Republic of the Philippines

HERCOR COLLEGE
Riverside Campus
Roxas Avenue, Roxas City

College of Business Administration

JE ANN VERGARA PAOLO DELA TORRE

Reporter Subject Instructor

FALLACIESOF REASONING

FALLACY The term fallacy is deduced from the Latin word fallo, which means I deceived. It is an illogical, misleading
and deceptive argument. This erroneous argument contains the deceptive resemblance of validity and truth, but it is not. It
seems to be conclusive, but it is not.

An intentional fallacy designed to deceive or mislead an opponent to impress others about their presumed
wisdom is called sophism or sophistry.
A fallacy committed through the ignorance of the rules of reasoning is called paralogism.

Fallacy can either be FORMAL OR INFORMAL:

1. FORMAL OR LOGICAL FALLACIES are glaring errors {a defective form} which result from the violation of the
fundamental forms in the formulation of arguments such as the rules of definition, division, conversion, observation,
and syllogistic fallacies {the categorical and hypothetical syllogisms}.
2. INFORMAL OR MATERIAL FALLACIES are due to confusion in the connotation or denotation of terms employed,
simple ignorance or the plain misapprehension of facts. The presence of irrelevant psychological factors distort the
reasoning process of the person. Such hasty conclusions are based on incomplete or faulty knowledge.

TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES

1. Fallacies of the matter (Fallacies of relevance) -is also known as the fallacy of confusion. These fallacies stem from
confusion of ideas and things which are compelling for psychological reasons. The premises are not relevant to its
conclusion and therefore cannot establish the truth of the conclusion.
2. Fallacies in the language (Fallacy of Ambiguity)- These fallacies rest upon the lack of preciseness in the words,
phrases or sentences use to express thoughts. Informal Fallacies are committed when the inference to the
conclusion relies upon shifting within meanings, and the course of an argument.
 THE FALLACY OF RELEVANCE

1. Fallacy of the Accidental

-This fallacy infers a distorted conclusion from the confusion of what is essential or necessary to a thing and what is
merely accidental to it, or vice-versa. What is true in general rule is also true in some cases. The accident is from general
to specific. The generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not properly govern.
In contrast to this fallacy is converse accident. The accident is from specific to general. This is sometimes called hasty
generalization wherein one moves carelessly or too quickly from individual cases to a generalization.
2. Fallacy from the Absolute to the Qualified Statement or vice-versa
-This fallacy contains an illegitimate conclusion that a qualified statement is true from the reason that absolute
statement is true; or vice-versa, the absolute statement is true, due to the reason that the qualified statement is true.
3. Fallacy of Ignoring the Question (Ignoratio Elinchi)
-This fallacy is called The Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion Genetic Fallacy Ignorance of the Question, Ignoring
the Issue, Missing the Point and so on. The fallacy is deduced from the Greek word elenchus which means
refutation. To refute a statement is to establish its contradictory. Establishing other than what is contradictory is said to
be ignorant of the refutation. These fallacies evade the issue by employing techniques such as improving what is not
supposed to be proved, not proving what is supposed to be proved, disproving what has not been affirmed and proving
something other than the question itself.

