OF IDEAS

WEEK 2: RELEVANCE AND

TRUTHFULNESS OF IDEAS
WEEK 3: VALIDITY OF IDEAS
WEEK 4: PARTS OF SPEECH
(REVIEW)
WEEK 5: TENSES OF VERBS
(REVIEW)
WEEK 6: SUBJECT-VERB
AGREEMENT (REVIEW)
WEEK 7: WRITING AN
ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
WEEK 8: DELIVERING AN
ARGUMENTATIVE SPEECH
ENGLISH 9
QUARTER 3
MODULE 8:
JUDGING
THE
VALIDITY
OF IDEAS
AND
REASONING
 WELCOME
STUDENTS!
READ THE
SITUATIONS
AND GIVE YOUR
THOUGHTS
ABOUT THEM.
WHAT IS
WRONG ABOUT
THESE IDEAS
DID YOU KNOW
THAT THE
IDEAS OR
SITUATIONS
GIVEN
ILLUSTRATE
INVALID IDEAS
OR REASONING?
THE IDEAS AND
REASONING USE
LOGICAL
 BECOME
“INVALID”
WHEN WE USE
LOGICAL
FALLACIES.
WE SHOULD
AVOID USING
LOGICAL
FALLACIES
WHEN
REASONING
 FALLACY?
A LOGICAL FALLACY
IS A FLAW IN IDEA OR
REASONING. SINCE A
LOGICAL FALLACY IS
A FLAW IN IDEA OR
REASONING, IT MEANS
THAT THE IDEA OR
REASONING BECOMES
INVALID.
 FALLACY?
IT IS CALLED LOGICAL
FALLACY BECAUSE
THESE IDEAS OR
REASONING SEEMED
“LOGICAL” OR VALID,
BUT THROUGH
CAREFUL ANALYSIS,
THEY ARE
“FALLACIOUS” OR
FALSE.
 LOGICAL FALLACIES
ARE LIKE TRICKS OR
ILLUSIONS OF
THOUGHT. THEY'RE
OFTEN USED BY
POLITICIANS AND THE
MEDIA TO FOOL
PEOPLE, TO ALTER
TRUTH AND TO
INTIMIDATE THE
ARGUER.
 ANY IDEA THAT
ILLUSTRATES A
LOGICAL FALLACY IS
INVALID. THIS MEANS
THAT IN ORDER TO
TEST THE VALIDITY
OF AN IDEA OR
REASONING, ONE
NEEDS TO
UNDERSTAND
LOGICAL FALLACIES.
 FALLACY?
LEARNING ABOUT
LOGICAL FALLACIES
CAN HELP PEOPLE
DETECT WHETHER AN
IDEA OR REASONING
THAT PEOPLE HAVE
WATCHED, READ OR
LISTENED TO IS VALID
OR INVALID.
 FALLACY?
LEARNING ABOUT
LOGICAL FALLACIES
CAN EMPOWER PEOPLE
TO CONTRADICT THE
INVALID IDEA OR
REASONING. IT CAN
ALSO MAKE PEOPLE TO
BECOME OBSERVANT
AND CRITICAL
THINKERS.
 FOR THIS MODULE, WE SHALL LEARN
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
LOGICAL FALLACIES. THE FALLACIES ARE
CATEGORIZED INTO 3:
A. FALLACIES B. FALLACIES C. FALLACIES
OF OF RELEVANCE OF APPEAL
PRESUMPTION
1. HASTY
GENERALIZATI
ON
2. FALSE CAUSE
3. SLIPPERY
SLOPE
THESE ARE
“FALLACIES OF
PRESUMPTION”
BECAUSE THE
IDEAS OR
REASONING ARE
HASTY GENERALIZATION
DEFINITION:

A FALLACY IN WHICH
THE CONCLUSION IS A
GENERALIZATION. IT IS
OVERESTIMATING THE
STRENGTH OF AN
ARGUMENT BASED ON A
SMALL SAMPLE OR
POPULATION.
 
HASTY GENERALIZATION
EXAMPLE 1:

THE TEACHER CAUGHT ONE

STUDENT CHEATING IN CLASS.
THE TEACHER GOT ANGRY AND
SHOUTED “THIS CLASS IS THE
WORST CLASS I HAVE BECAUSE
YOU ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS
AND CHEATERS!”
HASTY
GENERALIZAT
ION
EXAMPLE 2
2. FALSE CAUSE DEFINITION:

STRONGLY ASSUMING THAT

ONE THING IS THE CAUSE
OF ANOTHER BASED ON
UNPROVEN, UNSUPPORTED
OR UNJUSTIFIED CLAIMS. IT
IS CREATING A FALSE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
UNRELATED FACTORS.
 
