Reasoning and Fallacies

Mr. Anthony Allen M. Decena AB

Fallacies
• Errors and mistakes in reasoning.
Because reasoning or inference
should enable to justify or proves
the truth.
• Fallacies are mostly in two types
a. Formal Fallacies
b. Informal Fallacies
Formal Fallacies

• Can be errors in reasoning due to

solely to an incorrect form or
structure.
• They are also considered weak
arguments
Argument / syllogism

Premise/s and Conclusion

Formal Fallacies

“ If rain falls, then the ground is wet.

The rain falls. Therefore, the ground
is wet “
Formal Fallacies

“ If the rain falls then the ground is

wet. The ground is wet. Therefore,
the rain falls”
• “If German shepherds are dogs,
then German shepherds are
animals. German shepherds are
dogs. Therefore German shepherds
are animals.”
“If elephants are birds, then elephants
can fly. Elephants are birds.
Therefore elephants can fly”.
“Former Pres Joseph Estrada is a
movie actor. Former Pres Joseph
Estrada is a politician. Therefore all
movie actors are politicians”
Informal Fallacies
• Can be errors in reasoning due to
solely an anomaly or defect in the
content.
• Usually psychological persuasive
and that is why they are commonly
committed.
Informal Fallacies
• Three groups of Informal Fallacies
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
2. Fallacies of Relevance
3. Fallacies of Presumption
Informal Fallacies
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
- Error is brought about by the
occurrence of ambiguous terms
whose meanings are confused in
an argument.
a. Equivocation
b. Composition
c. Division
Fallacies of Ambiguity

a. Fallacy of Equivocation
- Committed when several
meanings of a word or phrase
become confused in the context of
one argument.
Ex: “All laws should be respected and
obeyed. The law of gravity is a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity
should be respected and obeyed.”
Fallacy of Equivocation

1. "All beetles have six legs. John

Lennon is a Beatle, so John
Lennon has six legs.“
2. “A man is the only intelligent
animal on the planet. And, since a
woman is not a man, we can say
that women are not intelligent.”
Fallacies of Ambiguity

b. Fallacy of Composition
-Committed when one reasons from
the qualities of parts of a whole to
the qualities of the whole itself.
Ex: “Every part of this machine is light
in weight. Therefore, the whole
machine is light in weight.”
Fallacy of Composition

1. “If we have all the best players on

our team, we will always win.”
2. “The legs of this chair are made of
wood, so the whole chair must be
made of wood.”
3. “Trees are made of atoms, and
atoms are not visible to the eye.
Therefore, trees are not visible to
the eye either.”
Fallacies of Ambiguity

c. Fallacy of Division
- It is the reverse of composition
- Committed when one reasons from
the qualities of a whole to the
qualities of the parts of the whole.
Ex: Filipino Indigenous are
disappearing. Juan is a Filipino
cultural indigent. Therefore, Juan is
disappearing.
Fallacy of Division

• 1. “Men are faster runners than

women, therefore my brother must
be faster than my sister.”
• 2. “Because religions have caused
so much evil and suffering in the
history of humankind, every
religious individual must be
inherently malicious”.
Fallacies of Relevance

• Referring to fallacies in which the

error in reasoning is brought about
by the irrelevance of the premise or
premises to the conclusion of an
argument.
Informal Fallacies
2. Fallacies of Relevance
a. Argument from Ignorance
b. Appeal to inappropriate authority
c. Appeal to the person
d. Appeal to pity
e. Appeal to popular will
f. Appeal to force
Fallacies of Relevance
a. Argument from Ignorance
-Committed when it is argued that a
proposition is true simple on the
basis that is has not been proven
false or that is false because it has
not been proven true.
Ex: “Faith healing must be accepted
as a fact; for nobody has proven
that it is impossible.
Argument form Ignorance

• “If someone is guilty, they always

try to deny their guilt. This man has
never said that he is not guilty, and
therefore he must be innocent.”
• “No one has ever proven that UFOs
haven’t visited earth yet, so I
believe that they have.”
Fallacies of Relevance
b. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
-Committed when one appeals to an
authority whose field of expertise
does not include the nature of the
conclusion being established.
Ex: We should vote this candidate for
he is endorsed by our favorite
basketball player.”
Appeal to inappropriate
authority

