GS CT2 Facllacies

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE FALLACIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Deductive and Inductive Fallacies

A. Definition: Fallacy
B. Classification
1. Deductive
a. Formal/Logical Fallacies/Invalidities
b. Material/Informal Fallacies/Invalidities
Summary List of Deductive/Material Fallacies
2. Inductive
Summarty list of Inductive Fallacies
II. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE FALLACIES

Introduction
In everyday life we encounter ourselves and other people, unawares most often, engaged in
illogical reasoning. This activity is technically termed a “fallacy.” Part of our ability in promoting
and cultivating skills in critical thinking - besides asking questions, defining problems, examining
evidences, analyzing assumptions and biases, avoiding emotional reasoning, and
oversimplification, considering other interpretations, seeking alternative points, views and sources
of information, and tolerating ambiguities - is an increasing awareness of that which opposes
directly critical thinking - fallacious thinking.
In general, any fallacy may involve the following characteristics:
• INCONSISTENCY: If it contains premises which contradict each other, i.e., premises which cannot be
true at the same time
• BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO PRINCIPII): If it assumes as a premise what it is trying to
prove in the conclusion
• NON SEQUITUR (It does not follow): If it has a conclusion which is not logically supported by the
premises.
A. DEFINITION: Fallacy
• lit.: from fallo meaning “I deceive”; therefore, a deceptive judgment, i.e., an argument that
seems to be correct but is actually incorrect, a product of a mistake in reasoning*
a mistake in reasoning*/logical defective/faulty argument - the process that underlies a

fallacy that is, the capability of misleading people into thinking that such faulty argument
is logically correct, the motive being to persuade but falsely i.e., illegitimately.
B. CLASSIFICATION

For PRIVATE use only!
UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
1

In general, fallacies may be classified into deductive and inductive:
1. Deductive: when the illogicality proceeds from unknown and/or unaccepted general
statements the scope of which includes the meaning of the statement to be proven. The
conclusion and/or reasoning (argument) is said to be invalid.
2. Inductive: when the illogicality proceeds from unacceptable specific statements to general
ones; and the conclusion and/or reasoning (argument) is said to be improbable.
1. Deductive Fallacies
Generally, deductive fallacies are divided into:
a. Formal/Logical Fallacies/Invalidities: mistake in deductive reasoning since they violate the
formal principles (rules) of deductive reasoning
b. Material/Informal fallacies: mistakes with false assumptions, misuse of language and other
practices that fail to meet the standards of good reasoning.
a. Formal/Logical Fallacies/Invalidities: They are (representatives) -

- Four Terms
- Undistributed Middle
- Illicit Major
- Illicit Minor
- Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise
- Existential
- Conditional
• Fallacy of Relevant Irrelevance
• Fallacy of Purported Conditionals
- Disjunctive
- Conjunctive
In this section, we shall devote our study first on the kinds of Material or Informal Fallacies only. Later,
when we have reviewed the rules in logical reasoning, it is the right time to be aware of Formal/Logical
fallacies because they actually violate a rule(s) in syllogistic reasoning.
SUMMARY LIST (Deductive Material Fallacies)

A. Question-Begging Fallacies (petitio principii)
1. Circular Reasoning (Arguing in a Circle)
2. Question-Begging Expressions
3. Complex Question Fallacy
4. Synonymous Defining
5. Fallacies of Definition
a. Too broad
b. Too small
c. Circular
d. Failure to Elucidate
B. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Fallacy of Equivocation
2. Fallacy of Amphiboly

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
2

C. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption
1. Fallacy of Composition
2. Fallacy of Division
3. Fallacy of False Alternatives
4. Fallacy of the Slippery Slope (Domino Fallacy)
D. Irrelevant Appeals (Fallacies of Irrelevance or ignoratio elenchi)

1. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
2. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum, i.e., appeal to the stick)
3. Appeal to Public Opinion (argumentum ad populum)
a. Rally Tactic
b. Band Wagon Tactic
4. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
5. Appeal to Questionable/Unsuitable Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
6. Counterfeit Evidence
a. Meaning from Association
1) Association by Continguity
2) Prestige of Great Names
3) Testimonials
b. Repeated Assertion
c. Prestige Jargon
d. Cliché Thinking
e. Rationalizing
E. Fallacies of Refutation
1. Attacking the Person (ad hominem)
a. Abusive
b. Circumstantial (Poisoning the Well)
c. Tu quoque
d. Two Wrongs Make a Right
e. Genetic Fallacy
f. Call for Perfection
g. Connotation
h. False Attribution
2. Red Herring
3. Straw Man Fallacy
F. Trivial Objections/Pettifogging
A. Question-Begging Fallacies
• assuming what they set out to prove, i.e., the argument somehow contains the conclusion in its premises
by using the conclusion as a premise and using it to prove the same conclusion.
1. *Circular Reasoning: (Arguing in a Circle/Going around the Bush/Vicious Circle,

Circulus Vitiosus)
committed.when:
- The same proposition is the premise and the conclusion at the same time, or
- A premise whose truth presupposes or requires that we already know the truth of
the conclusion; in other words, the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the
premises.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
3

Examples of a):
- You can be sure that we will give you an honest deal on a used car since
we will always deal with you in a forthright and honest way when you
purchase a used car from us.
- To provide for unlimited freedom of speech is always right since it is
always wrong to abridge a person’s freedom to speak his views in his own
way as he sees it.
Examples b):
- Savanna told me that I’m her favorite man. Therefore, I must be her
favorite man since no woman as nice as Savanna would lie to her favorite
man.
2. Question-Begging Expressions (Prejudicia/Loaded Phrases/Language)

• language is “loaded” in order to support or reject a claim, and we are not given
reasons for that loading most often in emotive terms to attach values or moral
goodness to believe the proposition.
Examples:
- Right thinking Filipino voters will agree with me that Rody Duterte is so
far the best president the Philippines has ever had.
- A reasonable person would agree that Pres. Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo is the very opposite persona of the late Pres. Cory Aquino.
- The proposal to push for the CHACHA (Charter Change) is likely to be
passed by the trapos (traditional politicians)
3. Complex Question (Loaded Question)/Fallacy of Many Question (Plurium
Interrogationum)
• committed by asking a question that presupposes the truth of a questionable claim
that has not been adequately supported; or when two or more questions are
rolled into one question and that a single answer applies to this rolled-into-one
question.
Examples:
- Is it godless science or the current disrespect for religion that has
caused the weakening of America’s moral fiber?
Note: One is forced to accept that America’s moral life has been
weakened by either godless science or disrespect for religion. Unless
these presupposed claims are supported, we should not even attempt to
answer the question. To do so would be to accept the underlying clearly
controversial claims without support
- Have you finally stopped beating your dog, Harry?

Note: Unless it has been previously established that Harry has beaten his
dog, the unsupported presupposition of the question is that he had been
doing so. If Harry answers the question with a yes or no, he has accepted
the unsupported claim.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
4

- Have you stopped using illegal sales practices, Bitoy?
Note: The question actually presupposes asking the truth of two
separable questions: one, Did you use illegal practices, and, the other, did
you stop? If so, to demand an answer to why Bitoy has stopped using
illegal sales begs us to question why the questioner believes that he
indeed use illegal sales when in fact this has not yet been justified!
4. *Synonymous Defining (Non Probata)

• committed when an expression is in terms of itself - a procedure which the rules of
definition do not permit (tautology/redundancy.
Examples:
- A good man is a man who is good
- This is a flawless gem because it is without blemish.
Note: This is an unsatisfactory explanation because the concepts of
“good”/”flawless” and “man”/without blemish” are simply repeated, not
explained.
• committed when a term that is so defined inadequately that the ensuing definition is more
difficult to understand than the word being defined.
• Kinds
a. Too broad: committed when the definition includes items which should not be included
resulting in a definition that may refer to other objects the definition may cover.
Example:
• An apple is something which is red and round.
Note: The planet Mars is red and round. So it is included in the
definition. But obviously it is not an apple.
b. Too narrow: committed when the definition does not include all the items which should
be included;
Examples:
• An apple is something which is red and round.
Note: Delicious apples are apples, however, they are not red (they
are yellow). Thus they are not included in the definition, however,
they should be.
c. Circular: committed when the definition includes the term being defined as a part of
the definition.
Example:
• An animal is human if and only if it has human parents.
Note: The term being defined is “human.” But in order to find a
human, we would need to find human parents. To find human parents
we would already need to know what a human is.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
5

d. Failure to Elucidate: committed when a definition is more complex than the term being
defined
Example:
• Tetchy means cantankerous.
$RECAP
Question-Begging Fallacies (petitio principii)
1. Circular Reasoning
2. Question-Begging Expressions
3. Complex Question Fallacy
4. Synonymous Defining
a. Too broad
b. Too small
c. Circular
d. Failure to Elucidate
pause: Exercises
For each of the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to accept, if anything.
Then explain what is wrong with the passage and identify by name any fallacies committed.
1. That bric-a-brac figurine looks like a square figure because a square has four sides of equal length.
_____________________________.
2. Of course, we should all obviously draw the inevitable conclusion
that Metro-Manila is the best place to go to school. After all, there is no better place
than Metro-Manila to attend classes, learn, improve
yourself and accomplish all the things one goes to school to do.
_____________________________
3. That pair of jeans must be durable because it is Levi’s;
anything that is branded Levi’s must be durable. _____________________________
4. Why are you standing?