FALSE CAUSE EXAMPLE
1:

THE KIDS ARE PLAYING

OUTSIDE WHEN
SUDDENLY IT RAINED
WHILE THE SKY SEEMED
VERY BRIGHT AND
SUNNY. ONE KID
SHOUTED, “MAY
KINAKASAL NA
TIKBALANG!”
FALSE CAUSE
EXAMPLE 2
A COURSE OF ACTION THAT
SEEMS TO LEAD
INEVITABLY FROM ONE
ACTION OR RESULT TO
ANOTHER WITH
UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. IT MEANS
THAT A SMALL FIRST STEP
LEADS TO A CHAIN OF
RELATED EVENTS AND ENDS
IN SOME SIGNIFICANT
1:

LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION
IS UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE
IT WOULD CAUSE MORE
MARRIAGES TO BREAK UP,
WHICH WOULD IN TURN
CAUSE THE BREAKDOWN
OF THE FAMILY, WHICH
WOULD FINALLY RESULT IN
THE DESTRUCTION OF
CIVILIZATION.
SLIPPERY
SLOPE
EXAMPLE 2
 LET’S CHALLENGE OURSELVES!
IDENTIFY WHETHER THE IDEA OR
REASONING IN THE SITUATIONS IS
HASTY GENERALIZATION, FALSE
CAUSE, OR SLIPPERY SLOPE.
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 HASTY
GENERALIZATION
FALSE CAUSE
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 FOR THIS MODULE, WE SHALL LEARN
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
LOGICAL FALLACIES. THE FALLACIES ARE
CATEGORIZED INTO 3:
A. FALLACIES B. FALLACIES C. FALLACIES
OF OF RELEVANCE OF APPEAL
PRESUMPTION
1. AD HOMINEM
2. RED HERRING
3. FALSE
ANALOGY
4. FALSE
DILEMMA
THESE ARE
CALLED
“FALLACIES OF
RELEVANCE”
BECAUSE THERE
IS A PROBLEM IN
AD HOMINEM DEFINITION:

IT INTENDS TO MAKE AN
IRRELEVANT RESPONSE TO
THE MAIN IDEA. SOMETIMES,
IT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON
THE SPEAKER RATHER THAN
THE IDEA OF THE SPEAKER IN
ORDER TO UNDERMINE THE
SPEAKER OR ESCAPE THE
ARGUMENT.
AD HOMINEM EXAMPLE 1:

GIRL: “ACTIVISM IS NOT

TERRORISM. THE COURT
SHOULD JUNK THE ANTI-
TERROR LAW.”
BOY: “THAT IS BECAUSE
YOU’RE A TERRORIST. IF
YOU’RE NOT A TERRORIST,
WHY SHOULD YOU BE AFRAID
OF THE ANTI-TERROR LAW?”
AD HOMINEM
EXAMPLE 2
RED HERRING DEFINITION:

IT INTENDS TO MISLEAD THE

ARGUER BY INTRODUCING
ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH IS
NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE
AT HAND. IT IS A DIVERSION
THAT TAKES AWAY THE
ATTENTION OF THE ARGUER
TO THE MAIN ARGUMENT.
SON: “DAD, I REALLY FIND IT
HARD TO FOCUS ON MY
STUDIES. I AM ALWAYS
QUESTIONING MYSELF. IS
THERE SOMETHING WRONG
WITH ME?
DAD: “WHEN I WAS IN YOUR
AGE, WE DO NOT QUESTION
OURSELVES. NOTHING IS
IMPOSSIBLE.”
RED HERRING
EXAMPLE 2
FALSE ANALOGY DEFINITION:

THE ASSUMPTION THAT TWO

THINGS SHARE MULTIPLE
SIMILARITIES BECAUSE THEY
HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON
BUT, IN REALITY, THEY ARE
NOT. IT IS A COMPARISON OF
TWO THINGS THAT
DISREGARDS CONTEXT TO
CREATE AN ARGUMENT.
FALSE ANALOGY EXAMPLE 1:

SON: “DAD, I WANT TO BECOME

A CHEF ONE DAY.”
DAD: “DON’T. CHEF ARE JUST
WAITERS IN A RESTAURANT.
THEY COOK THE FOOD, SERVE
THE FOOD AND CLEAN THE
TABLES.”
FALSE
ANALOGY
EXAMPLE 2
DEFINITION:

ALSO CALLED BLACK OR

WHITE, FALLACY, IT IS A
SUGGESTION THAT ONLY
TWO ALTERNATIVES EXIST
WHEN IN FACT THERE ARE
MORE. IT IS AS IF YOU WERE
MADE TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN BLACK AND
WHITE.
 
