusion. The basis (minor term) being particular,
cannot sustain a universal conclusion, hence fallacy.
B. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MINOR
Examples:

All lawyers are bar passers.

All lawyers are professional. (Here, “professional,” the minor

term is particular or undistributed. Therefore, all professionals
are bar passes. (In the conclusion, “professional” is universal.
A universal conclusion was arrived at from a particular
premise. This is a fallacy since not all professionals are bar
passers.)
B. FALLACY OF THE ILLICIT
MINOR
Examples:

The fallacy is more egregious in the following

All criminals deserve to be punished.
All criminals deserve another chance.

Therefore, all of those deserving another chance,

deserve to be punished.
C. FALLACY OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
Fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs when the
middle term (the term that appears in both major
and minor premise) remains particular
(undistributed) in both premises.
C. FALLACY OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
Examples:
All criminals have tattoos.
Jonlino has a tattoo.

Therefore, Jonlino is a criminal. (This is a fallacy since not

all person with tattoos are criminals. Tattoo in both major
and minor premise is particular, thus it cannot e
universalized in the conclusion that just Jonlino has a tattoo
he is necessarily a criminal.)
C. FALLACY OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
Examples:
All communist are atheist.
Lusino is an atheist.
Therefore, Lusino is a communist.
V. INFORMAL FALLACY
Informal fallacy is an error in reasoning occurring
within non-traditional forms of inference. Informal
fallacies are also known as semiformal, quasi-
formal or inductive fallacies.
TYPES OF INFORMAL
FALLACY
By: Vanice T. Bitolinamisa
JD1-LO2
Ad Hominem
- from Latin “argument to the man,” is an argument rejecting a person’s view
by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions,
qualifications, etc., as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect.

Example: What Lolino testified in court should not be believed. After all, he is
known communist sympathizer.
The form followed by argumentum ad hominem is usually:
Mr. A makes a claim or assertion.
Mr. B attacks on the person of Mr. A.
Therefore, Mr. A’s claim or assertion is false.

This is fallacious because the person may (or may not) have a bearing on the truth
of his assertions. The truth of Mr. A’s assertion should be subjected to tests other
than a mere attack on the personality, character or motivation of Mr. A, the
claimant.
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

- from Latin “you too”, argues that a person’s claim is false

because it is inconsistent with what that person’s earlier statement or
action.
Example:
Antonia teaches the message of love and peace. Yet she does
not practice it. I have seen her berate her students.
Everyone’s pro-divorce stance should be rejected. After all, she
was an anti-divorce activist just a year ago.

This is fallacious because Evonne may have changed in the

meantime. The validity of the claim should be tested by a criteria
other than the claimant’s view or character.
Appeal to Authority
-happens in any of the two instances:
a) when one appeals to authority (or custom, tradition, institution or book)
in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue or;
b) when one apppeals to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of
those in authority or those who are famous.

Appeal to authority is known by other names: fallacy of argumentum ad

verecundiam, argument authority, argument to veneration, fallacious appeal to
authority, misuse of authority, irrelevant authority, questionable authority,
inappropriate authority.

Examples:
“I believe that the statement ‘you cannot legislate morraliity’ is true, because
President Eisenhower said it.”
I use Maskinol astringent because Ms. V, my favorite movie star, uses it.
Appeal to Belief

- also known as appeal to popularity, is the

argument that because many people believe in a claim,
that claim must be true. It is fallacious in that just
because many (or most) people hold a belief to be true,
such believers are not an evidence that the claim put
forward is indeed true.
Example:
During Galileo’s time, most believed the sun revolved
around the earth. And just because the majority believed
in it, does not mean it is true.
Appeal to Common Practice

- argues that if most people do an act, it must be morally correct. This is

fallacious in that just because something is commonly practiced, this does not
necessarily make an act moral.