Variations of Ignoratio Elenchi

1. Appeal to man (Argumentum Ad hominem at the person ) this fallacy is usually called Attack against the
man. The attack is not against his argument but is leveled against the man. The real issue is evaded .the object
of attack is not the merit of some position, but the person who takes that the position. When the vortex of
discussion is the personality or character of the opponent, the fallacy is called Abusive ad Hominem or appeal
to personality. What is stressed are as follows: mud-slinging or name calling, black propaganda, hitting
below the belt, character assassination, personal abuse and so on. When the attack is grounded on the special
circumstances of some person, the fallacy is called A Circumstantial Ad Hominem or Appeal to
Circumstances. This is sometimes referred to as the Latin term Tu Quoque or Fallacy of Tu Quoque
meaning Youre another or Look whos talking. A variety of the abusive Ad Hominem is the so-called Genetic
Fallacy, in which it is the source or genesis of some opposing position, rather than the position itself that is
attacked. Another variety of Abusive Ad Hominem is The
Fallacy of Poisoning the well. It is attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent. It
undermines continued rational exchange. Attack could be direct or indirect.
2. Irrelevant Function or Goals- This fallacy is projecting a goal other than what is intended to fulfill.
3. Emotional appeals such as:
a. Appeal to force (Argumentum Ad Baculum to the stick)- This is an appeal to physical force or moral
pressure by deviating from exercising critical thinking and logical reasoning. This appeal to might threatens
dire consequence and is an unworthy attempt to substitute penal measures for arguments that are
unfounded. Inappropriate appeal to force is used to support the truth of some conclusion.
b. Appeal to People (Argumentum Ad Populum to the people)- is an argument that appeals to passions
and inflaming prejudices rather than logical reasoning. To mobilize public sentiment, it employs persuasive,
 emotive and vitriolic language rather than rational argument. The support given to some conclusion is an
inappropriate appeal to popular belief, or to the emotions of the audience.
c. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam to pity)- It is befogging the issue by playing on
emotions. It employs rhetorics that appeal to pity, mercy and sympathy rather than proving that something is
true or false. The support given for some conclusion, an inappropriate appeal to the mercy or altruism of the
audience.
d. Appeal to Shame (Argumentum Ad Verecundiam to modesty)- This argument is under the guise of
blind authoritarianism. The fallacy is committed by appealing to the sanctity of customs and traditions to justify
proposition. It obscures the intrinsic merit of the issue by exaggerating the authority or dignity of those who
adhere to a certain viewpoint. This appeal to modesty is closely related to Misplaced Authority
(Argumentum Ad Auctoritatem). The solid ground of this fallacy is the unfounded authority supporting the
contention that has no special claim to expertness on the matter in question.
e. Appeal to Pride- True judgment of the proposition is discredited by dissipating the intrinsic value. The
fulcrum of the argument is the sentimental value (sense of pride) and direct bearing on the credibility of the
person.
f. Appeal to Advantage This is known in Filipino as Argumentum Pansarilum. It is an appeal to gain or profit.
It is incurred by a person (persons) to adhere to adopt a belief, policy, or course of action against the persons
(persons) will. It forces the person to do it because the advantage preferred is given.
g. Appeal to Money (Argumentum Ad Crumemam) Reyes called this Argumentum Ad Pabagsakum. It is
appealing to the sense of greed or cupidity of a person. Instead of presenting a logically valid argument, it
uses money as bribe to the opponent to concede.
h. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)- The vortex of the argument is on proposition that is
believe to be true on the ground that is has not been proved false, or false on the ground that it has not been
prove true. Thus, the truth or falsity of the proposition is ignore. Rather than cogent reasoning it sways others
with the fire enthusiasm and the grandiloquence of language being played. This modus operandi impedes
others from visualizing the speciousness of the argument.
i. Fallacy of false analogy This argument is a probably argument based on a resemblance. The arguments
proceeds from the one or more specific instances through an unexpressed universal to another specific
instance that is similar to the former but not logically identical with it. It merely suggests direction. Thus, It
points the way to probably answers. It is never certain. It concentrates more on resemblances and ignores in
many ways the accounting of important differences.
4. Fallacy of begging the questions (petition principii)
This fallacy also called Invoking the conclusion. It is argumentation in which the very conclusion (question)
to be proved is assumed to be true or that of a premise which is yet to be proved, or when the conclusion is
proved by a principle whose truth is grounded on the truth of the conclusion itself. The conclusion of an argument
is stated or assumed in one of the premises.

A. Fallacy of assumption non-probata

This fallacy is committed by assuming the truth of an unproved premise without proof and foundation to
support the contention. The first form: It employs synonymous terms to cover the fallacy. For instance,
discussing morphine by arguing that is induces sleep because it has a soporific effect. Another example is
tabloid thinking. It uses slogans, labels and question begging epithets. These are powerful instruments to stir
the imagination of the people and incite them to action.
Second form: It using a premise that cannot be known to be true unless the conclusion is first known to be
true. Here, the major premise is an enumerative universal.

B. Fallacy or Arguing in a circle (circulus in probando)

 -A conclusion is proved by a principle employed as a premise in an argument. This principle later on is proved
by this conclusion employed as a premise in a distinct argument. Two unproved propositions use each other
to establish the validity of the contention. It is proving a proposition by a second proposition and then proving
the second by the first.
C. Fallacy of Mult i-Questions (fallacy of interrogation or fallacy of loaded questions)
This fallacy is ascribed in interrogating questions phrased on a single questions thus tricking someone to
admit something which he does not intend. This loaded questions cannot be answered by unqualified
yes or no. The queries posed contain several implications which are prejudicial and disadvantageous to
the opponent. There is also the assumption that the truth of one implies the prejudice to the other. It is
also called an Assumption without proof.
5. Fallacy of false cause
The Aristotelian fallacy of false cause (non causa pro causa) is a configuration of drawing an absurd
conclusion from a false assumption to an opponent or erroneously assumed. What is not the cause or reason
is assumed to be its cause or reason. Later on, logicians extrapolated this to the emergence of causal with
non-causal relationship. Its commonest from is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore
because of this). It comprises mistaking a purely temporal sequence for a causal relationship. In brief, this
fallacy is incurred by assigning a wrong cause to a certain effect; mistaking a mere condition or occasion of
an event for its cause. The pitfall of false cause is always ready to swallow the unwary and the presumptuous.
Superstitions are grounded on this fallacy such as chain letters, horoscopes, charms and amulets, talisman,
and so on.