FALSE DILEMMA
EXAMPLE 1: THE
MOTHER TOLD HIS SON,
“IF YOU WILL NOT FINISH
SCHOOL, IT IS EITHER
YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO
GET A DECENT JOB
AFTER COLLEGE OR YOU
WILL JUST BE
DEPENDENT TO US FOR
YOUR ENTIRE LIFE.”
FALSE
DILEMMA
EXAMPLE 2
 LET’S CHALLENGE OURSELVES!
IDENTIFY WHETHER THE IDEA OR
REASONING IN THE SITUATIONS IS AD
HOMINEM, RED HERRING, FALSE
ANALOGY OR FALSE DILEMMA.
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 RED HERRING
FALSE DILEMMA
AD HOMINEM
FALSE ANALOGY
 FOR THIS MODULE, WE SHALL LEARN
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
LOGICAL FALLACIES. THE FALLACIES ARE
CATEGORIZED INTO 3:
A. FALLACIES B. FALLACIES C. FALLACIES
OF OF RELEVANCE OF APPEAL
PRESUMPTION
1. APPEAL TO
PEOPLE
2. APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
3. APPEAL TO
TRADITION
THESE ARE
CALLED
“FALLACIES OF
APPEAL”
BECAUSE THERE
IS AN ATTEMPT TO
 APPEAL TO PEOPLE
DEFINITION:

IT SUGGESTS THAT IDEA

OR RESONING IS
CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S
WHAT MOST EVERYONE
BELIEVES, OR THAT AN
IDEA OR REASONING IS
WRONG BECAUSE IT'S
NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE
BELIEVE.
 APPEAL TO PEOPLE
EXAMPLE 1:

THE SPANISH FRIAR MADE

A SERMON TO THE POOR
FILIPINOS. ONE OF HIS
LINES STATES THAT: “THE
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN
THE WORLD BELIEVE IN
GOD.  THEREFORE, YOU
FILIPINOS SHOULD
BELIEVE IN GOD TOO.”
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
EXAMPLE 2:
 APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
DEFINITION:

IT CLAIMS THAT AN IDEA

OR REASONING IS TRUE
BECAUSE IT CAME FROM
A SUPPOSED AUTHORITY,
OR POPULAR
INFLUENTIAL FIGURE.
 APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
EXAMPLE 1:

THE CHILD IS ARGUING TO

HER TEACHER ABOUT
SANTA CLAUS. THE CHILD
SHOUTED: “MY MOMMY
TOLD ME THAT SANTA
CLAUS IS REAL, SO SANTA
CLAUS IS REAL!”
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
EXAMPLE 2:
 APPEAL TO TRADITION
DEFINITION:

IT ASSUMES THAT AN
IDEA OR REASON IS
CORRECT BECAUSE OF
ITS STRONG DOMINANCE,
WISE PRACTICE AND
WIDE ACCEPTANCE IN
THE PAST.
 EXAMPLE 1:

OLD PEOPLE WOULD

ALWAYS SAY, “WHEN WE
WERE YOUNG, OUR
PARENTS HIT US TO
DISCIPLINE US. LOOK AT
US TODAY, WE ARE
DISCIPLINED.
THEREFORE, IT IS ALSO
RIGHT TO HIT MY
CHILD.”
APPEAL TO TRADITION
EXAMPLE 2:
 LET’S CHALLENGE OURSELVES!
IDENTIFY WHETHER THE IDEA OR
REASONING IN THE SITUATIONS IS
APPEAL TO TRADITION, PEOPLE, OR
AUTHORITY.
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
APPEAL TO TRADITION
APPEAL TO
AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO PEOPLE
REFLECTION
QUESTION:
1. WHY IS IT
IMPORTANT
TO
UNDERSTAN
D LOGICAL
FALLACIES
IN TERMS OF
VALIDATING
IDEAS OR
REASONING?
REFLECTION
QUESTION:
2. DO YOU
THINK THE
USE OF
LOGICAL
FALLACIES
IS AN
EFFECTIVE
WAY OF
EXPRESSING
ONE’S IDEAS
OR
REFLECTION
QUESTION:
3.
WHENEVER
YOU SEE A
LEADER OR
ANY
PERSONS OF
AUTHORITY
USING
LOGICAL
FALLACIES,
HOW DO
THAT IS THE END OF THIS
LESSON.
THANK YOU!