Because I am not sitting. _____________________________
5. The Assistant to the Rector for Student Affairs convened to pass judgment on a student:
“Let us deliberate on whether this troublemaker with borderline grades
should be expelled or suspended.”
_____________________________
6. Vladimir remarked: “There’s unemployment in our country
because large numbers of graduates are out of work.” _____________________________
7. Since I’m not lying, it follows that I’m telling the truth. _____________________________
8. Have you stopped beating your wife, Castor?

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
6

B. Fallacies of Ambiguity
• committed when the multiple uses of words or expressions with ambiguous meanings are used in
drawing unwarranted conclusions.
1. *Equivocation
• committed when a word has 2 different meanings used in the same argument. If it
is in a syllogism, this fallacy is called a four-term fallacy.
Examples:
• Since retirement is the end of work, and the end of anything is its goal, it
follows that retirement is the goal of work.
Note: The word “end” has two meanings: In the first premise “end” is used
to mean the cessation of something, and in the second premise it is used to
mean the goal or purpose of something. If we adopt the first meaning, the
first premise is true but the second is false. If we adopt the second
meaning, the second premise is true but the first is false.
• Nothing is heavier than the heaviest element. A feather is heavier than nothing.
Therefore, a feather is heavier than the heaviest element.
Note: The word “nothing” has two meanings: In the first premise, “nothing”
means no given thing is heavier than the heaviest element. In the second
premise, it means that a feather is heavier than the absence of anything
(nothingness). If the first meaning is adopted, the first premise is true but
the second is false. If the second meaning is adopted, the second premise
is true but the first is false.
2. *Amphiboly (Syntactic Ambiguity)

• committed due to poor or awkward grammatical construction. The argument is
declared amphibolous.
Examples:
• Rural people call the evening meal supper and urban people dinner.
Therefore, we must arrest those rural people for cannibalism before
they eat up any more urban people.
Note: The poor grammatical construction of the premise gives rise to an
unwarranted conclusion based on an unintended interpretation of the
sentence. The sentence is intended to mean that rural people call the
evening meal “supper” and that urban people call it “dinner.” The arguer
has interpreted it to mean that rural people call urban people “dinner”
and then draws the conclusion by relying on this unintended meaning.
• To be repaired: the rocking chair of an old lady with two broken legs.
Note: One is led to ask in perplexity whose legs are going to be
repaired: the rocking chair/s or the old lady’s? The poor grammatical

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
7

construction of the sentence allows an unwarranted or unintended
conclusion to be drawn.
$RECAP
Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Fallacy of Equivocation
2. Fallacy of Amphiboly
pause: Exercises
1. Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can’t avoid.

It’s an integral part of human experience. People gamble every time they get in their cars
or decide to get married. _____________________________
2. It would be illegal to give away Free Beer _____________________________

3. The sign reads: “Fine for parking here.”
Since it was fine, I parked there. _____________________________
4. My mother told your mother that
she should go to the Real Estate division of the SSS. _____________________________
5. Your dentist can’t be trusted since he’s been practicing for more than thirty years.
Anyone who needs so much practice in order to learn something can’t be very good.
_____________________________
C. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

1. *Composition
• committed when what is true of the parts is wrongly attributed to the whole.
Examples:
• Every UST player competing for the UAAP is good. We conclude that it
must be a good batch.
• If a person seeks his own good in competition with others, he will become
strong and capable. Hence, if everyone in our nation competitively seeks
his or her own good, the nation, which is nothing but the sum total of its
citizens, will also become strong and capable in its dealing with other
nations.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
8

• While walking along the streets of Malate, he declared all Filipino a tourist
was mugged one foggy late afternoon. Upon returning to his native
country from properties of the individuals of a group to properties of the
group as a whole. Most obviously, the fallacy is calling all Filipinos with a
description attributable only to a single Filipino snatcher.
2. *Division (converse of composition)

• committed when what is true of the whole is wrongly attributed to its parts.
Examples:
• The Mangyans of Mindoro are disappearing. Ambrosio, who is in front of
me, is a Mangyan. Therefore, Ambrosio, who is in front of me, is
disappearing.
• My wife is being cared for at one of the finest hospitals in this part of the
country. So, I’m sure that all of her doctors are excellent.
Note: In all of these examples, the property of the whole does not reflect that
it is the property of each part as well.
3. *False Alternatives (False Dilemma/Either-Or/ Black or White Fallacy, Apparent

Disjunctive or False Dichotomy)
• committed when an arguer presents his arguments as one of only two options/
alternatives/disjuncts when in reality there is the presence of multiple possibilities.
Example:
- Were the Philippines to shift from a presidential form of government into a
parliamentary one, she can adopt either from the British or the American models.
Note: One may well ask whether these are only models of parliamentary form of
government. Of course, not! In fact, Philippine Congress can formulate a model
endemic to Philippine culture and customs.
4. *Slippery Slope (Domino Fallacy)

• committed when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and
there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain should necessarily occur; or when a
series of increasingly superficial and unacceptable consequences is drawn.
Examples:
- Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil rights and should be
summarily abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of
newspapers and news magazines is only a short step away. After that,
there will be censorship of textbooks, political speeches, and the content of
lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind control by the
central government will be the inevitable result. A dictatorial form of
government is, therefore, forthcoming.
- You should never gamble. Once you start gambling, you find it hard to
stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually
you will turn to crime to support your earnings.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
9

- If we ban smoking in all public places, then, for sure, people, especially the
youth, would resort to using dangerous drugs instead.
Note: In each of these examples, the arguer gives no evidence to suppose that each
of the events in a lengthy chain has to occur. But without adequate evidence that each
step in the series is inevitable, this type of argument should not be convincing. Yet,
many people are taken in by slippery slope arguments.
$RECAP
Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption
1. Composition
2. Division
3. False Alternatives
4. Slippery Slope (Domino Effect Fallacy)
pause: Exercises
1. The brick was six feet tall. Therefore, the bricks in the wall are six feet tall.
____________________________
2. People Power was started in the Philippines in 1987. This was followed by people power in Korea
and then Pakistan. You see, even what happened with respect to the collapse of communism in
Eastern Europe could be attributed to and, after all, inspired by the 1987 Philippine brand of
People Power!
____________________________
3. Salt is non-poisonous, so its component parts – sodium and chloride –
must be non-poisonous as well. ____________________________
4. Son, why haven’t you gotten married and settled down?
Don’t you think it’s time for you to take a more responsible
and mature role in the community? ____________________________
5. Well, it all starts with stealing 10 cents; then you will be stealing 10 pesos; then 100 bill;
graduating to stealing 10,000. Not only that you will also be stealing something against the
copyright law like copying sources without due acknowledgment in thesis writing.
6. You say that we ought to discuss whether to buy a new car.
Well, I agree. Let’s discuss the matter.
Which should we get, a Ford or a Chevy? ____________________________
7. Either you are with the US or you are a terrorist.
___________________________
8. Cells are very small. A hippopotamus is nothing but cells.
Therefore a hippopotamus must be very small. ____________________________

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
10

D. Irrelevant Appeals
• committed by appealing wrongly to matters that are not relevant to the truth of that claim;
sometimes referred to as ignoratio elenchi (i.e., “ignorance of the refutation”), “missing the
point,” or “irrelevant conclusions”
1. *Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, i.e., from pity)

• committed by solicity, pity (sympathy) to gain acceptance of a claim instead of using
logical reasoning
Examples:
- Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant comes from a poor
background. He was badly mistreated as a child. If he is found guilty,
there will be no one to care for his wife and three children. Surely, so long
as there is any mercy and justice left in the world, you cannot find it in your
hearts to return any verdict but “not guilty.”
Note: The question of the defendant’s guilt should be determined by whether
or not he broke the law, not by the woeful nature of his condition. The latter
might provide mitigating circumstances in deciding his sentence, but it cannot
be the basis for concluding that he’s not guilty.
- Street beggars exploit this fallacy a lot. They bring along a blind person,
a pregnant woman, or an infant, to “argue” that you should give them
money
- Door-to-door salesmen may also use this line. One may convince you to buy
a gadget not because you need it, or because it is good to have one
around, but because he hasn’t made a sale yet and he has children to
feed.
- Students beg for a higher grade because they need to maintain their
scholarship.
• If the threat is of an unacceptable result, this fallacy is called appeal to consequences
Example:
- Those who would refuse to join our religion are all damned to hell.
2. *Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum, metum, i.e., from the stick)

