I.
Meaning of fallacy
Latin – Fallere or fallo – to deceive or to lead
astray
Fallacy – an argument that appears to be valid
but in fact is not
A fallacy involves:
1. An apparent truth which renders the
argument plausible, and therefore, deceptive;
and,
2. Hidden error, a disorder in the reasoning
process that cannot easily be detected
because it seems to be based on something
true
Depending on intention of the one committing
the fallacy:
Sophism – uses a seemingly valid argument in
order to deceive or win support
- the sophist knows he is not telling the
truth but simply deceives people
- it usually begins by appealing to some
genuine truths and then apply these
truths ambiguously or generally in order
to win an argument
“It is through science that a virus is detected. It
is also through science that cures for diseases
are discovered. Therefore, science is the key
to solving all diseases.” – A fallacy of hasty
generalization
“It happened not only once in the past but
many times. It is safe to say that it will happen
again in the future.”
“He was convicted of rape years ago;
therefore, this animal is the one who raped the
poor girl on New Year’s Eve.”
Difficulties in dealing with sophism:
1. Sophisms taken in isolation are easily
detected, but it is difficult to do so when they
are woven into a well-delivered discourse.
- it can easily be detected when
analyzed separately
- they have great deceiving force when
they form part of a speech (spoken or
written) or when they deal with difficult
questions
2. Some sophists make use of rhetoric and
appeal to the sentiments of their listeners or
readers; others employ logical tricks
Rhetoric – the art of speaking and
writing effectively
“Between me, who is a teacher, ang him, who
is just a student, who would you believe? Be
wise in your choice my dear students.”
Paralogism – unconsciously making a
fallacious argument, i.e., without the intention
to deceive.
“All the chairs in the classrooms are brown. I
have not seen any white chair, have you?
Therefore, all chairs in CNU are brown.”
II. Classifications of fallacy
Formal Fallacy – exists because of an error in
the structure of the argument. In other words,
the conclusion doesn’t follow from the
premises. All formal fallacies are specific types
of non-sequiturs, or arguments in which the
conclusion do not follow from the premises.
Formal fallacies are identified by critically
examining the structure of the argument
exclusive of the individual statements.
Non-sequitur (it does not follow)
arguments
“If all men are mortal, and Pedro is mortal;
then, it stands to reason that Pedro is a man.”
“I am God since I am good just as God is good.
Come follow me!”
Informal Fallacy – exists because of an error in
the structure of the argument but because of
the content (substance) of the argument
- The conclusion may be correct but is based
on a wrong premise or premises
Argumentum Ad Hominem – means attacking
the person of the opposing party instead of his
argument
The content of the attack (premise) may be
true but the attack does not address the real
issue
Pedro: “Rape is wrong because it is against the
10 commandments.”
Juan: “How can you claim that rape is wrong
when you were a convicted rapist yourself?”
Premise: Attack on the person.
Conclusion: Your stand that rape is wrong is
false.
Argumentum Ad Cellarium – to claim that an
argument is wrong simply because the one
giving it is still under authority or too young to
be listened to
Lt. Cellarium – storehouse or storeroom
Student: “I believe that one plus one is equal to
four.”
Teacher: “You are wrong, you are still a
student.”
Premise: Understanding the credibility of the
person due to his standing.
Conclusion: You are wrong
Poisoning the Well – to commit a preemptive
ad hominem attack against an opponent. That
is, to prime the audience with adverse
information about the opponent from the start,
in an attempt to make your claim more
acceptable or discount the credibility of your
opponent’s claim.
- The well is poisoned so people will not drink
from it.
- The opponent’s credibility is poisoned so
nobody believes him.
“We all know that James is a known drug
addict. So when you arrest him, I am certain
that he will deny using drugs.”
Premise: Poisoning the character of James
Conclusion: He will deny using drugs
“Sugta na ko Carlota kay kadtong nanguyab
nimo nga si Budoy, chickboy. Sige na please
kung di ka gusto masakitan.”
Argumentum Ad Populum – appeal to the
people or majority
- The argument supports a position by
appealing to the shared opinion of a large
group of people, e.g., the majority, the general
public, etc. The presumed authority comes
solely from the size, not the credentials, of the
groups cited.
“You know I am right when I say that one plus
is equal to two. Just ask, everyone present
here!”
Premise: Collecting sympathy from everyone
present
Conclusion: I am right
“Most commenters on Youtube say that what
