Fallacy Division

It came from t he Latin word “fallo” which means “I It is a fallacy of considering words or statements
deceive” and “fallere” which means separately when they should have been considered
as a whole.EXAMPLE:X University is vital to
“to deceive” Catholic Education
TWO GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Mr. Y is a professor of X University
Fallacies of a Language
Ergo, Mr. Y is vital to Christian Education
Equivocation Accent
Amphiboly This kind of fallacy arises due to difference in
interpretation brought about by misplaced
Composition emphasis on a phrase, word or syllable in a
Division proposition.

Accent EXAMPLE:

Figures of Speech You may laugh as you like.

Equivocation (Meaning: Others may laugh)
You may laugh as you like.
It is a fallacy consisting of using a word that has the same
spelling or sound but the meaning is different, (Meaning: You are not prohibited from laughing)
in different parts of the inference.
You my laugh as you like.
EXAMPLES
(Meaning: It is permissible that you laugh or not to laugh)
Every water is in liquid form. We should water Figures of Speech
the plant everyday. Ergo, we should
plant everyday in liquid form. This kind of fallacy is a special type of false analogy that
consist in wrongly inferring similarity of meaning
Every pen is a writing instrument. The cage of a from similarity of word structure
pig is a pen. Ergo, the cage of a pig is a
writing instrument. EXAMPLE
Amphiboly What is immaterial is not material
and what is insoluble is is not soluble;
It is a fallacy expressed in using a statement whose
meaning is ambiguous exposing it to various ergo, what is inflammable is not flammable.
interpretations.