The belief is fallacious in that numerical majority alone cannot be a gauge for an
act’s morality. For instance: if an island has 10 people, of which 6 are non-thieves
while 4 re thiev3es. In this set-up, to be a non-thief is “moral” because they are the
majority. In case an epidemic hits the island and kills 3 of the non-thieves, the 4
thieves would now become the majority. Clearly their number alone would not
make thievery moral.

Example:
I paid the official because anyway most people do it nowadays.
Since everybody else accepts money from politicians in elections, I have no choice but to
accept.
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

- argues that a belief is true if it leads to desirable

consequences. Conversely, a belief is false if it leads to undesirable
consequences. This fallacy is otherwise known as the argumentum
ad consequentiam or argument to the consequences.
The argument is fallacious in that the consequences of a belief
could not be a determinant as to the truth or falsity of the belief.
Example:
If my belief that Jose Rizal “is alive” makes me happy, this belief in no
way makes it true that Jose Rizal is alive.
My belief that every time I wear a red shirt I will pass an examination,
has no bearing on my actually passing the examination. It may be that I
prepared for the exam.
Appeal to Emotion

- deliberately generates feelings in people so that they will act in a certain

way. Appeal to emotion assumes that truth comes with good feelings, and
falsehood with bad feeling, e.g., if it feels bad it must be wrong. This
becomes fallacious when a person bases his conclusions on emotion rather
than logic. Commonly used by politicians, cult leaders and advertisers, the
fallacy had become a tool for manipulation to control behavior.

Example:
Our sofa with electronic massager will soothe your stress every time you watch TV.
Thus, “Sofa Cum Massage” is what you and busy family needs these days.
Grocery store commercial that shows a happy family sitting around the table at
Thanksgiving.
A Red Cross commercial that shows the aftermath of a hurricane just before asking
viewers to donate money.
Appeal to Fear

- also called argumentum ad baculum, argues that a belief is

true, oa at least acted on, not because there is a “rational
reason” to believe (evidence) it is true, but because of external
factors such as fear, harm or threat. Here, a conclusion is formed
on the basis of fear and not evidence.

Example:
If you do not pass on this letter to six of your friends, an unforeseen
calamity will befall upon you.
I need to have my application acted upon by Wednesday. After that, I
will have to consult my uncle who works in Malacanang.
Talking back against your father might diminish your allowance!
Appeal to Flattery

- argues that there are persons who arrive at conclusions, or act in a

certain way, when flattered. The argument is fallacious In that the basis
of one’s conclusions is not “rational reason” or evidence but flattery.
Example:
Commercial that praises moms for their hard work and then
advertises a specific brand of diaper.
Salesguy: You look so good in it- you look at least ten years
younger behind that wheel.
( The comment about looking ten years younger just because of
the car is obvious flattery and not a fact. This would not qualify as a
valid reason for making such a purchase.)
Appeal to Novelty

- argues that a thing or idea is necessarily better

simply because it is new. One is novel, therefore good.
The argument is fallacious in that the basis one’s
conclusion is the thing’s newness, not its merit.
Example:
“If you want to make friends, you have to wear the latest
fashion and the trending gadgets.”
“If you want to lose weight, your best bet is to follow the
latest diet.”
Appeal to Pity

- also called argumentum ad misericordiam, argues that

some persons conclude or make decisions solely on pity, and
not on evidence. The argument is fallacious in that the basis
of one’s decision is pity and not reason or evidence.
Example:
“I really deserve an ‘A’ on this paper, professor. Not only did I
study during my grandmother’s funeral, I also passed up the heart
transplant surgery, even though that was the first matching donor
in 3 years.”
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look at this miserable man, in
a wheelchair, unable to use his legs. Could such man really be
guilty of embezzlement?”
Appeal to Popularity

- argues that a claim or idea is true simply because

more people are inclined to accept such claim or idea.
The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s
conclusion or decision is not evidence but an external
factor which is widespread acceptance of a belief.
Example:
“Everyone says it’s okay to lie as long as you don’t get
caught.”
“It might be against the law to drink when you are 18 years
old, but everyone does it, so it’s okay.”
Appeal to Ridicule