• committed by using outside threat of force or threats against the person’s security or
by playing on the fears (ad metum) of its audience.
Example:
- Signor Vitello, as current president of the company, you must surely agree
that my youngest son, Michael Corleone, is best qualified to be the next
president. If you aren’t convinced, I can send my oldest son, Sonny, to make
you an offer you can’t refuse. Ask around about me, the Godfather. They’ll
tell you that I’m a reasonable man.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
11

Note: In this assertion, no argument is offered for the claim that Michael is
qualified to be president of the company. No effort is made to give Vitello
reasons for rationally accepting that claim. Instead, a threat is made to force
compliance with the Godfather’s demand.
3. *Appeal to Public Opinion/Popularity/to People, by Consensus, Public Opinion

(Appeal to the Gallery, Appeal to Tradition, mob appeal, ad populum)
• committed by heightening popular prejudices, consensus beliefs, customs and traditions
of his audience or by playing to favorable or unfavorable sentiments based on
patriotism, racism, sexism, feminism, political associations and other guaranteed
crowd-pleasers.
• called argumentum ad iudicium (an appeal to general judgment) because it assumes that
a conclusion is proven or valid, because people in general believe it is so
• “bandwagon fallacy” (argumentum ad novitatem), for it invites the audience to jump on
the bandwagon of popular belief (e.g., survey, poll watch) and not act contrary to what
“everybody’s doing” or “majority wins”;
• “appeal to vanity” (as it is, this fallacy is connected with counterfeit evidence fallacies)
often associates the product with someone who is admired, pursued, or imitated; the idea
that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it.
Example
- We conducted a random sample of the management in our corporation
and all their subsidiaries, including the companies that supply us with
products, and they say they are voting Liberals; so, we predict a Liberal
landslide in the next presidential election.
Note: A random sample within that management group is likely not to be very
representative of the nation’s voters.
- Look at those millions of signatures! It is the proof that to change the
Philippine Constitution, the people’s initiative would be the best!
Note: The signatures are not reliable source in the sense that these do not
represent the will of the majority of Filipinos.
- Ang sikreto ng mga gwapo! (“the secret of handsome man!”). here the appeal
is to vanity so that if you patronize the product (i.e., a facial cleanser), then you
“belong”; you are “with the crowd.”
• Kinds:
a. Rally Tactic: when the appeal is mainly geared toward heightening the emotion of
a large number of participants and get them to agree to just about anything you
say even if you do not present the arguments anymore; short of calling its tactic -
mind-conditioning:
Example:
- You might get a group of students and adults to agree that the price
increase imposed by oil companies is bad because it could cause the
upward spiraling of prices of other important goods. Once their
emotions are roused up, you could then make them agree to
participate in a blockade of oil depots, to “punish” the oil companies
by preventing them from moving their products to the retailers. Of

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
12

course, rationally, if that blockade becomes successful, oil companies
will suffer losses, which they will use as additional excuse to maintain
the prices increase, or worse, try to recover their losses by raising
prices even further. If this happens, the activists/ rally against the oil-
price increase will have contributed to another price increase.
b. Band Wagon Tactic: in which you convince an individual to believe in something or
do something because everybody else (i.e., the majority) seems to believe in it or
do it, that you have to be “on the wagon” like the rest or else you will be left
behind (“you will feel you do not belong”)
Example:
- TV Ad: “Nine out of ten models use this soap”; “the TV images of a
huge multitude attending a religious rally,” or “a miting de avance.”
Thus, the group of activists that walk along the corridors of a school
chanting “Sumama na kayo!” repeatedly to make students feel that
they should join. You no longer argue about the therapeutic or cosmetic
effects of the soap, or the theological soundness of the religious rally,
or the viability of the political platform of the candidate, or the
implications of joining the student activity. You just impress your
audience or readers with numbers
4. Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)

• committed by asserting that a given statement is accepted as true simply because it
cannot be proven to be false, or simply false on the basis that it cannot be proven
true; or that an argument is based on lack of evidence. In other words, this is
reasoning out that since you cannot know something, it does not exist, or it did not
happen at all.
Examples:
- Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably
won’t.
- I strongly believe that Lambert is an honest student. You see, Lambert is my
student in Ethics in Business and Behavioral Management. And in those
subjects, I have never caught him cheating; not even once. Therefore, I
would say that Lambert is indeed an honest student.
Note: No good reasons are offered that provide deductive support for the
conclusion. There is also no supplementary evidence indicating that a strong
effort was made to prove the conclusion’s opposite. We are left merely with
the questionable argument that because X has not been shown true, not X must
be true.
- A barangay chair might put up the sign “this barangay is drug-free” only
because he has not knowledge of actual drug abuse activities.
- A skeptic may say that heaven does not exist because no one has come
back from it to validate its existence.
- Since you do not own a gun, you must not have been the murderer.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
13

5. *Appeal to Questionable/Unsuitable Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam, i.e., from
respect/authority); ipse dixit (he himself said it)
• committed by appealing a questionable or illegitimate authority/expert as support
for a claim.
Examples:
- Scientists consider David Copperfield one of the world’s leading psychics.
Therefore, he is such.
Note: Many magicians did not agree with this. They said that scientists had no right to
make the pronouncement, because David was a sleigh-of-hand magician and a
charlatan. The magicians and not the scientists had more right to judge David.
- My definition must be correct since I have been teaching this course for 30
years.
• A kind of this fallacy is anonymous authority, the authority in question is not mentioned
or named
Example:
- Scientists concluded that humans have evolved from apes.
6. *Counterfeit Evidence Fallacies

• special kind of irrelevance distinct from the above general ones in that it makes a
convincing pretense of being relevant. In general, advertisers are prone to these types
of fallacies.

• committed when one so establishes in the mind of his prospective customers a
connection between the subject he is dealing with and some logically
unrelated subject that the prospective customer transfers meaning from the
unrelated subject to the subject under discussion.
- Kinds:
1) Association by Continguity
• committed by mentioning in the same breath or in the same
sentence the two objects or ideas to be connected.
Example:
- When a famous song is used with lyrics altered to suit
the product being endorsed, e.g. Ariel’s Best Bango
Ever! (“What a feeling! Ariel feeling, nakakabelieve na
bango you gonna try, …”)
2) Prestige of Great Names

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
14

• committed by an abuse of proper regard we have for great
men, institutions, and ideals which have stood the test of time.
Example:
- Names of outstanding personalities are quoted within a
political speech rally in the hope that the public will
transfer to the party platform or candidates some of the
esteem in which the great names are held. Recall the
2002 SONA of Pres. Arroyo in which she associated her
style of leadership to that of her father’s, Pres.
Diosdado Macapagal’s.
- Name dropping as in the case of Senate hearing
regarding graft and corruption practices in the Customs
- on either side (Lacson vs Faeldon) names of great
personalities are eavesdropped
3) Testimonials/Appeal to Celebrity
• committed through the use of a celebrity as an endorser of the
product (and others) being endorsed.
Examples:
- A popular case was Willie Villame (A Filipino
host/comedian) endorsing Manny Villar during elections
or Richard Guetierrez advocating environment causes.
- It is said that Manny Pacquiao has endorsed about 20
brand products; but most obviously, being a world
renown boxer does not make him experts in these
products that he has so far endorsed!
• committed by mind-conditioning through repeating a statement again and
again in the form of catchy slogans or commercial jingles
Example:
- “Pagkailangan ang gamut, ‘wag mahihiyang magtanong, Kung
magRiteMed ba nito” (RiteMed); “NESFRUTA BUKO? Why not,
Coconut” (NEWSFRUTA); “Doe the DEW“ (Mountain DEW)
c. Prestige Jargon
• committed by using impressive language to gain prestige for oneself or
undeserved acceptance of one’s argument
• Kinds:
1) To use pompous, inflated speech to convey simple and commonplace
ideas, as if ordinary language were not learned enough or dignified
enough to do credit to the speaker.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
15

Example:
- To say that man "suffers from circumorbital haematoma," when
we mean that he has a black eye in ordinary speech is to use
prestige in jargon.
2) To attempt to heighten the standing of a vocation or a place of business

by applying a glamorous name to it.
Example:
- Auditorium is now known as cinematorium
- A local salon is named after a Frenchy expression
d. Cliché Thinking/Quoting out of Context

• committed through the misuse or abuse of proverbs, maxims, aphorisms, and
familiar quotations in an unsuitable context; therefore, quoting a proverb “out
of context”
Example:
- Smith: I’ve been reading about a peculiar game in this article about
vegetarianism. When we play this game, we lean out from a
fourth-story window and drop down strings containing “Free food”
signs on the end in order to hook unsuspecting passers-by. It’s really
outrageous, isn’t it? Yet isn’t that precisely what sports fishermen do
for entertainment from their fishing boats? The article says it’s time
we put an end to sport fishing.
- Jones: Let me quote Smith for you. He says “we…hook unsuspecting
passers-by.” What sort of moral monster is this man Smith?
Note: Jone’s selective quotation is fallacious because it makes Smith
appear to advocate this immoral activity when the context makes it
clear that he doesn’t.
- Sometimes we consider them as oversimplified generalizations. It is
true in some situation that “Haste makes waste,” but in other
situations “He who hesitates is lost.” In some situations it is true that
“nothing ventured, nothing gained,” but in others one would “Better
be safe than sorry.”
e. Rationalizing (Camouflaging)
• one way of ego-tripping. The good involved in rationalizing favors the ego of
the person concerned.
Example:
- Alex prides: “I bought that bread spread from Pure Gold (E. Rod
Ave) because it is the cheapest there and I wanted to save
money.”
Note: Actually Alex knows that he bought the bread spread from that
supermarket only because his girlfriend works there.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
16