EXAMPLES
1. My wife Jenny said to her sister Eva that she has
to go to the mall.
Due to this formulation of the argument, we are at
the lost of who is actually being referred to as
“she”. Is it Jenny or Eva?
2. “While standing one leg, the boy played with his
dog”
Who is standing on one leg: the boy or the dog?
Composition
It is a fallacy of considering words or statements as a
whole when they should be considered separately.
In other words, it is an error of stating that what is
true of the parts is also true of the whole.
EXAMPLE:
Those who topped the 1999 Bar Exam are from
Cebu
Jose of UST is the 1999 Bar Topnotcher
Ergo, Jose of UST is from Cebu
Accident
This fallacy is involved in affirming or denying of a thing
what has been affirmed or denied only of some
accidental modification or condition of the thing or
vice versa
EXAMPLE
“You say that you ate what you bought;
but you bought a raw meat;
ergo, you must have eaten raw meat.
Confusion of Absolute Statement
This fallacy uses a principle that uses absolutely true
statements but restricted by practical limitations
EXAMPLE
“Water boils at 212 Fahrenheit
ergo, water boils at 212 Fahrenheit on the top of
Mt. Everest
Begging the Question
This fallacy is a.k.a.as petitio principii is involved when
we assume a conclusion is proving what is not
known in the premises
EXAMPLES
 All in this room are wearing shoes
but Martha is in this room
ergo, Martha is wearing shoes
False Cause
Also known as “non causa pro causa”
This fallacy is involved from a conclusion of causal with a
non-causal relationship under the form of “post
hoc, ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore
because of this)
EXAMPLE
Night comes before the day
ergo, night causes the day
Don’t look directly at the sun
otherwise, the sun will punish you
A man cannot think without his brain
Ergo, a man’s brain is the cause of his thought
Consequent
This fallacy is involved when we infer that an antecedent EXAMPLE
is true because the consequent is true
EXAMPLE
A dog is an animal
but Moby Dick is an animal
ergo, Moby Dick is a dog
This is known as “appeal to people” where popular
A dog is an animal
but Moby Dick is not a dog
ergo, Moby Dickis not an animal
Many Question
This is also known as Complex Question
This fallacy is involved when we are asking either a
multiple question as though it were a single
question demanding a yes or no answer
EXAMPLE
Have you not given up the habit of cheating in my
class?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Non Sequitur
It is the Latin of “it does not follow”
This fallacy is involved to true but unrelated propositions
without any connections
EXAMPLES
Cows give milk
but sheep have wool
ergo, goats chew their cud
As a student of a Catholic school, I will become a
minister later.
Ignoratio elenchi
It came from the Latin ignoratio = irrelevant
elencho =
conclusion
This fallacy is involved when we prove other conclusions
not the issue t be concluded
It has various minor forms as presented below:
Argumentum ad hominem
This fallacy is the Latin for “attack or appeal to the man”
This fallacy is involved in court hearings when the
defense or prosecution is attacking the dignity of
the person or witness instead of weighing the
evidences presented
“Your honor, it would be very difficult for us not to
believe that the accused of this murder case is not
guilty, because his father and grandfather has been
convicted of murder several years ago. And
besides, the accused is of bad moral reputation.”
Argumentum ad populum
prejudice is preferred rather than truth and reason
where an argument may be believed by most, if not
by all people, although that argument may not be
true
EXAMPLE
“Clinically proven safe and effective…”
“The only earth structure visible in space is the
Great Wall of China.”
Save the user, jail the pusher
“If you will vote for me…”
Argumentum ad misericordiam
This is “appeal to pity” a kind of fallacious argument that
arises when an appeal to evidence is replaced by
an appeal to pity, mercy or sympathy
EXAMPLE
“Please, just give me a 3.0 grade. Ishould not
receive a failing grade since it is my 3rd time to
take this Logic subject”
“The accused in robbery case must not be put to
jail, because he is a father of 12 children and his
wife is in the hospital suffering from stage 3
cancer.”
 Agumentum ad vericundiam Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:
This is “appeal to awe, modesty, shame, respect or No geese are felines.
authority” committed by overawing people by the Some birds are geese.
dignity of those who hold the opinion without Therefore, Some birds are not felines.
special reference to the truth they hold
EXAMPLE Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion
of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines"
The Roman Catholic Church… “The earth is the center of (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are
the Universe.” felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its major
Argumentum ad baculum
premise. Simlarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds," and
This is “appeal to force or appeal to might” arises when "Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "geese" is the
one appeal to intimidation, or use of force in order middle term of the syllogism.
to gain acceptance of his propositions
EXAMPLE Standard Form
President of a state to the citizens: “Commit In order to make obvious the similarities of structure shared by
heinous crimes and you will surely enjoy the lethal different syllogisms, we will always present each of them in the
injection.” same fashion. A categorical syllogism in standard form always
begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then
finishes with the conclusion. Thus, the example above is already in
Father to his son: “If you will not be serious with standard form. Although arguments in ordinary language may be
your studies, your future will be bleak. And you can offered in a different arrangement, it is never difficult to restate them
never expect me to lift finger to help when you in standard form. Once we've identified the conclusion which is to
need me.” be placed in the final position, whichever premise contains its
Argumentum ad ignorantiam predicate term must be the major premise that should be stated first.
The “appeal to ignorance” is committed when we infer a Medieval logicians devised a simple way of labelling the various
false statement because it cannot be proved, true forms in which a categorical syllogism may occur by stating its
because it cannot be refuted. mood and figure. The mood of a syllogism is simply a statement of
which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises, listed in
EXAMPLE the order in which they appear in standard form. Thus, a syllogism
This evidence must be accepted with a mood of OAO has an O proposition as its major premise, an
A proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition as its
because it cannot be refuted conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an E major premise, and I minor
premise, and an O conclusion; etc.