- argues that ridicule, or the idea of being laughed at,

may serve as basis for one’s decisions. The argument is
fallacious in that ridicule and not reason or evidence
become the support why one thinks or acts in a certain way.
Example:
“You shouldn’t drink Starbucks coffee- it makes you look elitist.”
“ Only nerds do their homework before going to the game-
don’t be a nerd!”
“Evolution? Yes, I believe that my grandparents were monkeys-
of course that makes sense.”
Appeal to Spite

- argues that spite, or hate, may substitute reason in

coming up to a conclusion. It is fallacious in that a purely
subjective emotion- spite- takes precedence over
objective evidence in coming up with a decision.
Example:
“I see that you are planning to vote for Sarah for class
president. Don’t you remember when she called you ugly in
elementary school? Wy would you vote for her?”
“You might think Bonnie is a good candidate for the job, but
doesn’t it bother you that she never says hello when she
passes you in the hallway?”
APPEAL TO TRADITION

Is the opposite of appeal to novelty.

Appeal to tradition argues that the idea is
necessarily better simply because it is older,
more tested and tried because it had een
used years over.
It is fallacious because age per se does not
necessarily qualify an idea to be better.
Older is not necessarily better
BANDWAGON
Argues that rejection (or threat of
rejection) may influence one’s decisions or
conclusions.
It is fallacious in that solid or objective
evidence takes a backseat over peer-
pressure.
The bandwagon fallacy, also called
“argumentum ad numerun”, believes in: “If
many believe so, it is so.”
BEGGING THE QUESTION

Is a fallacy where the conclusion is

assumed in the premises. Also called as
“petitio principi” (assuming the initial point).

It is fallacious because the conclusion to

be proved is assumed implicitly and explicitly
in the premise.
BIASED SAMPLE
Is committed when a conclusion is
taken from a sample, which in turn was
taken from a clearly biased source.

EXAMPLE: Bill is assigned by his editor to determine

what most Americans think about a new law that will
place a federal tax on all modems and computers
purchased. The revenues from the tax will be used to
enforce new online decency laws. Bill, being technically
inclined, decides to use an email poll. In his poll, 95% of
those surveyed opposed the tax. Bill was quite surprised
when 65% of all Americans voted for the taxes.
 BURDEN OF PROOF
Also called as argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Argues that something is true because no
one has proved it to be false, or arguing that
something is false because no one has proved it
to be true.

The argument is fallacious in that lack of

evidence on, say, side “A” is taken as proof or
evidence that side “B” is true.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM

Attacks any person’s claim by saying it is done

out of self interest.
The argument is fallacious in that instead of
hearing reason and objective evidence, the
arguer assumes that the other party is
motivated by his personal interests, such as
promoting his business, religion, honor or
political affiliation.
COMPOSITION

Fallacy of composition argues that what is

true of a part is likewise true of a whole itself.

The argument is fallacious because it cannot

be inferred simply that just because a part/s
has a distinct characteristic, the whole will
have the same characteristics.
CONFUSING CAUSE AND EFFECT

Also called as fallacy of questionable cause.

Argues that just because the events occur
together, one must be the cause of the other.

The argument is fallacious in that there is

not necessarily any causal link between two
things just because they occur together.
 DIVISION

Argues that what is true of a whole is

necessarily true of its parts.

The argument is fallacious in that what is

true generally is not always true particularly.
 FALSE DILEMMA
Also called as black and white fallacy. It
happens when one argues that there could only
be two choices for the problem, or when one
attempts to make the middle point between
two extremes as the one of the extremes.

The argument is fallacious in that there may

be more than two choices involved in the
problem, or the middle point may not be the
other extreme of the continuum.
GAMBLER’S FALLACY
Also called as Monte Claro Fallacy. It argues
that since, for example, a penny has fallen tails
ten times in a row then it will fall heads the
eleventh time, or if an airline has no had an
accident..

