Deep Diving Into

Arguments
The Finer Points of Logical & Critical thinking
July 30, 2019
Outline
• Logic
• Deductive Argumentation
• Inductive Argumentation
• Testing Arguments
• Truthfulness Test
• Validity Test
• Soundness Test
• Fallacies
Logic
Logic Defined
• A proper or reasonable way of thinking about
or understanding something.
• A science that deals with the study of the
formal process used in thinking and reasoning.
Logic
• Deductive Argumentation
• Top down logic
• A true premise guarantees a true conclusion
Logic
• Inductive Argumentation
• Bottom-up logic
• Premises offer strong support for the
conclusion but not guarantee
Testing Arguments
Truthfulness Test
• The Truthfulness of the Premises
• The reason is true in each of the premises, explicit and implicit.
• If inaccuracies and lies are exposed from the premise the conclusion must be
dismissed.
• Logical Strength
• If the reason were true, then the conclusion would be true or very probably
true.
• If premises may be true but the conclusion is not, arguments fails.
• Relevance
• Determines whether a point (argument) had anything to do with the argument
at hand.
• Non Circularity
• The truth of the premises is dependent in the truth of the conclusion. A
statement not supported by relevant evidence.
Testing Arguments
Validity Test
• An argument is valid, only if all the premises are true
and the conclusion is also true.
• The conclusion follows the strict necessity of the
premises.
Soundness Test
Fallacies
Flawed arguments wherein the conclusion is not
logically supported by the premises/ claims.
• Being able to detect and avoid fallacies is a criteria of
good reasoning.
• To arm you in defense of the most enticing missteps we
might take with arguments.
• Aristotle, Richard Whately, John Stuart Mill and others.
Fallacies
Formal Fallacies
• those readily seen to be instances of identifiable invalid
logical forms
• E.g. Undistributed middle, and denying the antecedent.
Fallacies
Informal Fallacies
• Invalid arguments that are not in the formal language
of logical analysis.
• Requires analysis to recognize and understand.
Fallacies
1. Fallacy of Equivocation
• An argument which exploits the ambiguity of a term
or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an
argument, such that in the first occurrence it has one
meaning and on the second another meaning.
e.g.
The end of life is death. Happiness is the end of life.
So death is happiness.
Fallacies
2. Fallacy of Amphiboly
• Similar to fallacy of equivocation, is an argument of
ambiguity due to indeterminate syntactic structure.
e.g.
The police were told to stop drinking on campus after
midnight. So, now they are able to respond to
emergencies.
Fallacies
3. Fallacy of Composition and Division
• An argument when the properties of parts and
composites are mistakenly transferrable from one to
the other.
e.g.
Every member of the investigative team was an
excellent researcher. It was an excellent investigative
team.
Fallacies
4. Fallacy of Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)/
Circular Reasoning
• An argument that occurs when the proposition one is trying to
establish is unwittingly assumed.
• The general premise could not be known to be true, the
conclusion is assumed true from the beginning.
e.g.
Mario has all the virtues.
One of the virtues is benevolence.
So Mario is benevolent.
Fallacies
4. Fallacy of Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)/
Circular Reasoning
• An argument wherein the conclusion is the same but
expressed in a different language.
e.g.
To allow everyman an unbounded freedom of speech must
always be, on the whole advantageous to the State; for it I
highly conducive to the interest of the community that each
individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of
expressing his sentiments.”
Fallacies
5. Fallacy of Complex Questions
• An argument associated with questioning. When
answering the question lead to many conclusion that
may or may not be a response to the original question.
e.g.
Are you still a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
Yes. – confirms you are a member then until now.
No. – Implies you were a member before but not
anymore.
Fallacies
6. Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after this,
therefore because of this)
• An argument which a causal relationship between two states
or events on basis of temporal successions.
• Wrongly assumes relationship between the effects and
causes.
e.g.
Unemployment decreased in the fourth quarter because the
government eliminated the gasoline tax in the second
quarter.
Fallacies
7. Fallacy of Ignorantio Elenchi (Strawman Fallacy)
• An argument of irrelevant conclusion. This is a misdirection
of the argumentation.
• An opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it
easier to refute.
e.g.
Proponent: Industrialization is the cause of climate change.
Opponent: All the ills that beset mankind is due to
industrialization.
Fallacies
8. Fallacy of Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)
• An argument which appeals to authority or expertise.
Taking as evidence/ example the pronouncements of
someone who is taken as an authority but is really not.
e.g.
Celebrities endorsing political candidates.
Fallacies
9. Fallacy of Ad Populum (Appeal to Popular Opinion)

e.g. These days everyone uses (Product X) so should you.

All ASEAN states had adopted this policy so should
the Philippines.
Fallacies
10. Fallacy of Ad Baculum (Appeal to the Stick)
• Generally involved a threat of injury of harm to the
person addressed to.

e.g. If you would not join the resistance you will fail your
subjects.
Fallacies
11. Fallacy of Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity/
Emotion)
• When appeal to pity, sympathy, or emotion is used as
evidence in the argument.
e.g. You should not believe the accusations of graft and
corruption against me. I was once a poor man
myself. Therefore I can not do such things.
Fallacies
12. Fallacy of Ad Hominem
• Occurs when the negative aspect of an arguer is used against
their proposition.
• Can be circumstantial ad hominem, when a proponent is
accused without basis of using self serving evidence.
• Tu quoque ad hominem, when a argument is dismissed based
on the none conformity of the proponent to the argument.
e.g. We should not vote in favor of the gun ban because
the proponent, Mrs. Cruz was nasty and
disrespectful.
Fallacies
13. Fallacy of Faulty Analogy
• Occurs when analogies are used as arguments or
explanations and the similarities between the two
things compared are too remote to support the
conclusion.
e.g. When a child gets a new toy he or she will want to
play with it. So if a nation gets new weapons, it will
want to use it.
Fallacies
14. Fallacy of The Slippery Slope
• Generally takes the form that from a given starting
point one can by a series of incremental inferences
arrive at an undesirable conclusion.