LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

PART 6
FALLACIES
Common Mistakes in Thinking

OUTLINE LEARNING GOALS

At the end of this part, the student should be able to;
6.1 Nature of Fallacies 1. Define fallacy and give examples; and
6.2 Kinds of Fallacies 2. Determine fallacious arguments and specify
what kind of fallacy is involved in argument.

6.1 NATURE OF FALLACIES. The term fallacy is derived from the Latin infinitive
fallere, which means “to deceive” or “to appear false or deceptive” (Babor,
2003). Hence, a fallacy is defined as a deceptive, illogical, and misleading
argument; it is an error resulting from the violation of any rule of logic. It is a
false reasoning which has the appearance of truth (Timbreza, 1992).

A fallacy committed with the intention to deceive or mislead an opponent

is known as sophism or sophistry. When it is done unknowingly, or due to the
ignorance of the rules of reasoning, it is called paralogism (Timbreza, 1992).
Insofar as the fallacy is an error, there is no established classification of the
ways in which men may commit errors. Hence, there is no universally accepted
classification of fallacies, for no classification of erroneous arguments is entirely
satisfactory. It would be impossible to draw up a complete list of errors, for they
are indeed multiple. Thus, presented in this volume are only the most common
fallacies.

6.2 KINDS OF FALLACIES. Although most textbooks of logic contain discussions

of fallacies, their treatments are not all the same. May times a fallacy is
classified under different headings. Here, fallacies will be classified simply into:
fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies in language.

1. Fallacies of Relevance. The mistaken arguments under this classification

rely on premises that seem to be relevant to the conclusion but in fact are
not.

1
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

a. Argumentum and Baculum (Argument to Force). An argument to force

occurs when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to push
others to accept a conclusion.
This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as
“might makes right.” The threat does not have to come directly from the
person arguing, though.
“There is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept
that truth will burn in Hell.”
“I will give you a failing mark, unless you give me a high rating in the teacher
evaluation survey.”
“A suitor who fails to win the hand of a girl in courtship threatens that he
would get back at her family.
b. Argumentum ad Crumenam (Argument to the Money). This fallacy is
committed when the appeal is made to the sense of greed or cupidity of
an individual. Instead of reasoning out of an argument, money is used,
for instance, to bribe the opponent to concede. (Timbreza, 1992)
Examples:
When a jeepney driver bribes a traffic policeman who catches him violating
traffic regulations, he is using the argument to the money.
“Please give me a passing mark, Sir. Ako na ang bahala sa iyo. Pwede nating
pag-usapan, Sir, kung magkano.”
c. Argumentum and Hominem (Argument to the Man). This fallacy is
committed when an attack is aimed not at the claims being made or the
merits of the argument, but at the opponent or the person speaking.
Thus, in argumentum as hominem, it is the person who presents the
argument who is being attacked, not the issue or the conclusion of an
argument.

Nota Bene: It is known to Filipinos as black propaganda, character

assassination, mudslinging, expose, bomba, lambing, or kabastusan. Its lowest
form is the insult, curse, or mura. A Filipino, for example, when provoked or
distressed, resorts to repertoire of curses such as pangit, hayop, tanga, gago,
bastos, bobo, torpe, sip-sip, or walanghiya. Insults, of course, do not prove a
point. If any, it shows a poor breeding (Agapay, 1991).

2
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

Examples:
“How can my opponent be relied upon? He is an ex-convict.”
“Is this the person you are going to marry? He has the kind of face that only his mother
would like to see.”
“You claim that atheists can be moral–yet I happen to know that you abandoned your
wife and children.”

d. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument to Ignorance). When it is

argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been
proven false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it
has not been proven true, argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed.
Examples:
“According to Senator A, Filipinos are poor because they are lazy.”
“There is God because my professor says so.”

e. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Argument to Pity). Argument to pity is

a fallacious argument that arises when an appeal to evidence is replaced
by an appeal to pity, mercy, or sympathy.
Examples:
“You must accept that 1 + 2 = 46, after all I’m dying.” (While one may pity
the
other person because he/she is dying, it would hardly make his/her claim
true.)
“I’m positive that my work will meet your requirements. Besides, I really
need
the job because my grandmother is sick.”

f. Argumentum ad Populum (Argument to the People). One commits this

fallacy when one attempts to win acceptance of an assertion by
appealing to a large group of people. This argument, instead of proving
an issue by reason, appeals to popular sentiments, opinions, biases,
idiosyncrasies, or emotions of people. This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language.
Examples:
“Buy this brand X detergent bar because most Visayans use it.”
“Popular basketball stars wear Nike shoes. I think the best thing to do is buy
this brand of shoes.”

3
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

A priest calls people for repentance and religious renewal by explaining

natural calamities as God’s wrath.
g. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Argument to Authority). This fallacy
appeals to an authority (person or any source) to try to win support for
an assertion.
Examples:
“According to Senator A, Filipinos are poor because they are lazy.”
“There is God because my professor says so.”

h. Ignoratio Elenchi (Ignorance of Refutation). This fallacy consists in

proving something other than that which is supposed to be proven.
Thus, this fallacy is also called “ignoring the issue,” “missing the point,”
and “evading the question.”
Examples:
The retention policy of the colleges has affected many students, specifically
the poor. The only solution to this is to abolish the policy.
The supply of food is insufficient to a growing population. But birth control
regulates population growth. Therefore, birth control assures sufficiency
of food.

