Legal Technique and Logic Notes

LOGIC
-The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio".
-By GottlobFrege (1848-1925) From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry"logic is the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.”
- Alfred Tarski (1901-1983) From his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences, Dover, page xi.-"logic" ... [is] ... the name of a discipline which
analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts.”
-may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments.
-the study of the principles of correct reasoning.
- aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we
may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing
arguments of our own.
1. Proposition and sentences
--George Boole (1815-1864) he developed logic as an abstract mathematical system consisting of defined terms( propositions)
-Aristotelian logic identifies a proposition as a sentence which affirms or denies a predicate of a subject
. A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either True or false
PROPOSITION VS SENTENCES
-expression of judgment
- made up of concepts -made up of words.
-Either true or false - not the bearer of truth or falsehood
-all statements are sentences -not all sentences are propositions.
Compound proposition- meaning it contains several propositions:
Ex: (based on case)
The British were at the gates of Hamburg and Bremen and threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark.
This proposition contains three propositions:
The British were at the gates of Hamburg.
The British were at the gates of Bremen.
The British were threatening to cut off Germany from Denmark.
hypothetical proposition- could be true even if both of its parts are false
Ex:(based on case)
If God exists, objective moral values exist.
(Neither the first part, “God exists,” nor the second part, “objective moral values exist,” is being asserted. Rather, it is only asserted that if God exists, then objective
moral values exist. The hypothetical proposition above could be true even if both of its parts are false: it could be the case that if God existed objective moral values
would exist, but as it happens God does not exist, and also objective moral values do not exist. **)
- Questions, commands, and exclamations do not assert anything, so they aren’t propositions. None of these are propositions:
Study logic more often, please.
Yay, Cardinals!
What time is it?
iii. ARGUMENTS, PREMISES and CONCLUSIONS
Arguments- to mean a set of propositions in which some propositions--the premises--are asserted as support or evidence for another--the conclusion.
2 Parts of Argument
Premises-a statement in an argument that sets forth evidence or reasons.** Indicator: Since, because, as, For, given that, assuming that, in as much as , The reason is
that, In view of the fact that
Conclusion: the statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply.** Indicator: therefore, Thus, So, Consequently, As a result, It follows
that, Hence, Which means that, Which implies that…
BEWARE: sometimes indicator words do not guarantee an argument, if they’re used in a different way.
Premise + Conclusion= Argument
Ex: All crimes are violations of the law.
Theft is a crime.
Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.
iv. MORE COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both).
(**-- very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the
logical structure of the reasoning involved. Drawing a diagram can be very helpful.)
§ A09.1 Argument maps
An argument map is a diagram that captures the logical structure of a simple or complex argument. In the simplest possible case, we have a single premise supporting
a single conclusion. Consider this argument :
Example 1 :Life is short, and so we should seize every moment.

Let us now look at another example:
Example 2: Paris is in France, and France is in Europe. So obviously Paris is in Europe.
Here is the corresponding argument map:

Note that the two premises are connected together before linking to the conclusion. This merging of the links indicate that the two premises are co-premises which
work together in a single argument to support the conclusion. In other words, they do not provide independent reasons for accepting the conclusion. Without one of
the premises, the other premise would fail to support the conclusion.
This should be contrasted with the following example where the premises are not co-premises. They provide independent reasons for supporting the conclusion:
Example3 [1] Smoking is unhealthy, since [2] it can cause cancer. Furthermore, [3] it also increases the chance of heart attacks and strokes.
Instead of writing the premises and the conclusion in full in the argument map, we can label them and write down their numbers instead: This diagram tells
us that [2] and [3] are independent reasons supporting [1]. In other words, without [2], [3] would still support [1], and without [3], [2] would still support [1].
(Although the argument is stronger with both premises.)Finally, it is also possible to have a single reason giving rise to multiple conclusions :
Example 4 [1] Gold is a metal. [2] So it conducts electricity. [3] It also conducts heat.
§ A09.2 More complicated examples
Now that we know the basics of argument maps, we can combine the templates we learn above to represent more complicated arguments, by following this
PROCEDURE
1. Identify the most important or main conclusion(s) of the argument.
2. Identify the premises used to support the conclusion(s). These are the premises of the main argument.
3. If additional arguments have been given to support any of these premises, identify the premises of these additional arguments as well, and repeat this
procedure.
4. Label the premises and conclusions using numerals or letters.
5. Write down the labels in a tree structure and draw arrows leading from sets of premises to the conclusions they support.
Let us try this out on this argument:
Po cannot come to the party because her scooter is broken. Dipsy also cannot come because he has to pick up his new hat. I did not invite the other teletubbies, so no
teletubby will come up to the party.
We now label and refomulate the premises and the conclusions:
1. Po cannot come to the party.
2. Po's scooter is broken.
3. Dipsy cannot come to the party.
4. Dipsy has to pick up his new hat.
5. I did not invite the other teletubbies.
6. [Conclusion] No teletubby will come up to the party.
We can then draw the argument map like this:
This is an example of what we might call a multi-layered complex argument, where an intermediate conclusion is used as a premise in another argument. So [1] and
[3] are the intermediate conclusions, which together with [5] lead to the main conclusion [6]. This complex argument is therefore made up of three overlapping
simple arguments in total. Of course, in this particular case you can understand the argument perfectly well without using this diagram. But with more complicated
arguments, a picture can be an indispensable aid.
v. Recognizing argumentssis iaddmonalngyongisangdoc..balenakapowerpointna yon.
vi DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE
A deductive argument claims that its premises make its conclusion certain. In contrast, aninductive argument claims that its premises merely make its
conclusion probable.
Deductive arguments
Let us consider a deductive argument. If the premises when true succeed in making its conclusion certain, the argument is valid. If the premises when true fail to
make its conclusion certain, the argument is invalid. Let’s look at an example:based on case
Example 1
1. All mammals have lungs.
2. All whales are mammals.
3. Therefore all whales have lungs.
This deductive argument is valid because the conclusion follows with certainty if the premises are true. There is no possible way for the premises to be true and yet
the conclusion false. But consider:
Example 2:
1. All eight-legged creatures have wings.
2. A spider is an eight-legged creature.
3. Therefore spiders have wings.
This argument is also valid, because if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. The problem here is not that the argument is invalid, but that one of
the premises is false.
Now consider an argument with true premises and a true conclusion that is invalid:
Example 3
1. If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, I would be wealthy.
2. I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
3. Therefore I am not wealthy.
Both premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow with certainty. There are many ways to be wealthy without owning all the gold in Fort Knox.
A valid deductive argument with true premises is a sound argument. A sound argument is often called a “proof,” but this term can be misleading. If the premises
themselves are absolutely certain, then a sound argument does indeed offer proof, as in the below example:
Example 4
1. All bachelors are unmarried.
2. All bachelors are male.
3. Therefore all bachelors are unmarried males.
The premises are certain here because they are true by definition, and the argument is sound, so the conclusion is proven. However, consider:
Example 5
1. All bachelors are unmarried.
2. Luke is a bachelor.
3. Therefore Luke is unmarried.
This is also a sound argument (a valid argument with true premises), but the conclusion is not “proven” in the same way as in the argument above. Why? Because the
second premise is anempirical claim about existence, not merely a statement about the meaning of terms. As such, it is always possible it is false. For example, maybe
during a drunk night in Vegas I married a stripper but don’t remember the event. Or maybe everything I’ve ever experienced is a fabrication of The Matrix and in the
“real world” I am married to a girl named Susan.
So, even a deductive argument cannot offer 100% conclusive proof if one of the premises makes a claim about existence.
Philosophers understand the rules of propositional logic so well that it is rare for one of them to publish an invalid argument. So, in philosophy, nearly all
disagreement concerns whether or not the premises of a deductive argument are true or false, probable or improbable – not whether the argument is valid or invalid.
But most of us are not professional philosophers, and we advance invalid arguments all the time. So we’re going to spend some time studying the rules of logic so
that we, too, can stop advancing invalid arguments.
Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments do not try to establish their conclusions with certainty.
- claims that its premises make the conclusion probable. Inductive arguments cannot be valid or invalid. Instead, they are weak or strong, better or worse.
And even when the premises are true and provide very strong support for the conclusion, the conclusion cannot be certain. The strongest inductive
argument is not as conclusive as a sound deductive argument.
Here is a simple example:
Example 1
1. Most corporation lawyers are conservatives.
2. Betty Morse is a corporation lawyer.
3. Therefore Betty Morse is a conservative.
This is a pretty good inductive argument, because (let us say) both premises are true. Thus, the conclusion is more likely true than false.
Vii Validity and Truth
valid argumentcan have any combination of true or false premises and true or false conclusions., except that a valid argumentcannot have true premises and a false
conclusion.
Propositions (premises and conclusions) can be true or false. Arguments cannot.
Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. Inductive arguments and propositions cannot.
It is the task of science and philosophy to determine whether the premises of arguments are true or false, and the purpose of logic is to determine
whether deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and whether inductive arguments are strong or weak.
- An argument can be valid but not truthful, if its phrasing is technically correct but the point it is ultimately making is false. An argument can also be truthful but not
valid, as it can raise a true point and yet not be properly phrased so as to be logically valid.
-Lets see the table for clearer example
-Truth of Statements, Validity of Reasoning
True Premises, False Conclusion
Impossible: no valid argument can have true premises and a false