she did was wrong, who could refute that?”
Premise: Relying on majority view
Conclusion: She is wrong
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam – this occur when
you argue that your conclusion must be true,
there is no evidence against it. This fallacy
wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from
the one making the claim.
Rule: The one making the claim should present
proof or evidence, not his opponent.
Joe: “God exists!”
Atheist: “Can you show me where God is?”
Joe: “I can’t.”
Atheist: “Then God does not exist.”
Premise: Relying on the ignorance of Joe
instead of proving why God does not exist.
Conclusion: God does not exist.
Begging the Question – occurs when an
argument’s premises assume the truth of the
conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other
words, you assume without proof the
stand/position, or a significant part of the stand,
that is in question. Begging the question is also
called arguing in a circle or circular argument.
Carl: Everyone wants the new Iphone because
it is the hottest new gadget on the market!
Jane: Why is it the hottest in the market?
Carl: “Because everyone wants it.”
“Smoking cigarettes can kill you because
cigarettes are deadly.”
Argumentum Ad Misericordiam – argument
from pity or misery
- Committed when pity or a related emotion
such as sympathy or compassion is appealed
for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
“I am innocent because look at me, I am just a
poor man.”
Premise: Getting sympathy from people
Conclusion: I am innocent
Equivocation – occurs when a key term or
phrase in an argument is used in an
ambiguous way, with one meaning in one
portion of the argument and then another
meaning in another portion of the argument.
“Don’t go near Pia Wurztbach because she is
the hottest celebrity in the Philippines and hot
things can burn you.”
Premise: Confusing hot celebrity (famous) and
hot things
Conclusion: Don’t approach Pia
False Dilemma – when you reason from an
either-or position and you haven’t considered
all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy
of false dilemma.
Saleslady: “You either buy this item or miss
chance of having a good product. I suggest tou
choose the first option.”
Premise: There are only two options
presented.
Conclusion: You need to buy this item.
Ad Verecundiam (Irrelevant Authority) –
committed when you accept without proper
support for his or her alleged authority, a
person’s claim or proposition as true.
“According to my history teacher, there are 206
bones in an adult human body.”
Premise: Using the history teacher as
authority.
Conclusion: There are 206 bones in an adult
human body.
Questionable Cause – occurs when a causal
connection is assumed without proof. All too
often claims to a causal connection are based
on a mere correlation. The occurrence of one
event after the other or the occurrence of
events simultaneously is not proof of a causal
connection.
“Every time I whistle, wind comes in.”
Premise: Whistling is the cause
Conclusion: Wind comes in.
Budoy: “Sa wa pa ka niabot sa among dapit,
mayo man among pamuyo diri. Ikaw ang
malas.”
Tikboy: Hala ka noh?
Red Herring – consists in diverting attention
from the real issue by focusing on an issue
having only a surface relevance to the first
- The purpose of this fallacy is to distract
people from the truth
Daughter: “I’m so hurt that Todd broke up with
me, Mom.”
Mother: “Just think of all the starving children in
Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty
insignificant then.”

Slippery Slope – a course of action is rejected,

because, with little or no evidence, one insists
that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in
an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope
involves an acceptance of a succession of
events without direct evidence that this course
of events will happen.

“Yesterday late for 10 minutes, today late for

20 minutes. Surely, tomorrow you will be late
for 30 minutes.”

“If I eat this donut today, I’ll probably eat

another donut tomorrow. If I eat one donut
tomorrow, I might eat several donuts the next
day.”

Two Wrongs – you try to justify an act/belief by

appointing out in others a similar act/belief, you
are committing the fallacy of “two wrongs make
a right”. This fallacy can occur by suggesting “if
others are doing it, I can too.” (common
practice). Another form of the fallacy occurs
when you dismiss a criticisms of your
action/belief, because your critic is
acting/believing in a similar way (you do it, too).

“You cheat, so I cheat too.”

“Buhay ang kinuha, buhay ang kapalit.”

Hasty Generalization – occurs when we make

a generalization on the basis of insufficient
evidence. This may occur when we rely on too
small of a sample or an unrepresentative
sample to support the generalization.

“My brother is good-looking, my sister is good-

looking, both my parents are good-looking,
therefore, I am good looking.”