You cannot declare me guilty Since there are four distinct versions of each syllogistic mood,
however, we need to supplement this labelling system with a
since you cannot prove it. statement of the figure of each, which is solely determined by the
position in which its middle term appears in the two premises: in a
first-figure syllogism, the middle term is the subject term of the
Categorical Syllogisms major premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in
second figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both
premises; in third, the subject term of both premises; and in fourth
The Structure of Syllogism figure, the middle term appears as the predicate term of the major
Now, on to the next level, at which we combine more than one premise and the subject term of the minor premise. (The four figures
categorical proposition to fashion logical arguments. A categorical may be easier to remember as a simple chart showing the position of
syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical the terms in each of the premises:
propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear M P P M M P
a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used P M
exactly twice. 1 \ 2 | 3 | 4
/
One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the
S M S M M S
conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the
M S
syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is
employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in
the syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be All told, there are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical
employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the syllogism: four kinds of major premise multiplied by four kinds of
middle term. minor premise multiplied by four kinds of conclusion multiplied by
four relative positions of the middle term. Used together, mood and
Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical figure provide a unique way of describing the logical structure of
proposition that affirms some relation between its middle and major each of them. Thus, for example, the argument "Some
terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism. The other merchants are pirates, and All merchants are
premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor swimmers, so Some swimmers are pirates" is an IAI-
premise.
3 syllogism, and any AEE-4 syllogism must exhibit the form "All Diagramming Syllogisms
P are M, and No M are S, so No S are P."
Form and Validity
This method of differentiating syllogisms is significant because the three-step procedure:
validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical
form. Remember our earlier definition: an argument is valid when, if
its premises were true, then its conclusion would also have to be
true. The application of this definition in no way depends upon the
content of a specific categorical syllogism; it makes no difference
whether the categorical terms it employs are "mammals,"
"terriers," and "dogs" or "sheep," "commuters," and
"sandwiches." If a syllogism is valid, it is impossible for its
premises to be true while its conclusion is false, and that can be the
case only if there is something faulty in its general form.
Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct
syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no matter
what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the form AAA-
1 is valid, for example, while all syllogisms of the form OEE-3 are
invalid.
This suggests a fairly straightforward method of demonstrating the
invalidity of any syllogism by "logical analogy." If we can think of
another syllogism which has the same mood and figure but whose
terms obviously make both premises true and the conclusion false,
then it is evident that all syllogisms of this form, including the one
with which we began, must be invalid.
Thus, for example, it may be difficult at first glance to assess the
validity of the argument:
The modern interpretation offers a more efficient method of
evaluating the validity of categorical syllogisms. By combining the
drawings of individual propositions, we can use Venn diagrams to
assess the validity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple
1. First draw three overlapping circles and label them to
represent the major, minor, and middle terms of the
syllogism.
2. Next, on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the
syllogism's premises.
• Always begin with a universal proposition, no
matter whether it is the major or the minor
premise.
3. Remember that in each case you will be using only two of
the circles in each case; ignore the third circle by making
sure that your drawing (shading or × ) straddles it.
4. Finally, without drawing anything else, look for the
drawing of the conclusion. If the syllogism is valid, then
that drawing will already be done.
Since it perfectly models the relationships between classes that are at
work in categorical logic, this procedure always provides a
demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any categorical
syllogism.
Consider, for example, how it could be applied, step by
step, to an evaluation of a syllogism of the EIO-3 mood
and figure,

All philosophers are No M are P.

professors. Some M are S.
All philosophers are Therefore, Some S are not P.
logicians.
Therefore, All logicians are professors. First, we draw and label the three overlapping circles
needed to represent all three terms included in the
But since this is a categorical syllogism whose mood and figure are categorical syllogism:
AAA-3, and since all syllogisms of the same form are equally valid Second, we diagram each of the premises: Since the major
or invalid, its reliability must be the same as that of the AAA-3 premise is a universal proposition, we may begin with it. The
syllogism: diagram for "No M are P" must shade in the entire area in which
the M and P circles overlap. (Notice that we ignore the S circle by
All terriers are dogs. shading on both sides of it.)
All terriers are mammals. Now we add the minor premise to our drawing. The
Therefore, All mammals are dogs. diagram for "Some M are S" puts an × inside the area
where the M and S circles overlap. But part of that area
(the portion also inside the P circle) has already been
Both premises of this syllogism are true, while its conclusion is shaded, so our × must be placed in the remaining portion.
false, so it is clearly invalid. But then all syllogisms of the AAA-3 Third, we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring the M
form, including the one about logicians and professors, must also be circle entirely, we need only ask whether the drawing of the
invalid. conclusion "Some S are not P" has already been drawn.
This method of demonstrating the invalidity of categorical
Remember, that drawing would be like the one at left, in
syllogisms is useful in many contexts; even those who have not had
which there is an × in the area inside the S circle but
the benefit of specialized training in formal logic will often
outside the P circle. Does that already appear in the
acknowledge the force of a logical analogy. The only problem is that
diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises have
the success of the method depends upon our ability to invent
been drawn, then the conclusion is already drawn.
appropriate cases, syllogisms of the same form that obviously have
true premises and a false conclusion. If I have tried for an hour to But this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism itself: if
discover such a case, then either there can be no such case because its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true. Any
the syllogism is valid or I simply haven't looked hard enough yet. categorical syllogism of this form is valid.