0. Valid
conclusion.
Cats are mammals.

1. Invalid Dogs are mammals.
Therefore, dogs are cats.
True Premises, True Conclusion
Cats are mammals.

2. Valid Tigers are cats.
Therefore, tigers are mammals.
Cats are mammals.

3. Invalid Tigers are mammals.
Therefore, tigers are cats.
False Premises, False Conclusion
Dogs are cats.

4. Valid Cats are birds.
Therefore, dogs are birds.
Cats are birds.

5. Invalid Dogs are birds.
Therefore, dogs are cats.
False Premises, True Conclusion
Cats are birds.

6. Valid Birds are mammals.
Therefore, cats are mammals.
Cats are birds.

7. Invalid Tigers are birds.
Therefore, tigers are cats.
The distinction between truth and validity is the fundamental distinction of formal logic. You cannot understand how logicians see things until this distinction is clear
and familiar.
The seven sample arguments above help us establish the following general principles of logic:
 True premises do not guarantee validity.
(Proved by cases #1 and #3 in the table above.)
 A true conclusion does not guarantee validity.
(Proved by cases #3 and #7.)
 True premises and a true conclusion together do not guarantee validity.
(Proved by case #3.)
 Valid reasoning does not guarantee a true conclusion.
 False premises do not guarantee invalidity.
 A false conclusion does not guarantee invalidity.
 False premises and a false conclusion together do not guarantee invalidity.
 Invalid reasoning does not guarantee a false conclusion.
Therefore, while the truth of propositions and the validity of reasoning are distinct, the relationship between them is not entirely straightforward. We cannot say that
truth and validity are utterly independent because the impossibility of "case zero" (a valid argument with true premises and false conclusion) shows that one
combination of truth-values is an absolute bar to validity. When an argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it must be invalid. In fact, this is how we define
invalidity.
On the other hand, this partial reliance of validity on truth-value only exists for what logicians call the semantic concept of validity. In a few weeks we'll encounter
a syntactic concept of validity which makes no reference to truth at all.
Despite these wrinkles, we should never be misled by true premises or true conclusions to suppose (automatically) that an argument is valid. Nor should we be misled
by false premises or false conclusions to suppose that it is invalid. Nor should we be misled by valid reasoning to suppose that statements are true, or by invalid
reasoning to suppose that statements are false. If we recognize this, then we have already far surpassed "common sense" in protecting ourselves from deception.
Truth and validity are combined in the concept of soundness.
An argument is sound if (and only if) all its premises are true and its reasoning is valid; all others are unsound. It follows that all sound arguments have true
conclusions.
Here's another version of our table, this time showing that only one of the argument types is sound.
Type All premises true? Conclusion true? Reasoning valid? Possible? Sound?
0 yes no yes IMPOSSIBLE N/A
1 yes no no possible unsound
2 yes yes yes possible SOUND
3 yes yes no possible unsound
4 no no yes possible unsound
5 no no no possible unsound
6 no yes yes possible unsound
7 no yes no possible unsound

Empirical scientists and private detectives tell us whether statements are true.
Logicians tell us whether reasoning is valid.
How do logicians test validity? Basically, they test for invalidity. We know exactly what invalidity in an argument is: to have true premises and a false conclusion. An
argument is valid in a weak sense if it simply is not invalid. This weak sense of validity turns out to suffice for all the purposes of rigorous reasoning in science,
mathematics, and daily life.
But to test for invalidity, we must know when we are dealing with true premises and a false conclusion. However, logicians do not know whether statements are true
or false. (They are not empirical scientists or private detectives.) But despite this ignorance, logicians can still test validity. One way is to assume that an argument's
premises are all true and the conclusion false (i.e. assume invalidity) and see whether we can get away with it. Another way is to make all possible assumptions about
the truth and falsity of those statements. If there is a "possible universe" in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid for
all universes. (Can you see why?)
Viii ARGUMENTS and EXPLANATION
- Explanationsis a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.
One of the most important kinds of nonargument is the explanation. An explanation
The event or phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
Examples:based on cases
The Challenger spacecraft exploded after liftoff because an O-ring failed in one of
the booster rockets.
The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are
scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
Cows can digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain
enzymes not found in humans.
two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans.