6. Fallacy of Consequent
This fallacy infers that an antecedent is true because its consequent is true, or that the consequent is false
because its antecedent is false. This fallacy considers the relationship of an antecedent and its consequent
as reciprocal. For instance, the invalid moods of the conditional syllogism.
A. Fallacy of Positing the Consequent
This fallacy is committed when one posit the Consequent in the minor premise and then posit the
antecedent in the conclusion.
B. Fallacy of Sublating the Antecedent
This fallacy is committed when we sublate the antecedent in the minor premise and hen sublate the
consequent in the conclusion. Obviously, The fallacy of the consequent can also be incurred on
categorical syllogisms. The inclusion of notions in the comprehension of a concept-whether as a
constitutive note (logical property) is a consequent of that concept, and in relation to its consequents. The
concept itself is an antecedent.
7. Fallacy of Non-Sequitur
It is the Latin phrase which means it does not follow. Every invalid argument is a non- sequitur. It ascribes
to a series of true but unrelated propositions that simulate the structure of a syllogism. It is simply drawing a
sequence/connection between the cause and effect, or between the antecedent and the consequent. The
conclusion does not simply follow from the premises.
8. Other Forms of Fallacies
a. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
It comprises a general statement as the solid ground of a conclusion. This illicit statement contains insufficient
evidence.
b. Fallacy of Irrelevant Premises
 It infers the drawing of a conclusion from premises which are irrelevant to it. The intention is merely to
persuade others to accept the conclusion.
c. Special Pleading
This error most often is committed in any kind of propaganda, whether political or commercial. Surveys
favorable to a politician are usually published.
d. Black or White
It is simply the assumption that there are only two contrary alternatives. The possibility of other alternatives
between the contraries are insignificant and is therefore, ignored.
e. The a Fortiori Fallacy
This fallacious argument is related to Arithmetical Fallacy. The configuration of the claim is grounded on a
certain amount of something gives a certain quantity of good (or bad) results.
f. The fallacy of Suppressing the Facts
It ascribes to the fallacious selection of favorable facts and suppressing all unfavorable facts.
g. The Argument from Silence
It infers that an alleged fact did not happen because no written record or witnesses to support it exists.
h. False Assumption
It is employing a false principle or statement as an unexpressed premise to draw a conclusion. This argument
rests on the false assumption that you cannot know anything for certain unless you can see, hear, touch,
smell, or taste them.
i. Unwarranted Assumption
1. Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
The fallacious argument regarded necessary and sufficient as equivalent terms.
2. Assumption or Irreversible Order
It assumes that if A is B, B cannot be A. It drops other instances whose reciprocity is involved, as in the
emotive sphere.
3. Argument of the beard
This argument is deduced from the practice of ancient philosophers who used to argue on the number of
hairs in a beard.
j. Strawman Fallacy
The fallacy is committed when an argument is deliberately misrepresented to weaken it by creating a weak
substitute a Strawman and passes it as the genuine argument.
k. Red Herring Fallacy
The fallacy is committed when the discussion is shifted to a new issue. For instance, if the argument
supporting euthanasia will be shifted to another issue; the value of human life- a red herring.
l. The Slippery Slope Fallacy
The fallacy is committed when an issue is allowed to happen, it must also be allowed to happen to other
cases. The first case must be universalizable and plunged down the slippery slope, for instance, to a terrible
disaster where anybody who has outlived his usefulness will be terminated. Since you decline, for instance
euthanasia to all terminally ill, the aged, the crippled, the infirm and deformed infants. You are enjoined not to
take the first step. But there is no proof that if we take the first step, all the predicted consequences to the
gruesome end will follow.

The Fallacy of Ambiguity

1. Fallacy of Equivocation
 Equivocation is the fallacy of inferring from a change of meaning of the same term. This deductive
inferential fallacy emerges from using a word that has the same spelling or sound but differs in meaning.
This faulty assignment of meanings to terms is obviously ambiguous. First, the shift could be from one
meaning to another altogether different meaning. Second, it could be also be a shift from formal
supposition in the major premise to material supposition in the minor premise. Third, the shift could also
be from metaphorical supposition of the minor term in the minor premise, to real or proper supposition of
the same term in the conclusion.

a. Fallacy of Ambiguous Major Term

When the major term expresses two different meanings.
b. Fallacy of Ambiguous Minor Term
When the minor term uses two different meanings.
c. Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle Term
When the middle term is used with two different meanings.
2. Fallacy of Amphiboly or Amphibology
This syntactical ambiguity emerges from using phrases or complete sentences whose words are univocal
but whose meaning is grammatically constructed ambiguously.
3. Fallacy of Accent or Prosody
This fallacy infers ambiguously from shifting emphasis from one word to another. This false stress is an
intentional distortion or twisting of the senses of words in order to confuse and produce varied
interpretations.
4. Fallacy of Composition
This fallacy consists collectively what should be taken individually. It is using a group of words or phrases
as a unit or in a collective sense whereas they should be taken separately or in a distributive sense. It is
mistakenly deduced from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself.
5. Fallacy of Division
This Fallacy converse of the fallacy of composition. It consists in taking separately what should be taken
as unit. It uses a term in its collective sense and then in its distributive sense. It is deduced from the
attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of a whole.
6. Fallacy of figures of speech or Fallacy of word construction
This special type of false analogy infers a similarity of meaning from the similarity of meaning from the
similarity of the material patterns of two words or word structure, or, in interpreting literally a figure of
speech.