The argument is fallacious in that it rejects

the assumption is probability theory that each
event is independent of its previous
happening.
GENITIC FALLACY
Also called reductive or nothing but fallacy. It
argues that the origin of a thing is identical with
that from which it originates.

The argument is fallacious in that the

product or consequences of a thing is not
necessarily the same as that which it came
from.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Also called the bad company fallacy or
company that you keep fallacy. It argues that an
idea should not be accepted simply because
among those who accept the idea are people
one does not like.

The argument is fallacious in that the truth

of an idea is not determined by the character
of those who accept it.
HASTY GENERALIZATION
Also called fallacy of hasty induction, occurs
when a general statement is asserted which is
based on limited information, inadequate
evidence and unrepresentative sampling.

The argument is fallacious because not

enough is given to base the conclusion on. In a
court setting, not enough evidence offered to
support the decision.
INFORMAL FALLACY
(29-42)
By: Ely Caunga
JD1-LO2
 IGNORING A COMMON CAUSE
fallacy of questionable cause
• happens when a conclusion is made that A causes B simply because A and B are regularly
associated or connected

• the argument is fallacious in that ignores the possibility that there might be a third factor that
caused both A and B

• that A need not be the cause of B

See Confusing Cause and Effect

 IGNORING A COMMON CAUSE
fallacy of questionable cause
Examples:

Jerry noticed that everytime his bestfriend Marvin goes with him to the golf course, he
wins. Jerry attributed his luck to Marvin.

(Joke) Julia's husband loves to drink coffee with her. After his death, Julia would
suffer headaches everytime she drinks coffee. She attributed this to her missing her
husband, having associated coffee with him. In fact, it was the spoon which Julia regularly
forgets to take out from the cup that causes her migraine.
 MIDDLE GROUND
fallacy of modern or golden mean fallacy
• happens when the arguer assumes that the mean (or middle position) between two extreme
positions must be the correct position

• the argument is fallacious because it does not follow that the mean is always the correct
position
 MIDDLE GROUND
fallacy of modern or golden mean fallacy
Examples:

Splitting the middle is a common strategy in mediation. Sometimes it helps to have the
parties settle at the middle. However, this is not always true as the examples below will
show:

You want to sell your new laptop for P40,500.00. Joey, a graduate student, desperately
wants to buy a laptop but only has P500.00 in his pocket. If you really want to help Joey,
as you said, why are you unwilling to go hal-half?

Between literacy and illiteracy, the best is to be somewhere in the middle.

(A patent absurdity!)
 MISLEADING VIVIDNESS

• occurs when a person decided based on a few dramatic or emotional events rather than on the
evidence presented

• the argument is fallacious in that just because an event is vivid, does not always make it the
basis for one's decisions
 MISLEADING VIVIDNESS

Examples:

Her husband, when he was alive, used to say that small fish is especially rich in protein.
Now that he's gone, she buys nothing but small fish, in spite scientific evidence that fish,
whether big or small, are equally rich sources of protein.

I know someone who does nor eat eggs, despite the fact that eggs are among the most
nutritious of foods. He said, when he was a child, he was punished while eating an egg that
he fell to the floor. Now he will not have anything to do with eggs.
 PERSONAL ATTACK
ad hominem abusive
• the fallacy of personal attack happens when abusive remarks against the speaker take place of
objective evidence
 PERSONAL ATTACK
ad hominem abusive
Examples:

I cannot believe what you have to say, young man. You are only a few months-old
lawyer, and have to eat some more rice.

Look at the dermatologist's face. It's full of pimples. How can we believe what he has
to say?
 POISONING THE WELL

• happens when one discredits what speaker will have to say in the future by giving advance an
unfavorable information about the speaker
 POISONING THE WELL

Examples:

The girl is a pathological liar. Do not believe a single word from her.