The explanandumis the statement that describes the event or phenomenon
to be explained,
explanansis the statement or group of statements thatpurports to do the explaining.
In the first example above, the explanandum is the statement ‘‘The Challenger spacecraft exploded after liftoff,’’ and the explanans is ‘‘An
O-ring failed in one of the booster rockets.’’
Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments because they often contain the
indicator word ‘‘because.’’ Yet explanations are not arguments because in an explanation
the purpose of the explanans is to shed light on, or to make sense of, the
explanandum event—not to prove that it occurred. In other words, the purpose of the
explanans is to show why something is the case, while in an argument, the purpose of
the premises is to prove that something is the case.
In the first example above, the fact that the Challenger exploded is known to
everyone. The statement that an O-ring failed in one of the booster rockets is not
intended to prove that the spacecraft exploded but rather to show why it exploded. In
the second example, the fact that the sky is blue is readily apparent. The intention of
the passage is to explain why it appears blue—not to prove that it appears blue.
Similarly, in the third example, virtually everyone knows that people cannot digest
grass. The intention of the passage is to explain why this is true.
Thus,
to distinguish explanations from arguments,
-identify the statement that is
either the explanandum or the conclusion (usually this is the statement that precedes
the word ‘‘because’’).
-If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the
remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is an
explanation.
This method works for practically all passages that are either explanations or arguments
(but not both).
However, as with expository passages and illustrations, there
are some passages that can be interpreted as both explanations and arguments.
Example:
Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men
because men metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream
whereas women do not.
The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people who
do not accept it as fact, and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. Alternately, the passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a
single
person who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete experience, and simultaneously
to shed light on this truth. Thus, the passage can be correctly interpreted as both
an explanation and an argument.
Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish explanations
from arguments lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact.
Obviously what is accepted by one person may not be accepted by another. Thus, the
effort often involves determining which person or group of people the passage is
directed to—the intended audience. Sometimes the source of the passage (textbook,
newspaper, technical journal, etc.) will decide the issue. But when the passage is taken
totally out of context, this may prove impossible. In those circumstances the only
possible answer may be to say that if the passage is an argument, then such-and-such is the conclusion and such-and-such are the premises.
III. LANGUAGE
a. USES OF LANGUAGE
1. Functions of Language
The formal patterns of correct reasoning can all be conveyed through ordinary language, but then so can a lot of other
things. In fact, we use language in many different ways, some of which are irrelevant to any attempt to provide reasons
for what we believe. It is helpful to identify at least three distinct uses of language:
a. The informative use of language involves an effort to communicate some content. When I tell a child,
"The fifth of May is a Mexican holiday," or write to you that "Logic is the study of correct reasoning," or jot a
note to myself, "Jennifer—555-3769," I am using language informatively. This kind of use presumes that the
content of what is being communicated is actually true, so it will be our central focus in the study of logic.
b. An expressive use of language, on the other hand, intends only to vent some feeling, or perhaps to evoke
some feeling from other people. When I say, "Friday afternoons are dreary," or yell "Ouch!" I am using language
expressively. Although such uses don't convey any information, they do serve an important function in everyday
life, since how we feel sometimes matters as much as—or more than—what we hold to be true.
c. Finally, directive uses of language aim to cause or to prevent some overt action by a human agent. When I
say "Shut the door," or write "Read the textbook," or memo myself, "Don't rely so heavily on the passive voice,"
I am using language directively. The point in each of these cases is to make someone perform (or forswear) a
particular action. This is a significant linguistic function, too, but like the expressive use, it doesn't always relate
logically to the truth of our beliefs.
Literal and Emotive Meaning

