FALLACIES OF

RELEVANCE
by GROUP 1
 the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion
 they are psychologically or
emotionally relevant to the
conclusion
 therefore, the conclusion
appears or seems to follow
from the premises although
the premises in fact provide
no genuine evidence for the
conclusion
TYPES OF FALLACIES OF
RELEVANCE  APPEAL TO FORCE
 APPEAL TO PITY
 APPEAL TO PEOPLE
 ARGUMENT AGAINST
THE PERSON
 ACCIDENT
 STRAW MAN
 MISSING THE POINT
 RED HERRING
 APPEAL TO  physical or
FORCE psychological
intimidation
(Argumentum Ad Baculum)
 an argument relies
on threat rather
than reason
 the hearer is told
that something bad
will happen to him if
he does not accept
the argument
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: RIZAL ALIH, ET AL.,
petitioners,
APPEAL TO FORCE vs.
MAJOR GENERAL DELFIN C.
CASTRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
COMMANDER SOUTHCOM
AND REGIONAL UNIFIED
COMMAND, REGION IX,
ZAMBOANGA CITY, ET AL.,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-69401,
June 23, 1987
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: BLAS F.
APPEAL TO FORCE OPLE, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN D. TORRES,
ET AL.,
respondents.
G.R. No. 127685,
July 23, 1998
  pity is aroused in the
hearer which influences
her to accept a
conclusion unsupported
by evidence
 involves an attempt to
avoid responsibility and
may include references
APPEAL TO to being a victim of

PITY circumstances
 appeal that
relies on
emotion instead
of evidence
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: JUDGE RAPHAEL B.
YRASTORZA, SR., Presiding
APPEAL TO PITY Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cebu
City, complainant,
vs.
MICHAEL A. LATIZA, Court
Aide, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cebu
City, respondent.
A.M. No. P-02-1610,
November 27, 2003
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: NYK-FIL SHIP
MANAGEMENT INC. and/or
APPEAL TO PITY NYK SHIP MANAGEMENT
HK., LTD., Petitioners,
vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND LAURO A.
HERNANDEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 161104,
September 27, 2006
APPEAL TO

PEOPLE  substitutes an exploitive

(Argumentum
and manipulative appeal
Ad Populum) to peoples’ emotional
weaknesses (passions,
prejudices, insecurities,
etc.) for logically relevant
evidence
 idea that if many or most
people believe a
something, it must be
true
APPEAL TO

PEOPLE
(Argumentum  DIRECT APPROACH
Ad Populum)
 INDIRECT
APPROACH
 BANDWAGON
FALLACY
 APPEAL TO VANITY
 SNOB APPEAL
 Arguer tries to
convince the audience
to do or believe
something because
everyone else
(supposedly) does
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: PEOPLE OF THE
APPEAL TO FORCE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SALVADOR SANCHEZ
y ESPIRITU, Accused-
Appellant.
G.R. No. 175832,
October 15, 2008
  someone gives the
argument, rather than
analyzing the argument,
the responder attacks
the arguer
 abusive ad hominem
 circumstantial ad
ARGUMENT hominem
AGAINST THE  tu quoque
PERSON
(Argumentum Ad Hominem)
 usually attacking
unfairly the
person instead
the issue
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE,
ARGUMENT AGAINST Complainant,
THE PERSON vs.
JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO
B. BELEN, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
36, CALAMBA CITY,
Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119
[Formerly A.M. O.C.A. IPI No.
07-2709-RTJ], June 30, 2008
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: PAULINA SANTOS, assisted by her
husband FERNANDO
ARGUMENT AGAINST PARREÑO, petitioners,
vs.
THE PERSON GREGORIA ARANZANSO,
DEMETRIA VENTURA, CONSUELO
PASION, assisted by her husband
MARCOS SUÑGA, and PACITA
PASION, assisted by her husband
PABLO MANGALONZO, and
HONORABLE GAUDENCIO
CLORIBEL, in his official capacity as
Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, respondents.
G.R. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982
 mechanically misapplies a
general rule to a specific
case
 may result from an
inflexible or overly strict
interpretation of the
general rule, a kind of
rigorous literalism
insensitive to the limits of
the rule and to the
circumstances that are its
exception
SUPREME COURT
DECISION:
ACCIDENT LORENZO M. TAÑADA, Et
Al., petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in
his capacity as Executive
Assistant to the President,
Et Al., respondents.
G.R. No. L-63915,
April 24, 1985
 someone gives an argument,
rather than analyzing the
argument, the responder
fashions a less defensible
version of the argument to
attack
 arguer distorts or misrepresents
an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of more easily
attacking it, proceeds to
demolish the distorted position,
and then concludes that the
opponent’s actual argument has
been destroyed
SUPREME COURT TOMAS U. SOLIVEN, petitioner,
DECISION: vs.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
STRAWMAN COMMISSION and REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES (Bureau of Public
Schools), respondents.
G.R. No. L-44763,
October 27, 1977
EULOGIA MALIJAN, petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Bureau of Public Schools) ET
AL., respondents.
G.R. No. L-45381,
October 27, 1977
MISSING  The premise supports a
conclusion other than the
THE POINT one it is meant to
(Ignoratio support
 occurs when the
Elenchi) premises of an argument
support a particular
conclusion, but the
arguer draws a different
conclusion that is usually
vaguely related to the
correct conclusion
 sometimes
called irrelevant
conclusion, the
fallacy of missing
the point exhibits a
specific type of
logical irrelevance
 SUPREME COURT
DECISION:
MISSING THE POINT
  committed when an arguer
diverts the attention of the
reader/listener away from
the issue at hand by raising
some other, seemingly
related issue
 gets its name from the
practice of using a herring,
a particularly smelly fish
RED with a potent scent, to
divert hunting dogs from
HERRING the scent of a fox.
 arguer attempts
to sidetrack the
reader/listener
from the real
issue
SUPREME COURT
DECISION: WILFREDO F.
TUVILLO, Complainant,
RED HERRING vs.
JUDGE HENRY E. LARON,
Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1755,
October 18, 2016
MELISSA J. TUVILLO A.K.A
MICHELLE JIMENEZ, Complainant,
v.
JUDGE HENRY E.
LARON, Respondent.
A.M. NO. MTJ-10-1756