$RECAP
Irrelevant Appeals (Fallacies of Irrelevance or ignoratio elenchi)
1. Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam)
2. Appeal to Force (ad baculum, i.e., appeal to the stick)
3. Appeal to Public Opinion (ad populum)
4. Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
5. Appeal to Questionable/Unsuitable Authority (ad verecundiam)
6. Counterfeit Evidence
c. Prestige Jargon
d. Cliché Thinking
e. Rationalizing
pause: Exercises
1. Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. _____________________________
2. I will not issue his grade
unless he gives me Nokia N93. _____________________________
3. Professor, I know I am not doing very well in this course.
I’ve had some personal problems and haven’t been able to devote as much time as I needed to the
work. But I’ve worked very hard – as hard as I could. The material is very
difficult, and I’m not as bright as some of the other students.
Besides, if I don’t get a B, I won’t be able to graduate, and my parents are really looking forward to
my graduation.
Isn’t there a way that you could see to give me at least a B- ____________________________
4. “Cleanliness is next to godliness”;
therefore, washing your hands thoroughly will lead you to heaven. __________________________
5. Darlington socks must be the most durable socks in town.
Look who’s wearing them: Manny Pacquaio! _________________________
6. The use of artificial means of contraception must be valid;
anyways, a majority of couples are using them;
and that includes Catholics! __________________________
7. There must be something to the claim that God exists.
After all, great physicists such as Newton,
Einstein and Galileo accepted it. ______________________
8. A student was caught cheating through the mobile phone.
Once caught, he retorted back and said:
“Well, I was just checking whether it was low bat, you see!” ______________________
9. For love of country, please allow these OFWs to leave despite
political uncertainties in Syria!! ______________________
10. I’m a pepper; he’s a pepper, she’s a pepper; we’re all peppers!
You can be a pepper, too!

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
17

(1980’s Dr. Pepper jingle) _____________________
E. Fallacies of Refutation
• committed when one makes an uncalled remark addressed at criticizing directly to the arguer and
not arguments or points of view expressed by arguer.
1. *Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

• committed by orally attacking or verbally abusing a person’s characteristics or
circumstances to discredit his arguments or views. Such a tactic is called an ad
hominem argument, which means an “argument against the person.”
Note: In some cases, a person’s characteristics, motives or circumstances are relevant to
the acceptability of his claims.
• Kinds:
a. *Abusive ad hominem
• instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who
made the assertion.
Examples:
- Patricia: The country is suffering from a serious budget deficit!
Instead of investing our dollars abroad, we should try invest
them here in local business enterprises.
Miguel: What do you know about investments? You can’t even
balance your checkbooks, and you spend money like it was
going out of risk.
- “Why listen to him? Oh yes. He has been elected a senator
alright! But he is a high school graduate only! Get the point?”
- Why should we believe in the expose of this person? He was a
drug-addict and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture!
b. *Circumstantial (Poisoning the well)

• instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship
between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.
Example:
- A UST student was overheard to have remarked: “The next
championship match between UST Tigers and La Salle Archers
will be a close one. But I think the Archers will win!” His fellow
classmates kidded him: “Where does your loyalty lie ha? You
are one with us and you should be saying UST team should win
the championship match instead!”

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
18

c. *Tu quoque (You too argument)
• attacking the person who states something but does not practice what he
states.
Example:
- My parents are wrong to criticize me for coming home late,
smoking pot and getting poor grades in school. After all, they
drink and smoke, raise hell, and aren’t such great intellects
themselves. So, look who’s talking?!
- You say I shouldn’t drink, but you haven’t been sober for more
than a year!
d. Two Wrongs Make a Right

• justifying a wrong action as being right because someone previously had
acted wrongly, you commit the fallacy called “two wrongs make a right.”
Example:
- Oops, no paper this morning! Somebody in our condominium
building probably stole my newspaper. So, that makes it OK
for me to steal one from my neighbor’s doormat while nobody
is out here in the hallway.
e. Genetic Fallacy
• Discrediting the statement or belief by discrediting the source of that
belief or statement or issue (thus, it is called genetic, i.e., “beginning”).
Example:
- The idea of drinking “pito-pito” (herbal drink) juice is absurd. It
is one of many folk remedies that originated among our
aborigines and basically ignorant people who had no access to
competent medical help!
f. Call For Perfection

• in which you discredit a person, and argue that his statements are not
credible, since he has made a mistake before.
Example:
- An English teacher can commit a grammatical error; that does
not invalidate the grammatical rules she is teaching, nor her
admonition for you to learn them well.
- Some companies specializing in security even get former
(supposedly reformed) burglars as consultants, since they have
some knowledge about weaknesses in security systems.
- A math teachers may still be good at teaching math even if she
had made a few mistakes in computing her students’ grades.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
19

g. Connotation
• committed when a statement contains a harsh (dysphemistic, as opposed
to euphemistic) word, possibly used in jest, but which one picks up to
emphasize the negative or prejudicial sense of the statement
Example:
- Many instances of misunderstanding in companies whose
managers are foreigners are traceable to this fallacy. An
American boss might blurt “I have a lot of stupid employees
which union leaders might pounce upon to argue that he
denigrates the intelligence level of his Filipino employees,”
when possibly he was merely talking about their lack of training
and their inability to function well.
• If you watch the TV musical Glee you must be familiar with the character
of the cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester, who supports her arguments by
citing fraudulent or nonexistent sources. This fallacy can be maliciously
used against unwitting and uncritical people. In our Age of Information
Technology, however, attributions can easily be checked out. In fact, some
articles have already come out detailing what famous real-life, literary or
film characters did not say.
Example:
- In November 2010, Pope Benedict XVI was reported to have
said that the use of condoms is “morally justified” or
“permissible” in order to stop the HIV transmission, in an
apparent change in the Vatican’s opposition to the use of
contraceptives. It was a false attribution. What the Pope said
was that there might be a basis in the case of some individuals,
as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where it can
be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first
assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an
awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot
do whatever one wants. Thus, when one says “according to so
and so,” beware.
2. *Red Herring/Evading the Issue/Avoiding the Issue

(note: The expression “red herring” comes from a procedure used to train hunting dogs to
follow a scent. A red herring is dragged across the trail with the aim of leading the dogs
astray. Since red herrings have an especially potent scent, the best dogs will follow the
original scent); also called “missing the point,” “straying off the subject,” or “digressing
and not sticking to the issue.”)
• committed by diverting from the real issue of an argument or view into side issues.
Examples:

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
20

- A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his
wife’s consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent,
the city official talks only about his wife’s conservative wardrobe, the
family’s lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little
League baseball.
- Sandoval: Ay, Mr. Buenaflor, the wages I’m paid aren’t living wages. They
are below the legal minimum wage. Given my increased overtime hours, I
think I deserve a raise.
Buenaflor: Sandoval, when I was your age I worked for half the money
you’re getting. Even today there are people in other countries who make in
a year what you make in a month. Don’t you think they would love to have
your job? Think about them before you think about complaining.
- There is a great deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate
pesticides from our fruits and vegetables. But many of these foods are
essential to our health. Carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A.
broccoli is rich in iron, and oranges and grapefruits have lots of vitamin C.
3. *Straw Man Fallacy

(Note: A “straw man” is an insubstantial thing, something easily destroyed; therefore, attacking an
argument which is different from, and usually weaker than the opponent’s best argument.)
• committed by distorting an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily
attacking it, demolishing the distorted argument, and concluding that the opponent’s
real argument has been demolished; in other words, consisting in a misrepresentation
of the position that one wishes to oppose in such a way that he would appear first to
be agreeing on the issue; yet, the truth of the fact is that he was really opposing.
Accordingly, this error is committed:
a. When a person attacks weak arguments for a position for which there clearly are
stronger arguments. He believes that he has thereby refuted the position. But he
has only “attacked a straw man”;
b. Sometimes the attacker himself creates a weakened version of an argument
through distortion or deliberate misinterpretation and then proceeds to attack his
own creation. He creates and attacks a straw man, rather than dealing with the
strongest possible arguments for a position.
Examples:
- Milton: Unless we construct a nuclear power plant in this area within the
next few years, we will not be able to meet the significantly growing
demand for power. Hence, we should seriously consider feasibility of
building the proposed nuclear facility.
- Hilton: Well, it’s obvious here that Mr. Milton is saying that we shouldn’t
care about what happens to the wildlife, plant life and human life that
might be harmed by a nuclear plant in this area. He concludes that we
should build this plant. Well, life is very precious to me, and I care. I’m
sure you all care. Thus, his views on the proposed plant clearly have no
merit.
Note: Hilton creates a straw man by claiming that Milton says that life in the
area should be of no concern in constructing the nuclear plant, and that Milton