Even single words or short phrases can exhibit the distinction between purely informative and partially expressive uses
of language. Many of the most common words and phrases of any language have both a literal or descriptive meaning
that refers to the way things are and an emotive meaning that expresses some (positive or negative) feeling about
them. Thus, the choice of which word to use in making a statement can be used in hopes of evoking a particular
emotional response.
This is a natural function of ordinary language, of course. We often do wish to convey some portion of our feelings along
with information. There is a good deal of poetry in everyday communication, and poetry without emotive meaning is
pretty dull. But when we are primarily interested in establishing the truth—as we are when assessing the logical merits
of an argument—the use of words laden with emotive meaning can easily distract us from our purpose.
Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement
In fact, an excessive reliance on emotively charged language can create the appearance of disagreement between
parties who do not differ on the facts at all, and it can just as easily disguise substantive disputes under a veneer of
emotive agreement. Since the degrees of agreement in belief and attitude are independent of each other, there are four
possible combinations at work here:
Agreement in belief and agreement in attitude: There aren't any problems in this instance, since both parties hold the
same positions and have the same feelings about them.
Agreement in belief but disagreement in attitude: This case, if unnoticed, may become the cause of endless (but
pointless) shouting between people whose feelings differ sharply about some fact upon which they are in total
agreement.
Disagreement in belief but agreement in attitude: In this situation, parties may never recognize, much less resolve, their
fundamental difference of opinion, since they are lulled by their shared feelings into supposing themselves allied.
Disagreement in belief and disagreement in attitude: Here the parties have so little in common that communication
between them often breaks down entirely.
It is often valuable, then, to recognize the levels of agreement or disagreement at work in any exchange of views. That
won't always resolve the dispute between two parties, of course, but it will ensure that they don't waste their time on
an inappropriate method of argument or persuasion.
Emotively Neutral Language
For our purposes in assessing the validity of deductive arguments and the reliability of inductive reasoning, it will be
most directly helpful to eliminate emotive meaning entirely whenever we can. Although it isn't always easy to achieve
emotively neutral language in every instance, and the result often lacks the colorful character of our usual public
discourse, it is worth the trouble and insipidity because it makes it much easier to arrive at a settled understanding of
what is true.
In many instances, the informal fallacies we will consider next result from an improper use of emotionally charged
language in the effort to persuade someone to accept a proposition at an emotional level, without becoming convinced
that there are legitimate grounds for believing it to be true.
IV. DEDUCTIVE REASONING

 DEDUCTIVE REASONING
 Categorical Propositions
 Categorical Propositions and Classes

 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution
 The Traditional Square of Opposition
 What are Categorical Propositions?
 Categorical Propositions are statements that relate two different classes of things.
 The classes are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate term; and
 the proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject is included in or excluded from
the class denoted by the predicate term.
 Example:
 In the case of Harry Stonehill vs Hon. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
 Prosecutors alleged that the contested search warrants are valid. It was issued in accordance with law and that
the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners' consent.
 Search warrants issued in accordance with law are valid warrants.
 In the case of Lambino vs Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006:
 The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least
twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals
 The Individuals supporting the petition filed by Lambino group are registered voters.
 Essentially, either all or part of the subject is included in all or part of the predicate.
 Four Standard-form
Categorical Propositions
 Universal affirmative propositions
 Universal negative propositions
 Particular affirmative propositions
 Particular negative propositions
 Standard-form
 A proposition that expresses the relation between subject and predicate with complete clarity.
 A categorical proposition is in its standard form if and only if it conforms to any of the four standard-form
categorical propositions.
 Example of a Standard-form Categorical Proposition
 In the case of Ebralinang vs The Superintendent of Schools of Cebu G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993:
 Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite
the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" (p. 10, Rollo) which
they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God" (p. 8, Rollo).
 Example of a Standard-form Categorical Proposition
 All members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem,
and recite the patriotic pledge.
 No members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge.
 Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge.
 Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are not teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national
 Standard-form Categorical Proposition is analyzed as follows:
 Quantifier: all
 Subject term: members of Jevoha’s Witnesses
 Copula: are
 Predicate term: teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the
national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge
 NOTE
 Many categorical propositions are not in standard form because they do not begin with the words “all”, “no”
and some” which are called QUANTIFIERS.
 Some words “are” and “are not”, “is” and “is not”, “will” and “will not” are called COPULA.
 Universal Affirmative Propositions
 “A” propositions
 every member of the first class is also a member of the second class.
 From the first example…

