I.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity are committed because of a misuse of language. They contain ambiguous or
vague language which is deliberately user to mislead people. Under this fallacy are the fallacy of
equivocation, amphiboly, improper accent, vicious abstraction and composition.

1. Fallacy of 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. Shifting the meaning of
the word to favor your argument.

Examples:
 Her going left and you going right, after your argument only means she left you for good.
 I have the legal right to demand for damages therefore it is just right for me to demand
that sum of money.

2. Fallacy of Amphiboly is claim or argument whose meaning can be interpreted in two or

more ways due to its grammatical construction. The double meaning lies not in the word but in the
syntax or grammatical construction.

Examples:
 A laptop and 10,000 pesos cash were listed as stolen by the Investigating officer.

The way that the sentence was written creates a confusion that the investigating officer was
the one who stole the items, when it only means that the investigating officer recorded the missing
items.

 The defendant, who looked apologetic, was found guilty.

The defendant who looked apologetic was found guilty.

In the first sentence, the placement of the comma makes an impression that the phrase
“who looked apologetic was describing the defendant who was found to be guilty. While in
the second one because of the absence of comma it could make an impression that there are
two or more defendants and the one who looked apologetic was the one found guilty.

There are at least three distinct types of amphiboly:

2.a. Misplaced modifiers:

In the Marx Brothers movie Animal Crackers, Groucho Marx's character

Captain Spaulding has just returned from an African safari when he speaks the
following lines: “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got
into my pajamas I'll never know.”

In this example in the first sentence it is unclear if Captain Spaulding shot the elephant
while wearing his pajamas or if the elephant was inside his pajamas. Because the modifier
was placed in the second sentence.

2.b. Ambiguous reference of pronouns:

Captain Spaulding goes on in the same scene to speak the following lines: “We
took some pictures of the native girls, but they weren't developed. But we're
going back again in a couple of weeks.”

Here the pronoun “they” produces a confusion whether Captain Spaulding was
pertaining to the pictures or to the native girls themselves.

2.c. Ambiguity of scope:

Every woman squeezed a man.

The phrase could mean that for every woman, there is at least one man that she
squeezed or there is at least one man, who is such that every woman squeezed him.
 3. Fallacy of Improper Accent is fallacy consists in misleading people by placing improper
emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim. The fallacy of improper accent
is found not only in advertisements and headlines but also in other very common human discourses.
Further, it also includes the distortion produced by pulling a quoted passage out of context, putting it
in another context, and then drawing a conclusion that is not drawn in the original context.

Examples:

: *Reading a Newspaper Headline* Duterte to declare Martial Law

: Pre, magdedeclare na daw ng Martial Law!
: Nako, lumalala na talaga ang sitwasyon ng Pilipinas.

: *Accused being examined*

When he was asked if he pleads guilty of the crime of killing another.
: I killed him? I killed him?
: *record of the court* I killed him! I killed him!

4. Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction is a fallacy which consists in misleading people by using vague or
abstract terms and occurs when vague words are misused. Vague words are misused when these
words are very significant in the premises used to establish a conclusion.

Examples:

: *Confessing Scene*
: I don’t exactly know the convo pa basta yung babae is talking about the guy not
passing “standards” pero what exactly ‘standard’ with women.

: Your honors, person is liable for not following ‘community standards’

: Your honors, I disagree with the contention of the other party. What exactly is
‘community standard’ it was not given a definite description.

5. Fallacy of Composition consists in wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals
automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals. It also involves taking attributes
of part of an object or class and applying them to the entire object or class.
 Examples:

:Bagsak daw score nung pinakamatalino natin.

:Sigurado bagsak na din tayo.

: *During trial* *Cross-examination*

: Counsel: You are involved or a member of a fraternity correct?
: Respondent: Yes sir.
: Counsel: So, we can safely say that all members of your fraternity are probably all
involved in this, correct? For all we know, you might be in conspiracy with them,

II. Fallacies of Irrelevance

1. Argumentum ad Hominem is usually known as personal attack. This is a fallacy whereby the
argument ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an opponent.
Argumentum ad hominem is of two kinds, namely: 1. abusive; and 2. circumstantial.

Abusive argumentum ad hominem attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation,
personality, or some personal shortcoming. Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, on the other
hand, is a fallacy which consists in defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or other
people of doing the same thing.

Examples:

: I support divorce bill.

: What a shame! You’re an immoral. I thought you’re a Catholic?

: I think we should not lower the minimum age of criminal liability into 9 years old.
Scientific study shows that human brain is still developing at that age.
: Dami mong alam. Law student ka hindi ka med.

2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam is known as the APPEAL TO PITY. This is used usually during
trial in order to persuade the judge to accept an argument not for its strength but because of the
counsel’s emotional appeal to pity.
 Examples:

: Patawarin niyo ako. Wala akong kasalanan. Hindi ko naman alam ang ginagawa ko
dahil wala akong pinag-aralan. Biktima rin ako ng lipunan.

: Your Honor, I believe that the accused is guilty of theft because the evidence against
him is too strong that it can no longer be overturned.
: Your Honor, I disagree on the contention of my co-counsel here. It cannot be said
that the guilt of my client cannot be overturned because as you see, my client here is
in dire need of money to attend his mother’s medical expenses.

3. Argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of
force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. One participates in argumentum ad baculum when
one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position

Example:

Believe what I say, or I will hit you

It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
Either you accept X or you will get hurt

4. Petitio Principii is the fallacy of assuming in a premise a statement which is taken to have the same
meaning as the conclusion of the argument. Thus, what is to be proved has already been assumed in
the premises.