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
21

concludes that the plant should be built. Milton has not said or concluded
anything like this. Yet Hilton easily disposes of the indefensible views he imputes
to Milton and takes himself to have refuted Milton’s argument for merely
considering the plant’s construction.
F. Trivial Objections/Pettifogging
• *committed by picking at easily remediable points that are not crucial to the argument rather than
dealing with important weaknesses or unduly focusing on insignificant criticism of it and taking such
criticism as a refutation.
• Pettifogger: is one who concentrates his attention on petty issues and who resorts to
questionable methods. Essentially, he tries to make an issue of something trivial. Hence, the
fallacy of pettifogging includes a variety of petty tricks of arguments. This includes:
1) Quibbling, i.e., evading the point of an argument by unfairly using words of double
meaning;
2) Arguing over the meaning of a word when there is no reasonable doubt about its
meaning; Making unreasonably fine distinctions and
3) Wrangling about trivial points in such a way as to obscure presenting the manner in
which an argument is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true (style
over substance)
Examples:
- Vicky has sent this letter arguing against the construction of a fast food
restaurant in her neighborhood. But, look at all her spelling errors, the
typos and the awkward grammar that she uses. I don’t think that we should
take her seriously until we get a more respectable presentation of her
views.
Note: Vicky’s spelling and grammar aren’t relevant to the strength of his
arguments. Based on logically insignificant criticism, the critic unwarrantedly
declines to consider Vicky’s views.
- A student preparing to demonstrate a proposition in geometry drew some

circles on the blackboard. A fellow student argued that the demonstration
could not proceed because the circles were not perfectly drawn.
Note: The second student’s argument was pettifogging, for technical
perfection in the drawing of the circles was not essential to the success of the
geometric demonstration.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
22

$ RECAP
Fallacies of Refutation
1. Attacking the Person (argumentem ad hominem)

a. Abusive ad hominem
b. Circumstantial (Poisoning the well):
c. Tu quoque (You too argument)
d. Two Wrongs Make a Right:
e. Genetic Fallacy:
f. Call For Perfection
g. Connotation Fallacy
2. Red Herring/Evading the Issue/Avoiding the Issue
3. Straw Man Fallacy
pause: Exercises
Trivial Objections/Pettifogging
1. It has been proven: That professor of ours in Scriptural Hermeneutics

does not really read essay answers in our
exams. I may as well copy your answer for item no. 2
while you copy mine for item no. 3. Got it? ___________________________
2. Think twice if you so decide to have hilot (Filipino brand of massage) coz based on Filipino
tradition, they are performed with incantations addressed to spirits.
____________________________
3. Muslim Filipinos should not be given any voice in Congress.
They are just a minority in Mindanao;
worse is that some of them have turned out to be terrorists. ____________________________
4. Passive resistance may not succeed but there is
no guarantee that military force will succeed either. ____________________________
5. Why should we trust him?
After all, he is an ex-convict paroled after five years in prison.
____________________________
6. Let women stand in buses and LRT like men.
Hit them like men, when they talk back. They have been preaching
women’s lib asking equal rights like men, see! _____________________________
7. Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from
responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals. ___________________________
8. Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning.
They point to US practices of slavery to justify their system. ___________________________
9. Although the class has voted Boracay as our summer workshop venue next year,

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
23

we cannot proceed
because our plane ticket numbers are not yet arranged chronologically.
_________________________
10. The Catholic clergy should stop meddling in political issues of the country; after all,
there is an absolute separation between Church and state, isn’t it?
__________________________
11. Will the new tax in Senate Bill 47 unfairly hurt business?
One of the provisions of the bill is that tax is higher for large employers
(fifty or more employees) as opposed to small employers (six to forty-nine employees).
To decide on the fairness of the bill, we must first determine
whether employees who work for large employers have better working conditions
than employees who work for small employers. ___________________________

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
24

2. INDUCTIVE FALLACIES
You should take the fallacies in this hand-out as brief summaries of the types of errors committed in
inductive inferences. Reference to these fallacies occurs often enough in everyday critiques of inductive and
statistical arguments to make your knowledge of their names helpful.
It is an error in assessing inductive outcomes baed on inductive reasoning.
SUMMARY LIST (INDUCTIVE FALLACIES)
A. Fallacies of Generalization
1. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident Fallacy)
2. Dicto simpliciter
a. Accident Fallacy (Destroying the Exception)
b. Reverse/Converse Accident (Destroying the Rule)
B. Fallacies of Misuse of Evidence

1. Irrelevant Conclusion
2. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
C. Statistical Fallacies
1. Fallacy of the Biased Sample (Biased Statistics)
2. Fallacy of the Small Sample (Insufficient Statistics)
3. Gambler’s Fallacy
D. Causal Fallacies
1. Confusion of Cause and Effect
2. Neglect of a Common Cause
3. False Cause Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
4. Confusion of Causality Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
5. Genuine but Insufficient Cause
6. Complex Cause
E. Faulty Analogy
A. FALLACIES OF GENERALIZATION
1. *Hasty Generalization/Jumping to Conclusion (Converse Accident Fallacy)

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
25

You are guilty of a hasty generalization when
• you choose to draw a general conclusion and your data is “inconclusive.”
• you draw a stronger or more sweeping generalization than your evidence warrants.
• you generalize from incomplete or partial information.
The fallacy results from generalizing from insufficient, incomplete or biased evidence (too
small).
Example:
- I don’t see how my professor can say that Filipino students aren’t spending
most of their waking hours studying and going to classes. This study conducted
by UP among Metro Manila top four University honor college students shows
that their students spend on the average of 60 hours a week on such study
related activities.
Note: Here, the implicit conclusion is that Filipino students are spending most of
their waking hours on scholarly activities. The data are drawn from the habits of
college honor students. But college honor students are chosen for their strong
scholarly commitments. They are under intense competition and are likely to be
highly motivated. A sample taken only from them may not represent Filipino
students in general. So, the generalization is unwarranted. A sample more
representative of all Filipino students should be gathered, or the generalization
should be qualified by limiting it to college honor students.
- I went to the opening of that new gourmet restaurant the other night. What a
mediocre meal! I’ll never go there again.
Note: The evidence is based on two small a sample. One bad meal does not a
bad restaurant make. Also, restaurants may need time to get their menus settled
and their routines organized. So, evidence drawn from opening night may not be
representative of the restaurant’s quality. Thus, the arguer is drawing a hasty
generalization from what may be a biased sample.
2. *Dicto simpliciter
• from 2 Latin words: dicto (verb) meaning “not just saying something, but saying it
repeatedly,” or “repeating something that has often been said.” Hence, a dictum is a
“commonplace saying,” i.e., something frequently said; and simpliciter (adverb)
meaning “plainly or artlessly.” The phrase dicto simpliciter is, therefore, a Latin phrase
meaning “to repeat a commonplace saying without qualification.”
a. Dicto simpliciter – Accident
b. Dicto simpliciter – secundum quid (Reverse Accident)
a. Dicto simpliciter – Accident (Destroying the Exception)

• committed by exploiting an over-simplistic or unqualified statement of a rule to
prohibit what should be recognized as valid exceptions to that rule.
Examples:
- That ambulance deserves a ticket for traffic violation. No one is
allowed to run red lights!

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
26

- Look, lady, I know your kid is 12 months old. But the MTRCB has
classified this film as R. No one under 18 is allowed for an r-rated film.
So, you’ll just have to leave. Sorry!
Note: In 1) and 2) there is an existing rule. But it allows some exceptions
to it. In 1) ambulance has the right to run red lights since it is presupposed
that it carries a patient fight for life. In 2) We know that the code for R-
rated films is directed to underage children who are capable of watching
the films and who might be adversely affected by the content. It was not
meant to cover infants.
- Parents should not deceive their kids by telling them things that are not
true. So, it’s wrong for you to tell your kid that Santa is bringing them
those presents that you’re spending all that money to buy.
Note: The moral injunction against lying is misapplied to the childhood
myth of Santa Claus. We enrich our lives with plats, myths, stories and
games. We do not usually apply the principle that lying is wrong to
fanciful and amusing childhood fictions. Yet, the Arguer incorrectly insists
on doing so. He misapplies a sound principle to an inappropriate case.
b. Dicto simpliciter – secundum quid (Reverse Accident)

• committed by exploiting an over-simplistic or unqualified statement of a rule to
argue, based on what should be recognized as a valid exception to that rule, that
the rule should be rejected altogether.
Example:
- Because we allow terminally ill patients to use heroin, we should allow
everyone to use heroin.
Note: The application of a drug called heroin to ease the pain of some
cancer patients is justified; but such justification cannot be generalized to
cover usual use of it in any case whatsoever.
- I don’t see why we have to have class every day this week. Last week
we got out one day because of the tropical storm Ondoy!
Note: Now the exception has become the rule!
- Jogging is good for the health (general rule); therefore, a person with
heart diseases (exceptional case) could also improve his health by
jogging.
$RECAP
Fallacies of Generalization
1. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident Fallacy)
2. Dicto simpliciter
a. Dicto simpliciter – Accident
b. Dicto simpliciter – secundum quid (Converse/Reverse Accident)
pause: Exercises