• “Albert Einstein, one of the smartest

people ever, said that the best and
healthiest breakfast is bacon and
eggs, so it must be true.”
Fallacies of Relevance
c. Appeal to the person/ Ad hominem
-Committed when one evaluates an
argument by means of citing
something about the person who
asserts the said argument.
Ex: “She cannot be a good president
for she comes from a broken
family”.
Appeal to the person

• “Friedrich Nietzsche was an ugly man

who never married, you shouldn’t take
any of his ideas seriously.”
• Carly: I think that climate change is the
most important issue of our time and
everyone should acknowledge that.
• Jamie: You didn’t even go to college, so
no one should listen to you.
Fallacies of Relevance
d. Appeal to pity
-Committed when one appeals to pity
to cause acceptance of a
conclusion.
Ex: “This man certainly deserves a
promotion, for he can hardly feed
his starving family”.
Appeal to pity

• Daughter: “Mom I’m too full, I can’t

eat any more.”
• Mother: “You should always eat
everything on your plate, think of all
the children in Africa who doesn’t
always have enough food.”
Fallacies of Relevance
e. Appeal to popular will/ band wagon
-Committed when one appeal to
general, common, popular, or
stereotypical prejudices or beliefs to
cause the acceptance of some
conclusion.
Ex: “ We should drink this brand of
beer, for it is the regular drink of
successful men after a hard day’s
work.
Appeal to popular will

• “It may be against the law to drink

alcohol if you are under 18 years
old, but almost everyone drinks
anyway, so it must be fine.”
• “Mcdonalds has served 100 billion
people in the world. It must be the
best fast food restaurant in the
world.”
Fallacies of Relevance
f. Appeal to force/ Ad Bacalum
- Committed when one appeals
force, often with subtlety, to cause
the acceptance of the conclusion.
Ex: “ It is your duty to pledge
allegiance to this constitution, for
otherwise rebellion charges will be
filed against you.”
Appeal to force

• "Accept this position, or I'll punish

you.“
• “You either love me or hate me”.
• “You are either with us or against
us.”
Fallacies of Presumption

• Referring to fallacies in which the

error in reasoning is brought by the
occurrence of complex or loaded
expressions whose assumptions
are questionable or have not yet
been proven true.
. Informal Fallacies
3. Fallacies of Presumption
a. Complex Questions
b. False cause
c. Begging the questions
d. Accident
e. Hasty generalization
Fallacies of Presumption
a. Complex Question
- Committed when one asks a
question that contains unproved
assumptions.
Ex: “Have you stopped beating your
child?”
Complex Question

• Did you ever beat your wife?

• “So have you always had a
gambling problem?”
• If so, have you now stopped doing
this?
Fallacies of Presumption
b. False cause
-Committed when one attributes a
wrong cause to something, which is
often due to a mere temporal
succession of two events.
Ex: “Edgar literary genius must have
been cause by drinking liquor, for it
is said that before he would write he
would first drink some liquor.”
False cause

• “Cars cause many more deaths

than firearms do, so if we are going
to ban firearms, we should also ban
cars.”
• “Apples and oranges must taste the
same. After all, they are both fruits
and round in shape.”
Fallacies of Presumption
c. Begging a question
-Committed when reasoning circular
in the conclusion is already
assumed in the premises.
Ex: “The soul is immortal, for it never
dies.”
Begging a question

• Paranormal activity is real because

I have experienced what can only
be described as paranormal activity.
• People like to eat because we are
biologically influenced to eat.
Fallacies of Presumption
d. Accident / Applying General rules
-Committed when one applies a
general rule to individual cases,
which because of their special or
accidental nature, the general rule
does not properly apply.
Ex: Running is good for the heart,
therefore running will be good to
Pedro who is suffering from a heart
disease.”
Accident

• I believe one should never

deliberately hurt another person,
that’s why I can never be a surgeon
• Cutting people is bad.
Surgery involves cutting people.
Therefore surgery is bad.
Fallacies of Presumption
• Hasty generalization/ Specifics
- Committed when one makes a
generalization from a special or
accidental case or simply from
insufficient number of cases.
(Converse Accident)
Ex: “While running, Mario had a heart
attack. Therefore, running is bad for
the heart.”
Hasty generalization

• “My dad has smoked 2 packs of

cigarettes every day for 20 years,
and he doesn’t have any health
problems. Smoking can’t be
dangerous!”
• “Did you see that woman just run a
red light? Women are awful drivers.