 It is about two classes:
1) the class of “all members of Jehova’s Witnesses”
2) the class of “all persons teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the
patriotic pledge”
 “Universal Affirmative” is appropriate, because the proposition affirms that the relationship of class inclusion
holds between the two classes and says that the inclusion is complete or universal.
 Universal Negative Propositions
 “E” propositions
 the first class is wholly excluded from the second
 From the second example…
 No members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge.
 Saying that the first class is wholly excluded from the second.
 “Universal Negative” is appropriate because the proposition denies that the relation of class inclusion holds
between the two classes and denies it universally.
 Particular Affirmative Propositions
 “I” propositions
 at least one member of the class designated by the subject term is also a member of the class designated by the
predicate term.
 From the third example…
 Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national
 This proposition neither affirms nor denies that all members of Jehova’s Witnesses are teaching… it makes no
pronouncement on the matter.
 Particular Negative Propositions
 “O” propositions
 At least one member of the class designated by the subject term is excluded from the whole of the class
designated by the predicate term.
 From the last example…
 Some members of Jevoha’s Witnesses are not teaching their children not to salute the flag, sing the national
 Saying that at least one member of the classes designated by the subject term is excluded from the whole of the
class designated by the predicate term.
 Critical Examples
 Universal Affirmative Proposition
 contention of the prosecution in the case of LEGASPI vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. No. L-72119 May 29,
1987
 All of the complaints(for attempted murder against petitioner, gambling, theft of fighting cocks) filed by the
Tondo Foreshore Area residents against their barangay chairman were dismissed.
 Universal Negative Proposition
 In the case of VASQUEZ vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1999
 None of the reporter, editor, nor the publisher of the newspaper who were the ones most obviously responsible
for the publication of the allegedly offensive news report was charged in court.
 Critical Examples
 Particular Affirmative Proposition
 Some residents from the Tondo Foreshore Area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General
Manager Lito Atienza regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo.
 Particular Negative Proposition
 The existence of malice is not present in the case of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code
constituting libel.
 QUALITY AND QUANTITY
 QUALITY
 Affirmative
 Negative
 Affirmative Propositions
 If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is affirmative.
 Universal Affirmative Proposition (A)
 Particular Affirmative Proposition (I)
 Negative Propositions
 If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is negative.
 Universal Negative Proposition (E)
 Particular Negative Proposition (O)
 DISTRIBUTION
 Refers to whether a certain class is totally or partially included in or excluded from another class.
 Refers to whether a term in the categorical proposition is distributed or undistributed.
 Distributed Term
 a term of a categorical proposition that is used with reference to every member of a class.
 Undistributed Term
 If the term is not being used to refer to each and every member of the class
 In the case of
PEOPLE vs. GENOSA [G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004]
 A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or
psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for
her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
 Examples of Distribution
 A: All battered women are wives or women having intimate relationship with men.
 An A proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse.
 E: No battered woman receives only one cycle of battering.
 An E proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate.
 I: Some women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man are
battered women.
 Both terms in an I proposition are undistributed.
 O: Some women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man are
not considered battered women.
 In an O proposition only the predicate is distributed.
 THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
 Four ways in which propositions may be opposed:
 Contradictories
 Contraries
 Subcontraries
 Subalternation
 Illustration
 A - To find a person guilty of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be
proved: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge (c)
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.
 E –No elements were present in the case.
 I – Some of the elements of libel were present in the case.
 O - Of the four elements under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code constituting libel, the existence of malice was
not present in the case.
 Contraries
 (A and E)
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. (statement of the law –all must be present)
 E – No elements were present in the case. (additional proposition)
 Contradictories
 Example (A and O) (E and I)
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. (statement of the law –all must be present)
 Contradictories
 E – No elements were present in the case. (additional proposition)
 I – Some of the elements of libel were present in the case.
 Subcontraries
 Examples (I and O prop)
 I – only the first three elements of libel were present in the case.
 Subalternation
 The A proposition:
 All mineral resources are owned by the State. (cruz vs denr, 1st statement)
 Has a corresponding I proposition:
 Some mineral resources are owned by the State.
 THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
 If A is true :
 E is false
 I is true
 O false
 If E is true:
 A is false
 I is false
 O is true
 If A is false :
 E are undetermined
 I are undetermined
 O is true
 If E is false:
 I is true
 A are undetermined
 O are undetermined
B. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM-
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument that has exactly two premises and contains only categoricalstatements. A categorical statement is a
statement that asserts that either a part of, or the whole of, one set ofobjects -- the set identified by the subject term in the sentence expressing that statement --
either is includedin, or is excluded from, another set -- the set identified by the predicate term in that sentence.
STANDARD FORM OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
For a categorical statement to be in standard-form, the sentence expressing that statement must beginwith the quantifier "all," "no," or "some." It must
then present the subject term -- the term designating the setof objects the statement is about -- followed by the copula -- either "are" or "are not" -- followed, finally,
bythe predicate term. So, for a categorical statement to be in standard-form, the sentence that expresses it musthave precisely the following structure:
Quantifier + Subject Term + Copula + Predicate Term
Examples:
(PEOPLEvs. MARIVIC GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
AllBattered Woman Syndromearea form of self-defence.
Q S C P
( STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )
Allsearch warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court arenull and
Q S C P
void.
A standard-form categorical syllogism is one that meets the following fourconditions:

1. All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions.
2. The two occurrences of each term are identical.
3. Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument.
4. The major premise is listed fi rst, the minor premise second, and the conclusion
last.
The first condition requires that each statement have a proper quantifier, subjectterm, copula, and predicate term. The second condition is clear. The third
rules outthe possibility of equivocation. For example, if a syllogism containing the word “men”used that term in the sense of human beings in one statement and in the
sense of malehuman beings in another statement, the syllogism would really contain more thanthree terms and would therefore not be in standard form. Finally, the
fourth conditionmerely requires that the three statements be listed in the right order.
THREE CATEGORICAL TERMS
A standard categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of three categorical sentences, in which there are three terms, and each term appears exactly
twice.
The three terms in a standard categorical syllogism are the major, the minor and the middle terms. The major term is the predicate term of the conclusion.
The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion. The middle term is the term that appears twice in the premises.
Examples:
( WHITE LIGHT vs.CITY OF MANILA,G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )
1. All ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are unconstitutional and void.
2. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
3. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are unconstitutional and void.
4. Major Term: unconstitutional and void
Minor Term: Manila City Ordinance numbered 7774
Middle Term: ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
( VALENTIN L. LEGASPI vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. No. L-72119 May 29, 1987 )
1. All Filipino citizens are people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.
2. All men named ValentinLegaspi are Filipino Citizen.
3. All men named ValentinLegaspi are people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.
Major Term: people with fundamental right to information on matters of public concern
Minor Term: men named ValentinLegaspi
Middle Term: Filipino citizens
MAJOR AND MINOR PREMISES
A categorical syllogism is presented in standard form when its statements are arranged in the order of the major premise, the minor premise and the
conclusion. Here the major premise is the premise that contains the major term, and the minor premise is the premise that contains the minor term.
Examples:
( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )
1. All acts of saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge are acts of worshipping idols. – MAJOR PREMISE
2. No Jehovah’s Witnesses are worshipping idols.– MINOR PREMISE
3. No Jehovah’s Witnesses are saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge. –CONCLUSIO
THE FORMAL NATURE OF SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS
The mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely determine its form, and the form of an argument, from the viewpoint of logic, is its most important aspect. The
validity or invalidity of a syllogism depends exclusively on its form, completely independent of its content.
The validity of a categorical syllogism is determined entirely by its form. As it turns out, exactly 15 of the 256 forms are valid.
MOOD
The mood of a categorical syllogism consists of the letter names of the propositions that make it up. For example, if the major premise is an A proposition,
the minor premise an O proposition, and the conclusion an E proposition, the mood is AOE. To determine the mood of a categorical syllogism, one must first put the
syllogism into standard form; the letter name of the statements may then be noted to the side of each. The mood of the syllogism is then designated by the order of
these letters, reading the letter for the major premise first, the letter for the minor premise second, and the letter for the conclusion last.
There are exactly four standard-form categorical statements, each of which is identified with acapitalized vowel of the alphabet. They are:
A: All S are P.
E: No S are P.
I: Some S are P.
O: Some S are not P.
Examples:
( Cruz vs. DENR Secretary and La BugalB’laan, GR No. 127882, December 1, 2004 )
A: All mineral resources are things owned by the state.
E: No exploration, development and utilization (EDU) of natural resources are under
thefull control and supervision of a foreign state.
I: Some small-scale utilization of natural resources are allowed by law in favour of
Filipino citizens.
O:Some natural resources are notalienated by the State.
FIGURE
The figure of a categorical syllogism is determined by the location of the two occurrences of the middle term in the premises. Four different arrangements
are possible. If we let S represent the subject of the conclusion (minor term), P the predicate of the conclusion (major term), and M the middle term, and leave out the
quantifiers and copulas, the four possible arrangements may be illustrated as follows:
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4
MP PM MP PM
SM SM MS MS
SP SP SP SP
Once the mood and figure of a syllogism is known, the validity of the syllogism canbe determined by checking the mood and figure against a list of valid
syllogistic forms.To do this, first adopt the Boolean standpoint and see if the syllogism’s form appearsin the following table of unconditionally valid forms. If it does, the
syllogism is validfrom the Boolean standpoint. In other words, it is valid regardless of whether its termsdenote actually existing things.
UNCONDITIONALLYVALIDFORMS
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4
AAA EAE EAE AEE IAI AEE IAI
AII EIO AII OAO EIO