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
27

Generalization Fallacies
For each off the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to
accept. Then explain what is wrong with the passage, if anything. Finally, identify by name any
fallacies committed.
1. The Bill of Rights ensures that this country should always enjoy perfect freedom of
the press. This is the foundation of our democracy. So, surely, you must agree that
the courts should not be allowed to force us to remove our books from the shelves.
________________________________
2. I’ve asked Dorothy to go out with me twice already. Both times she said that she
was going out with the members of her ballet class. It’s clear to me that she and her
ballet friends don’t like men.
________________________________
3. Right sir! I know that you’re wife is well and you felt that you had to drive 80 miles
an hour, which is 25 miles over the limit. But my job is to enforce the law. The law is
clear. So, I’ll have to cite you for speeding. Please sign the citation, sir, and I’ll let
you be on your way. Your wife does look pretty bad.
________________________________
4. I don’t care if you do have a bloody nose! No one can go to the restroom without a
hall pass signed by the principal!
________________________________
5. Did you see that ambulance run that red light? Clearly, people can drive anyway
they like around here!
________________________________
B. FALLACIES OF MISUSE OF EVIDENCE

• committed when a person argues for a certain conclusion while falsely believing or
suggesting that a different conclusion is established, one for which the first conclusion is
irrelevant.
Examples:
- Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the victim was taunted, then repeatedly
punched, stabbed and left to die. You have the evidence of the brutality of

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
28

the crime. On that basis alone, you have no alternative but to conclude that
this man is guilty.
Note: The conclusion to draw is that the crime was a horrible one. That is what
the evidence warrants. There is no evidence suggesting that the defendant
committed the crime. Yet that is the conclusion the prosecutor wants the jury to
draw. To follow him along on this would be to commit an irrelevant conclusion
fallacy.
- The evidence is clear. Domeng has always worked hard. He is an upright,

patriotic young man. He is polite, congenial and never had a bad word to
say about anyone. Thus, you can see that he is well-qualified to go to your
medical school.
Note: Domeng’s personal characteristics cited as evidence may make him an
excellent person. They are not sufficient nor even necessary for making him an
excellent candidate for medical school. Unless you have evidence that
Domeng has the grades and the talent for medical studies, you should not
accept the arguer’s invitation to draw an irrelevant conclusion.
2. *FALLACY OF SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE/SLANTING

• committed by ignoring, suppressing or minimizing the importance of evidence that may
be unfavorable to the desired conclusion. This error not only covers intentional slanting
of evidence in order to gain acceptance, but unintentional omissions as well. The latter
often occurs when beliefs are so strongly held that we prevent any evidence that
might oppose them. This is specifically called stereotyping. It also covers the failure to
examine various sides of an issue when fairness demands that we do so before
drawing our conclusion.
Note: Using stereotypes (false beliefs) as if they are accurate generalizations
for the whole group is an error in reasoning. Stereotypes are general beliefs
we use to categorize people, objects, and events; but these beliefs are
overstatements that should not be taken literally.
Examples:
Buying the Cracy Mac 11 computer for our company was the right thing to do.
It meets our company’s needs; it runs the programs we want it to run; it will be
delivered quickly; and it costs much less than what we had budgeted.
Note: This appears to be a good argument, but you’d change your assessment of
the argument if you learned the speaker has intentionally suppressed the relevant
evidence that the company’s Cracy Mac 11 was purchased from his brother-in-
law at a 30 percent higher price than it could have been purchased elsewhere,
and if you learned that a recent unbiased analysis of ten comparable computers
placed the Cray Mac 11 near the bottom of the list.
C. STATISTICAL FALLACIES
Note:The first two of the three fallacies discussed are often called “sampling errors.”

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
29

1. FALLACY OF THE BIASED SAMPLE (BIASED STATISTICS)
• committed by drawing out a generalization from a sample that is not representative
of its population. When the error is with the size of the sample, it is called small
sample or biased sample. When the error is with the representativeness of the sample,
it is called unrepresentative sample. When some of the statistical evidence is hidden
or overlooked, it is also called suppressed evidence.
Examples:
- We wanted to know what Mindanaoan votes thought of the peace and
order issue in Mindanao. We selected every 1,000th man from the
Davao/Cagayan de Oro phone directories and included him in our
sample. Based on 76% response from our sample that the peace and
order situation issue is an important factor for them in the recently
concluded presidential election, we conclude that over three out of four
Mindanaoan voters would answer that peace and order was an important
issue for them in the last election.
Note: the arguer’s population is all Mindanaoans voters. Davao and Cagayan
de Oro are only two capital cities in Mindanao, and a conclusion drawn from
this sample would have to be limited to Davao/Cagayan de Oro voters. Even
then, the sample is biased because “man” as the target population is vague;
and hence, any sampling taken from it will also inherit the same
characterization. Specifics like age, gender, and origin are important
considerations in the sampling technique.
- When I was in Paris, I was treated rudely by the waiters practically every
time I went into a restaurant. Yes, the French are extremely rude to Asians.
I strongly recommend that you do not vacation in France this summer.
Note: The arguer’s conclusion about the population of all the French is based
on a sample of Parisian waiters serving him in restaurants. The sample is
biased on several counts. First, not every member of the French population
such as a non-Parisian has an equal chance of selection. Second, his sample is
biased in regard to Parisians since most Parisians are not waiters and are
automatically excluded from the sample. Since we have no idea of what
constitutes rule behavior for the arguer and also don’t know in what
restaurants or through what behavior he obtained his data, we must consider
his sample worthless even for the population of Parisian waiters. Finally, since
we don’t know how many waiters were rude to him, his sample may well be
too small. And this leads us to the next possible source of sampling error
2. FALLACY OF THE SMALL SAMPLE (INSUFFICIENT STATISTICS)

• committed by using too small a sample to warrant any confidence in the conclusion;
also when greater reliability is attributed to the conclusion than is warranted by the
sample size.
Examples:
- I met Molly yesterday, and she was very unpleasant. Twice I tried to talk with her,
and both times she was surly and gruff. And later when I asked her a question, she

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
30

ignored me and walked away. It’s obvious that she’s got a real unpleasant
personality. I’m not going to have anything to do with that person again.
Note: The arguer is guilty of drawing too strong a conclusion from too small a
sample. Three observations of a person’s behavior are not usually sufficient to
draw conclusions about a population that includes her behavior in general.
Since the observations are so closely clustered and the first two may have
affected the third, the arguer may also be guilty of a biased sample.
- Yes, a scientific investigation was conducted with a test group of elementary school
students. We found that 95% of our test group had fewer cavities when brushing
with Close Up regularly after meals. Make sure your children use only Close Up.
Note: We have a familiar type of advertisement. Aside from other problems,
the speaker never tells you the size of the test group. Assuming that fairness in
advertising laws forced the company to make some kind of study rather than
just inventing one, we take this vague report of the result as worthless and
probably based on an insufficient sample that was carefully selected for a
favorable outcome.
3. GAMBLER’S FALLACY
• committed by falsely assuming that the history of outcomes will affect future outcomes.
It gets its name from the gambler who believes that his luck will change when he has
had a bad run. The error occurs when one infers that an independent event is due to
or that its probability of occurrence is altered by a run of events preceding it.
Examples:
- Boy, I’m gonna be rich. I’ve been watching that roulette wheel all night.
Twelve hasn’t come up. It’s due. I’m gonna go over there and bet twelve. I’ll
make a bundle on this move.
- That’s 20 passes in a row that Joe has made. He’s gotta miss it this time. I’m
betting against him.
Note: In a. and b., the arguer is clearly guilty of the gambler’s fallacy. Unless
he has some reason to believe that the wheel is fixed, he is going to lose his
money. The continued non-occurrence of twelve does not improve the odds
that twelve will come up on the next roll of the wheel. Likewise, 20 passes in
craps is rare. Joe will miss eventually if the dice aren’t loaded. But the odds
that he will or will not pass on the next roll of the dice remain the same. It’s an
error to conclude that he’s “gotta miss,” whether he misses or not.
$RECAP
Fallacies of Misuse of Evidence
2. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
Statistical Fallacies
1. Fallacy of the Biased Sample (Biased Statistics)
2. Fallacy of the Small Sample (Insufficient Statistics)
3. Gambler’s Fallacy