The fallacy of the petitio principii lies in its dependence on the unestablished conclusion. Its
conclusion is used, albeit often in a disguised form, in the premises which support it.

Example:

Ghosts are real because I have seen them.

The fallacy of circular argument occurs when the premises presume, openly or
covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated.
I always vote wisely because I always vote for the Liberal Party.

The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises.
Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the
listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no
different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the
criterion of acceptability.

Complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum is

a question that has a presupposition that is complex. It is committed when someone asks a question
that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.

Two types of complex question:

Legitimately complex question is a question that assumes something that the hearer would readily
agree to. It is a loaded question.

Example:

Who is the President of the Philippines?

Illegitimately complex question is a question that assumes something is believed to be

true but in fact it is not. It is complex but not really a loaded question.

Example:

Who is the King of the Philippines?

Leading questions are those that contain incriminating assumptions that a

questioned person would seem to admit to if they answer the question instead of challenging
them.

Example:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

It implies the assumption that the questioned person is beating his wife, and whether
he will answer yes or no would only mean that he is indeed beat or is still beating his wife.
 III. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

These fallacies occur because the premises fail to provide evidence strong enough to support the
conclusion.

1. Argumentum ad antiquum (also known as: Argumentum ad antiquitam, Appeal to Tradition, appeal to
common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past practice,
traditional wisdom)

Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the
historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct.
Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is
the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.

This fallacy might conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always
work in the future.

Examples:

1. Disciplining children through physical means.

2. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman; therefore, gay marriage
should not be allowed.
3. Stare decisis?

2. Argumentum ad verecundiam / Appeal to inappropriate authority

The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy
involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be
an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in
fields in which they have no special competence.

Examples:

1. Celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements.

2. Presenting a witness who is not an expert in the issue at hand when an expert is
needed. (Paje v. Casiño)
 3. Fallacy of Accident (also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum
simpliciter, dicto simpliciter, converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping
generalization)
When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when clearly there are
exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and
to ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law. People like
simplicity and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.

Examples:

1. All should obey the speed limits on the road. Therefore, ambulance drivers should
be issued a speeding ticket.

2. The Philippines is a democratic country. Therefore, every person should be able to

vote including children.

3. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa (U.S. Jurisprudence)

 An unincorporated community on the outskirts of the city are subjected to the city's police
and sanitary regulations, criminal court jurisdiction, and business, trade, and professional
licensing power.
 Should residents of an unincorporated community on the outskirts of the city be granted
voting rights?
 The Court ruled in the negative because such rights are reserved for city residents.
 Dissenting opinion: The criterion of geographical residency is entirely arbitrary in this case.
While the general rule is that voting rights may be limited to residents, the accidents of the
particular situation - imposition of the city's police and sanitary regulations, criminal
court jurisdiction, and business, trade, and professional licensing power renders the
general rule inapplicable.

4. Hasty Generalization

The fallacy of generalizing from a small sample and failing to take this into account in the
conclusion of the argument. "Small" is a relative term here. The fallacy occurs when we present a
conclusion that is more precise than the sample warrants.
 Examples:

1. Suppose an unbiased sample of 100 Filipinos gets 55 positive responses to the

question "Do you like tokneneng?" There is no fallacy of hasty generalization if the
conclusion is reported as "Approximately 55% of Filipinos like tokneneng." There is
a fallacy if we report it as "A clear majority of Filipinos like tokneneng." This
is misleading, because our sample is consistent with the result that as few as
45% agree.

2. Ambulance drivers are allowed to go over the speed limit, therefore everybody
should be allowed as well.

3. Leake v. Casati (U.S. Jurisprudence)

Issue: Whether a local subdivision ordinance can be applied to a division of real

property ordered by the court.

The county argues that if a local subdivision ordinance is inapplicable to a partition of

land ordered by the court, then "logically, so must be the zoning, soil erosion control
and other development-oriented regulatory ordinances."

The generalization that all similar ordinances are inapplicable because one specific
ordinance is inapplicable is a hasty generalization.

5. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means an argument from ignorance. It is negative evidence. It is a

logical fallacy that provides that a statement is true only because it has not been proven false, or a
statement is false only because it is not proven true. A person considers or asserts that something is
false and implausible because the thing is not proven true. A person’s ignorance in a matter can be
used as an evidence in favor of an alternative view of the person’s choice.

If there is a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, an alternative for that hypothesis can be
considered as true. However, in criminal law, there is a presumption of innocence. If there is a mere
lack of evidence of innocence it will not constitute an evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack of evidence
of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence.

Examples:

1. You know that scientists can't prove that UFO's do not visit the Earth, so it makes
sense to believe in them.
 2. A has not heard from a potential employer two weeks after her interview and
concludes she did not get the job. Her “evidence” of not hearing from the potential
employer could be due to the fact there are other candidates being interviewed and
Nancy is still in the running.

The best example of argumentum ad ignorantiam is the presumption of innocence in criminal

cases. An accused is considered to be innocent until and unless proven guilty. It is the principle of
criminal law that if there is a mere lack of evidence of innocence on the part of the accused then it
will not constitute an evidence of guilt of him.

6. False Dilemma (also known as: all-or-nothing fallacy, false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-
or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy
of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)

When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists
between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but
can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is
when three choices are presented when more exist.

When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't considered all relevant
possibilities, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma.

Examples:

1. Be my friend or be my enemy.
2. Are you a DDS or a Dilawan?
3. A lawyer asks a witness, "Would you say that the defendant gets drunk about once a
week, twice, or more often?
The fallacy: The defendant is drunk at least once a week. The possibility exists that
the defendant never drinks. The question posed allows only for a limited number of
options.