Here are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In each

case, both of the premises have already been drawn in the
appropriate way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is already All M are S.
drawn, the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism Therefore, Some S are not P.
must be invalid.
AAA-1 (valid) Four of the fifteen valid argument forms use universal premises
All M are P. (only one of which is affirmative) to derive a universal negative
All S are M. conclusion:
Therefore, All S are P.
One of them is "Camenes" (AEE-4):
AAA-3 (invalid) All P are M.
All M are P. No M are S.
All M are S. Therefore, No S are P.
Therefore, All S are P.
Converting its minor premise leads to "Camestres" (AEE-2):
OAO-3 (valid)
Some M are not P. All P are M.
All M are S. No S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P. Therefore, No S are P.

EOO-2 (invalid) Another pair begins with "Celarent" (EAE-1):

No P are M. No M are P.
Some S are not M. All S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P. Therefore, No S are P.

IOO-1 (invalid) Converting the major premise in this case yields "Cesare" (EAE-2):
Some M are P.
Some S are not M. No P are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P. All S are M.
Therefore, No S are P.

Names for the Valid Syllogisms Syllogisms of another important set of forms use affirmative
premises (only one of which is universal) to derive a particular
A careful application of these rules to the 256 possible forms of affirmative conclusion:
categorical syllogism (assuming the denial of existential import)
leaves only 15 that are valid. Medieval students of logic, relying on The first in this group is AII-1 ("Darii"):
syllogistic reasoning in their public disputations, found it convenient
All M are P.
to assign a unique name to each valid syllogism. These names are
Some S are M.
full of clever reminders of the appropriate standard form: their initial
Therefore, Some S are P.
letters divide the valid cases into four major groups, the vowels in
order state the mood of the syllogism, and its figure is indicated by
(complicated) use of m, r, and s. Although the modern interpretation Converting the minor premise produces another valid form, AII-3
of categorical logic provides an easier method for determining the ("Datisi"):
validity of categorical syllogisms, it may be worthwhile to note the All M are P.
fifteen valid cases by name: Some M are S.
The most common and useful syllogistic form is "Barbara", whose Therefore, Some S are P.
mood and figure is AAA-1:
All M are P. The second pair begins with "Disamis" (IAI-3):
All S are M. Some M are P.
Therefore, All S are P. All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.
Instances of this form are especially powerful, since they are the
only valid syllogisms whose conclusions are universal affirmative Converting the major premise in this case yields "Dimaris" (IAI-4):
propositions.
Some P are M.
A syllogism of the form AOO-2 was called "Baroco": All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are P.
All P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P. Only one of the 64 distinct moods for syllogistic form is valid in all
four figures, since both of its premises permit legitimate
conversions:
The valid form OAO-3 ("Bocardo") is:
Some M are not P. Begin with EIO-1 ("Ferio"):
 No M are P.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Converting the major premise produces EIO-2 ("Festino"):

No P are M.
Some S are M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Next, converting the minor premise of this result yields EIO-4

("Fresison"):
No P are M.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Finally, converting the major again leads to EIO-3 ("Ferison"):

No M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Notice that converting the minor of this syllogistic form will return
us back to "Ferio."