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
31

pause: Exercises
Statistical and Misuse of Evidence Fallacies
For each o the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to accept.
Explain what is wrong with the passage, if anything. Identify by name any fallacies committed:
1. I looked at the final exam that Joe wrote for his English class. Boy, he sure has bad
handwriting. I don’t think we should let him be our graphic artist, regardless that our
art teacher recommended him.
________________________________
2. I tried eating an oyster. Let me tell you my friend, never again, never again.
________________________________
3. With all the millions of people who have died, no one has returned to tell us of an
afterlife. So, clearly, someone is due to come back soon to tell us of life after death.
________________________________
D. CAUSAL FALLACIES
In the possible causal relations of two event X and Y, there are three cases that interest us:
3. False Cause Fallacy
5. Genuine but insufficient cause
6. Complex cause
1. *Confusion of Cause and Effect

• committed by misreading of causal relations, i.e., that Y is caused by X when in reality Y is causing
X.
Example:
- Whenever Tipsy drinks, he’s really tough to be around. He’s unhappy, wants to quit his
job and says he has no good reason to live. Really, he should stop drinking. Drinking
makes him a real bummer, man.
Note: The supposed correlation between Tipsy’s drinking and his unhappiness
should not lead us to the immediate conclusion that the drinking causes the
unhappiness. It’s equally plausible to conclude that being unhappy leads him to hit
the bottle. The arguer needs further investigation and evidence to rule out this
rival conclusion. This error is less likely to occur when the effect is clearly
separated from and come after the cause. We are more likely to commit this
error when cause and effect are concurrent conditions or where the causal
influence is producing the effect over time. Such complex situations require careful,
painstaking analysis before we draw any likely conclusions.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
32

2. *Neglect of a Common Cause
• X is not the cause of Y nor Y is the cause of X but that that both are effects of a single
underlying cause.
Examples:
- Jostle has a bad fever. That’s probably what’s causing all those red spots on
his face.
Note: The arguer concludes that Jostle’s fever is causing the spots on his face.
Although it could be true if Jostle has a fever rash, this conclusion is unwarranted
without further evidence. If Jostle has measles, then both the fever and the spots
are effects or symptoms of Jostle’s infection.
- No wonder! Nobody has invited Polimer to any parties since he came to school
here. Have you noticed how sad and brooding he always looks? With that kind
of personality, I’ll never invite him to my party. Besides, wasn’t he socially
blacklisted by the Prom Committee?
Note: The arguer concludes that Polimer’s sad demeanor is the reason no one
invited him to parties. But obviously, he is not taking care to assess his own
evidence. It’s possible that Polimer is sad and that he is not invited to parties
because he has been blacklisted by the Prom Committee. This would make both of
these the effects of a common cause. To eliminate this alternative hypothesis, the
observer might try to find out what Polimer’s personality was like before he was
blacklisted. It is advisable as well to ask people why they haven’t invited Polimer
to parties. Without further evidence, the conclusion is unwarranted.
3. *False Cause Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy/Coincidental Correlation)

[Note: called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is Latin for “after this, therefore, because of
this.” A person who commits this fallacy is often accused of post hoc reasoning.]
• drawing out of a wrong conclusion simply because Y came after X, X must have caused Y.
Examples:
- Yeah, young fella, no sooner did they start to fluoridate water than my friends
began to die from heart attacks. Nope. It just doesn’t pay to fool with nature.
That’s what eighty years has taught me.
Note: The arguer implicitly concludes that drinking fluoridated water has ` caused
his friends to die from heart attacks. But, since he is 80 years old, his friends were
likely to be old as well, and they may simply have died of natural causes. Of
course, there may be some heretofore undiscovered causal connection between
drinking fluoridated water and heart failure in aged people. But without further
investigation and evidence, this is not a viable hypothesis.
- Karen became ill after she started working at the nuclear plant. She was
perfectly healthy before that. I can only conclude that she is suffering from
radiation poisoning caused by her working there.
Note: The arguer’s conclusion that Karen’s working at the plant caused her to
become ill from radiation poisoning is based solely on the evidence that she
became ill after she started to work there. If this is all he has, then he is guilty of

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
33

post hoc reasoning. He needs more evidence to warrant his conclusion. For
example, he gives us no evidence that she’s suffering from radiation poisoning.
That would be excellent support for his conclusion that working at the nuclear
plant caused her illness, if the plant was the only place that she was exposed to
radioactive materials.

• a mistake or confusion of a cause as a necessary condition with a cause as a sufficient
condition for its effect. It occurs most likely as a result of the arguer’s not understanding
the language of conditionals.
Note: Condition* vs Cause*:

A scientist understands cause or causality quite distinctly from the way a philosopher
understands the terms. Since science deals with proximate (physical) causes while
philosophers deal with ultimate causes, i.e., efficient causality.
In philosophy, -
Condition: something required in order that an efficient cause can act, but it does not
contribute any positive influence toward the production of the effect itself.
Cause: something which contributes in a positive manner in the production of a thing.
What the scientist refers to as “physical causes” are but the necessitating and
indispensable conditions or antecedents of physical events, not the “producing agencies”
which exerts a positive influence in bringing things from being non-existent to actually
existence through a process of productive change or through creation.
- That the filament of an electric bulb may become incandescent, it is necessary to push
the button of the switch, so that the electric circuit will be closed; but the pushing of the
button does not make the filament glow.
- A clear sky is a condition for an effective artillery action; but the weather has in itself
nothing to do with shooting of a cannon.
Conditio sine qua non:

If a condition is so necessary that the efficient cause cannot produce its effect under any
circumstances without it, it is called conditio sine qua non, i.e., “a condition without which the
cause does not act.”
- Light is a conditio sine qua non for me to see clearly (for the act of seeing).
In physical sciences, a conditio sine qua non is regarded as both necessary and sufficient
condition of a given effect. The effect never occurs without the cause nor the cause without
the effect.
The presence of a massive body is causally necessary and sufficient for the presence of a
gravitational field. Without mass, no gravitational field and vice-versa.
1) Necessary cause or causally necessary condition

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
34

• A necessary cause for an effect is a condition which is needed to produce E. If C is
necessary cause for E., the E will never occur without C, though perhaps C can
occur without E.
Example:
- Tuberculosis bacillus is a necessary cause of the disease tuberculosis.
Tuberculosis never occurs without the bacillus but the bacillus may be
present in people who do not have the disease.
Note: A given effect may have several necessary causes. Fire, for
example, requires for its production three causally necessary conditions:
fuel, oxygen (or some similar substance) and heart.
2) Sufficient cause, or causally sufficient condition

• A condition C is a sufficient cause for an effect E if the presence of C invariably
produces E. If C is a sufficient cause for E, then C will never occur without E. though
there may be cases in which E occurs without C.
Example:
- Decapitation is a sufficient cause for death. Whenever decapitation
occurs, death occurs. But the converse does not hold; other causes
besides decapitation may result in death.
Note: Sometimes, the condition consists merely in the removal of an obstacle

for the cause; the presence of the obstacle hinders the cause from acting.
Example:
- If a person’s feet are tied, it is a necessary condition for walking that
the impediment be removed.
- If a person is locked in a room, the door must first be unlocked before
he is free to leave or go out of the room.
Examples
- Beatrice, you said if I wanted to bake a good, light soufflé, I had to
use fresh eggs. That’s exactly what I did. But my soufflé was heavy and
tasteless. It ruined my dinner party. I’ll never listen to you again.
Note: Beatrice’s statement means that fresh eggs are a necessary
ingredient in producing a good result. We don’t know whether or not she
stipulated other necessary conditions such as even heating. In any case,
the arguer concluded that fresh eggs are sufficient for the requisite result.
This is an obvious mistake. However, people often misunderstand the
language of conditionals. Words such as “only” and “unless” are often
used to suggest that the conditions described are both necessary and
sufficient.
- Professor, you said that I wouldn’t get an A in your course unless I got
an A on the final. And that’s exactly what I did. So, you lied. You gave
me a B. I’m going to protest this.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
35

Note: The arguer doesn’t heed this advice. He takes the professor to
mean that getting an A on the final is a sufficient condition for getting an
A in the course. The professor’s statement makes it a necessary condition,.
Perhaps, the professor should have made himself clearer if he knows how
commonly people misinterpret conditional statements. Since we don’t know
what else was said, we are in no position to affix blame. Based on the
available evidence, however, the arguer’s protest is unfounded.