He has had six failed relationships in the past. You may be the 7th. Avoid him.
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

• literally: “after this, therefore because of this,” argues that hust because event A occured ahead
of time, event A was the cause of event B
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

Examples:

Marin does not send her applications to courier A. Everytime she does, she gets
rejected.

Everytime Jim wears red, he passes an exam. “Red” contributed to his passing the
exam.

Generally, superstitious beliefs are examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
 QUESTIONABLE CAUSE

• argues that because two things are associated on a regular basis, one is the cause of the other

• while the two events in post hoc fallacy come one after the other, in questionable cause they go
together.
 QUESTIONABLE CAUSE

Examples:

A killed B. After all, they were seen together and arguing about shoes the night
before.
 RED HEARING

• happens when a topic foreign to the issue is suddenly introduced in order to divert attention
from the original issue
 RED HEARING

Examples:

After a senator's talk, a student asked: “Senator, don't you think it is high time that
we pass a law making education compulsory to all children below 18?” The senator cuttingly
replied, “You know, we already have too many laws regulating this and that. Besides, the
parents are to blame for producing too many children they can ill afford to send to school.”

A city kagawad pushed for the passing of a law regulating the dumping of waste on city
rivers. Suddenly, his colleague cut him and said: “These multi-national corporations are
really out to control the world.” Another said: “I remember who cleaned our rivers when I
was a kid. We used to swim and catch fish there.”
 RELATIVIST FLLACY

• occurs when a person dismisses a claim by saying that while the claim may be true for other
people, it may not work for him

• the argument is fallacious in that objective evidence may be by-passed in order to suit one's
whims
 RELATIVIST FLLACY

Examples:

A healthy non-smoking lifestyle may suit others, but it does not work for me.

Contrary to evidence, I still maintain that eating pork fat boiled in a soy sauce and
black beans is one of mankind's great pleasures.
 SLIPPERY SLOPE

• argues that once a person allows an event to happen, another event will inevitably follow

• the argument is fallacious in that there is no objective evidence to suggest that the second
evidence will necessarily follow
 SLIPPERY SLOPE

Examples:

You know young ladies. Once you allow your boyfriend to touch you beyond the elbow,
there is no stopping after that.

Do not give in. If you do, you will find squatters occupying each and every inch of your
property.
 SPECIAL PLEADING

• argues that rules or principles only apply to others but not to oneself without giving relevant
reason (or relevant difference) why he should be exempt

• this fallacy is a plan case of imposing double standard

 SPECIAL PLEADING

Examples:

Be careful young man. If you do something illegal, you will be arrested. In my case, I
have my battery of lawyers to back up.

You must not drink. It is not good for your health. Don't mind us. We are used to this.
 SPOTLIGHT

• occurs only when one assumes that those who receive that most media attantion are
representatives of the group to which they belong

• the argument is fallacious in that those who receive the most media attention are not
necessarily representative of the whole

• this fallacy is similar to hasty generation

 SPOTLIGHT

Examples:

It's often in the news that this and that celebrity had divorced and married several
times. I guess actors and actresses are naturally promiscuous.

Romblon people are often featured winning in track and field events. Indeed, Romblon
people are great runners. Maybe it is in their genes.
 STRAW MAN

• presents an opponent's position in a weak or absurd way so that it can easily be refuted

• the argument is fallacious in that one deliberately misrepresents or does not include the strong
points in other's position thereby giving the impression that the arguer's points are strong
 STRAW MAN

Examples:

Supporters of the new reproductive bill encourage contraceptives. Contraceptives cause

abortion, and abortion is killing. Thus, we must oppose the bill. (This is fallacious in that not
all contraceptives cause abortion).
 TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT

• argues that if the other party did illegal things, then it is okay for one to make an illegal activity

• the argument is fallacious in that an unlawful act done by another has no bearing on whatever
act one chooses for oneself
 TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT

Examples:

Bribing officials to win cases is okay. After all, Mr. A, a famous lawyer, does it.

I have no qualms receiving election money from candidates. Everyone's doing it; and it is
not the candidates' money to start with.
-end-