In the second example, “Birth control regulates population

growth” is true. But, birth control does not provide food. Only increased
productivity in agriculture and industry can assure sufficiency of food
supply. The argument entirely “misses the point.”

i. Non Sequitur. This is a Latin phrase that means “it does not follow.” This
fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument is not logically
connected to its premises.
Examples:
“As a student of a Catholic institutions, I will become an overseas contract
worker.”
“John is an American, therefore, he is good in dancing.”
“Mahal loves Mura because Mura loves Mahal.”

j. Tu Quoque. This term literally means “you, too,” which can also
translate to “you’re another” or “look who’s talking.” It occurs when one

4
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

argues that an action is acceptable because the opponent has

performed it.
Examples:
“You say I should not smoke, but why are you smoking?”
The above example is a personal attack, and is, therefore, a
special case of argumentum ad hominem.

2. Fallacies of Presumption. In this category, the mistaken arguments arise

from dependence on a proposition that it is assumed to be true, but is in
fact false or dubious or without warrant.
a. Begging the Question. This is a fallacy in which the premises include the
claim that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) or assume that
the conclusion is true.
Examples:
“If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the
law.”
“The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.”

b. Fallacy of Accident. This fallacy arises when what is accidental is

confused with what is essential.
Examples:
Brown is a color. A Filipino is brown. Therefore, A Filipino is a color.
“There are old men who smoke. Therefore, smoking is not dangerous to your
health.”
“This is not my professor because my professor wears glasses, and this man
is
not wearing glasses.”

c. Fallacy of False Cause. This fallacy, also called post hoc, occurs when the
arguer points to something as the cause of an event simply because the
event followed it. Superstitious beliefs are examples of this fallacy.
Examples:
“I met an accident on Friday the 13th. That is a very unlucky day and a
diabolic
number indeed.”

5
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

“Jack killed a black cat. The following day he died. Therefore, it is the killing
of
the black cat that caused his death.”
“Jill cut the acacia tree near the house. The following day he got sick.
Therefore, the cutting of the acacia tree caused Jill’s illness.”

d. Fallacy of Complex Question. This fallacy is committed when a single

question that is actually of two (or more) separate questions is asked,
and the single answer is then applied to both questions.
Examples:
Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Where did you hide the cookies you stole?

This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging

something that he/she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.

3. Fallacies in Language: Mistaken arguments in this group are due to a lack of

preciseness in the words, phrases, or sentences used to express thoughts.
a. Accent or Prosody arises when a false stress of voice is placed upon a
given word in order to mislead, confuse, or produce a wrong
interpretation.
Examples:
“Do not (1) use (2) your cell phone while (3) inside the church.”
Accentuated word 1: Using a cellular phone is not allowed.
Accentuated word 2: Only your cellular phone is not allowed. (You may
use other cell phones except your cell phone, or you may use
anything except cell phone.)
“The injunction declares: Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife. But, Mrs.
Natividad is not my neighbor. Therefore, I can covet her.”
“We should not speak ill of our friends,” and “We should not speak ill of our
friends.”
b. Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are
ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing. It is a
statement with double meaning (Piñon, 1979).
Examples:
For sale: “Convertible sofa of a model used only for one week.”
Lost: “Cat of a girl with white fur.”

6
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

c. Fallacy of Composition is committed due to the assumption that the

whole has the characteristics of its parts. This happens when one
transfers the characteristics of its parts. This happens when one
transfers the characteristics of the parts unto the whole, by arguing that
since the parts have some characteristics, the whole must necessarily
have them (Umali, 2007).
Examples:
A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a
group, eat more food than do all the humans on earth.
Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

d. Fallacy of Division is committed when one assumes that the parts have
the characteristics of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of
composition (Umali, 2007).
Examples:
“You are studying at a college for rich students. Therefore, you must be rich.”
“Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore, this ant can destroy a tree.”

e. Equivocation comes from the Latin terms equi (equal) and vox (voice),
which together means “with equal voice.” When a term is used
univocally in an argument, it has the same meaning throughout, but
when it is used equivocally, more than one meaning is given equal voice.
This fallacy consists in using a single term with different meanings.
Examples 1:
Logic teaches you how to argue.
People argue entirely too much.
Therefore we don’t need to teach people logic.

In this argument, the word “argue” is used in two entirely

different senses. In the first line, the word “argue” is used to mean only
the process of arranging propositions to flow logically from premise to a
conclusion. In the second line, the word “argue” is used to include such
meanings as a heated discussion, a bitter disagreement, a contentious
altercation, and a dispute or a controversy. A logical argument may
sometimes lead to a dispute, or it may sometimes settle a dispute; but

7
 LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)

there is no necessary connection between teaching logical argument

and encouraging to bitterly argue.

Examples 2:
What is natural is good.
For man, to err is natural.
Therefore, for a man, to err is good.

“Natural” in the major premise means “a quality of being

unaltered pertaining to a thing.” In the minor premise, it means “something
expected due to imperfection.” Hence, the conclusion is not entirely
correct.

f. Fallacy of Figure of Speech occurs when one concludes that similarity in

the construction of one term with another establishes a corresponding
similarity in their meanings. One argues from the construction of one
word to the form and the construction of another (Timbreza 1992).
Examples:
Insecure is the contradictory of secure. Insincere is also the contradictory of
sincere. Therefore, inflammable is the contradictory of flammable.
Anybody restless is not restful; anybody careless is not careful; therefore,
anybody helpless is not helpful.

g. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization occurs when the arguer makes a

sweeping conclusion from a few instances or cases. The truths in the
individual cases cited by the arguer are insufficient to represent a
universal truth (De leon, 2003).
Examples:
The leader of the group that robbed the bank was a policeman. Some
policemen are protectors of criminal syndicates. Obviously, all policemen
cannot be trusted as protectors of people.
“All of you are cheaters since I caught two of you cheating. This class of forty
students cannot, therefore, be trusted.”
Some Filipinos are grafters. Therefore, all Filipinos are grafters.

8
LESSON ON FALLACIES (JOSE BADIOLA)