• committed by identifying something wrongly as a genuine cause, but insignificant when
compared to the other causes of that event. Note that this fallacy does not apply when all
other contributing causes are equally insignificant.
Example:
- The quality of education in the Philippines is declining. Filipinos are all the more
getting poor in English. Clearly, Filipino teachers just are not doing their job
these days.
Note: Decline in the quality of education in the Philippines are caused by many
factors, which include poor study habits among students, lack of parental
involvement, and the overcrowded classrooms due to the lack of classrooms. Poor
teacher performance is only one of these factors and probably a minor one at
that. .
6. Complex Cause
• committed by neglecting to consider that the effect is caused by a number of objects
orevents, of which the cause identified is only a part. A variation of this is the feedback
loop where the effect is itself a part of the cause.
Example:
- Smoking is causing air pollution in Manila.
Note: The effect of smoking is negligible compared to the effect of auto exhaust
especially among jeepneys.
$RECAP
Causal Fallacies
3. False Cause Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy)
6. Complex Cause

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
36

pause: Exercises
CAUSAL FALLACIES
For each of the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to accept.
Explain what is wrong with the passage, if anything. Finally, identify by name any fallacies
committed.
1. Oh Lord. I wonder what I did. Just as I came into the restaurant, Jill got up and left
hurriedly through the back door. I must have done something wrong to make her
leave that way.
________________________________
2. Every time the factory whistle blows for the lunch hour, the train leaves the station. I
know you can make a dog come with a whistle, but I wonder how it’s possible to
make a train go with just a whistle.
________________________________
3. Recent studies show that the death rate in US hospitals is considerably higher than
the overall US death rate. Clearly, hospitals are not providing proper care. We
should mount a campaign to create a better code for hospital care and
management.
________________________________
4. Of course, Cruton gets good grades. After all, he’s the teacher’s pet.
________________________________
5. It says in this study that 90% of those who smoke heavily also drink more than five
cups of coffee per day. I think it’s clear that heavy smoking leads to heavy coffee
drinking.
________________________________
6. My instructor said that I couldn’t do well on the final exam unless I did all the
required reasoning, which I did. But I didn’t pass the exam. So, you see that you
can’t believe everything that guy has to say.
________________________________
7. The increase in AIDS was caused by more sex education in schools.
________________________________
8. By leaving your oven on overnight, you are contributing to global warming.

________________________________
9. Just open that single window and this dark room will suddenly be flooded with the
needed light.
________________________________
10. People are in fear because of the increased crime rate.

________________________________

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
37

E. FAULTY ANALOGY/COMPARISON OR QUESTIONABLE ANALOGY
• *committed by inappropriate or misleading analogy in arguing for a point.
Example:
- A country is like a ship, with the President as its captain. Just as a captain
should be obeyed without question, the president should be given the loyalty
and complete obedience of his cabinet.
Note: The analogy in a) is a bad one. First, there are too many important ways in
which countries radically differ from ships for the argument to be persuasive. Most
important in this context is that ships are continually subjected to rapidly changing,
stressful and perilous situations that call for concerted and immediate action.
Countries are different, unless they are at war or at peril from natural calamities
or other dire matters. Usually, there is time for helpful discussion and reflection
that should make for wiser decisions. For these reasons, captains are given almost
dictatorial powers that presidents would be wise not to take. Thus, the inference is
weak.
pause: Exercises
FAULTY ANALOGIES
For each of the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to accept.
Explain what is wrong with the passage, if anything. Finally, explain how you would attack the
analogy.
1. If you cut off the head of a body, the other organs cannot function, and the body
dies. Similarly, if you cut off the head of the state, the state may flop around for a
while, but it is due to perish in time or to become easy prey for its neighbors. Thus,
the overthrow of any established government can never be an advantageous thing.
________________________________
2. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them
work. so must employees.
________________________________
3. My dear, most men are like little boys. Little boys get very upset and pout when
they don’t get their way. So, you trick them into thinking they are getting their own
way while they do what you want them to, and they are happy. Likewise, if you lie
and cheat occasionally to make your husband think that he’s getting his way, he’ll
be happy.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
38

INDUCTIVE ANALOGIES
For each o the following passages, identify what the passage is trying to persuade us to accept. Explain
what is wrong with the passage, if anything. Finally, identify by name any fallacies committed.
1. I drank lambanog (local gin) and water on Monday, and I got drunk. I drank scotch and
water on Tuesday, and I got drunk. I drank rhum and water on Wednesday, and I got
drunk. Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? Water makes you drunk.
________________________________
2. Look, I know myself. I have always run away from fights. I jump when there are loud noises,
faint at the sight of blood and have always acted to avoid violent confrontations. So, you
can see that it’s highly that I will fall apart under combat conditions.
________________________________
3. Jenny smokes heavily, and when she is not smoking, she chews tobacco. It’s likely that she will
suffer from some form of lung or mouth cancer.
_______________________________
4. Studies show that students who get good grades study around three hours every night. Well,
you want good grades. So, all you have to do to get good grades is study around three
hors each night.
________________________________
5. I’ve been watching that slot machine all night. It has been played all night, and it has had no
payoffs. It’s due. I’m going to play it now. So, you can be sure that I’m going to make a
bundle.
________________________________
6. Our company president polled a sample of 50 people out of our 3,000 workers to find out
whether they wanted to unionize. The result: 45 out of the 50 said that they did not want the
unions in this company. Heck, that’s 90%. Clearly, then, the overwhelming majority of
workers in this company are against unionizing. We don’t need to have a union man address
us.
________________________________
7. No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Why should anyone be expected
to get married without premarital sex?
________________________________
8. Every time I watch the UAAP senior basketball games, the growling tigers always lose. You
see, though quite difficult to accept, I think I am the culprit of these losses!
________________________________
9. This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in
Switzerland!
________________________________
10. We have now had five dates together. It is clear we are compatible. Let’s get married
soon!
___________________________________

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
39

Summary: Detecting Informal (Deductive and Inductive) Fallacies
From the varied fallacies we have presented, it is definitely sad to say that no formula has been
provided for detecting such fallacies. William Halverson, however, presented what he called the informal
rules for detecting fallacies, which do not actually guarantee that we will not be misled by such fallacious
arguments, but at least it will greatly reduce the likelihood of being misled:
1. Be clear about the exact meaning of the statement to which we are being asked to
assent (the conclusion of the argument) and the exact meaning of each statement
offered in support of that statement (the premise or premises);
2. Be clear about the kind of evidence that would be relevant to establishing the conclusion
in question, and regard with suspicion any argument that does not offer such evidence;
3. Be suspicious of arguments presented by anyone who might have a motive to deceive;
and
4. Trust our instinct whenever we encounter an argument that just does not sound right to us,
and try to figure out why it does not sound right.

UST-Graduate School
Critical Thinking
40

GS CT2 Facllacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GS CT2 Facllacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GS CT2 Facllacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE FALLACIES

I. Deductive and Inductive Fallacies

II. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE FALLACIES

In general, any fallacy may involve the following characteristics:

a mistake in reasoning*/logical defective/faulty argument - the process that underlies a

a. Formal/Logical Fallacies/Invalidities: They are (representatives) -

SUMMARY LIST (Deductive Material Fallacies)

D. Irrelevant Appeals (Fallacies of Irrelevance or ignoratio elenchi)

1. *Circular Reasoning: (Arguing in a Circle/Going around the Bush/Vicious Circle,

2. Question-Begging Expressions (Prejudicia/Loaded Phrases/Language)

- Have you finally stopped beating your dog, Harry?

4. *Synonymous Defining (Non Probata)

4. Why are you standing?

8. Have you stopped beating your wife, Castor?

2. *Amphiboly (Syntactic Ambiguity)

1. Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can’t avoid.

2. It would be illegal to give away Free Beer _____________________________

C. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

2. *Division (converse of composition)

3. *False Alternatives (False Dilemma/Either-Or/ Black or White Fallacy, Apparent

4. *Slippery Slope (Domino Fallacy)

1. *Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, i.e., from pity)

• If the threat is of an unacceptable result, this fallacy is called appeal to consequences

2. *Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum, metum, i.e., from the stick)

3. *Appeal to Public Opinion/Popularity/to People, by Consensus, Public Opinion

4. Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)

6. *Counterfeit Evidence Fallacies

a. Meaning from Association

2) Prestige of Great Names

2) To attempt to heighten the standing of a vocation or a place of business

d. Cliché Thinking/Quoting out of Context

1. *Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

b. *Circumstantial (Poisoning the well)

d. Two Wrongs Make a Right

f. Call For Perfection

2. *Red Herring/Evading the Issue/Avoiding the Issue

3. *Straw Man Fallacy

- A student preparing to demonstrate a proposition in geometry drew some

1. Attacking the Person (argumentem ad hominem)

1. It has been proven: That professor of ours in Scriptural Hermeneutics

SUMMARY LIST (INDUCTIVE FALLACIES)

B. Fallacies of Misuse of Evidence

a. Dicto simpliciter – Accident (Destroying the Exception)

b. Dicto simpliciter – secundum quid (Reverse Accident)

B. FALLACIES OF MISUSE OF EVIDENCE

- The evidence is clear. Domeng has always worked hard. He is an upright,

2. *FALLACY OF SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE/SLANTING

2. FALLACY OF THE SMALL SAMPLE (INSUFFICIENT STATISTICS)

1. *Confusion of Cause and Effect

3. *False Cause Fallacy (Post Hoc Fallacy/Coincidental Correlation)

4. Confusion of Causality Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Note: Condition* vs Cause*:

Cause: something which contributes in a positive manner in the production of a thing.

Conditio sine qua non:

1) Necessary cause or causally necessary condition

2) Sufficient cause, or causally sufficient condition

Note: Sometimes, the condition consists merely in the removal of an obstacle

5. Genuine but Insufficient Cause

7. The increase in AIDS was caused by more sex education in schools.