EIO AOO EIO
Examples:
( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004 )
Figure 1. EIO-1
1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
2. Some women are wives suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
3. Some women are not incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
Figure 2. EIO-2
1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.
2. Some wives are incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.
3. Some wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
Figure 3. EIO-3
1. No woman suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
2. Some women suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome”areFilipino wives.
3. Some Filipino wives are not incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
Figure 4. EIO-4
1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is a woman, who incurs criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.
2. Some women, who incur criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband are Filipino wives.
3. Some Filipino wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
VENN DIAGRAMS
Venn diagrams provide the most intuitively evident and, in the long run, easiest toremember technique for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms.The
technique isbasically an extension of the one developed to represent the informationalcontent of categorical propositions. Because syllogisms contain three terms,
whereaspropositions contain only two, the application of Venn diagrams to syllogisms requiresthree overlapping circles.
These circles should be drawn so that seven areas are clearly distinguishablewithinthe diagram. The second step is to label the circles, one for each term.
The preciseorder of the labelling is not critical, but we will adopt the convention of always assigningthe lower-left circle to the subject of the conclusion, the lower-right
circle to thepredicate of the conclusion, and the top circle to the middle term. This convention iseasy to remember because it conforms to the arrangement of the
terms in a standardformsyllogism: The subject of the conclusion is on the upperleft , the predicate of theconclusion is on the upper right, and the middle term is in the
premises, bellow theconclusion.
The test procedure consists of transferring the information content of thepremisesto the diagram and then inspecting the diagram to see whether it
necessarily impliesthe truth of the conclusion. If the information in the diagram does do this, the argumentis valid; otherwise it is invalid.
VENN DIAGRAM RULES AND TIPS
The basic rules are the same as in categorical propositions. If a region is empty, then we shade it,and if a region is non-empty, then we put an “X” in it.
The use of Venn diagrams to evaluate syllogisms usually requires a little practiceatfirst. Perhaps the best way of learning the technique is through illustrative
examples,but a few pointers are needed first:
1. Marks (shading or placing an X) are entered only for the premises. No marksaremade for the conclusion.
2. If the argument contains one universal premise, this premise should beenteredfirst in the diagram. If there are two universal premises, either one can be
done first.
3. When entering the information contained in a premise, one should concentrateon the circles corresponding to the two terms in the statement. While the
thirdcircle cannot be ignored altogether, it should be given only minimal attention.
4. When inspecting a completed diagram to see whether it supports a particularconclusion, one should remember that particular statements assert two
things.“Some S are P” means “At least one S exists and that S is a P”; “Some S are not P”means “At least one S exists and that S is not a P.”
5. When shading an area, one must be careful to shade all of the area inquestion.
6. The area where an X goes is always initially divided into two parts. If one oftheseparts has already been shaded, the X goes in the unshaded part. Examples:
If one of the two parts is not shaded, the X goes on the line separating the twoparts. Examples:
This means that the X may be in either (or both) of the two areas—but it is notknown which one.
7. An X should never be placed in such a way that it dangles outside of thediagram,and it should never be placed on the intersection of two lines.
Examples:
( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )
1. No search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are constitutional and valid.
2. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are constitutional and valid.
3. No search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill arecontravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
Mood-Figure: EAE-2
The first step is to diagram the major premise, using the circles representing M (constitutional and valid) and P (contravening the Constitution and the Rules
of Court). So we shade out the area of overlap between M and P:
The second step is to add the minor premise to our diagram, using the circles representing S (search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill) and M. Since this is
an A proposition, we shade out the region of S outside M.
The final step is to examine the completed diagram of the premises and determine whether it contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The
conclusion asserts that no S is P. Thus it requires that the overlap between S and P be shaded out, and the premises taken together do shade out that region. So the
syllogism is VALID.
1. No wife suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.
2. Some wives are incurring criminal and civil liability when she kills her husband.
3. Some wives are not suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
Mood-Figure:EAE-2
First we diagram the major premise.
Second we diagram the minor premise.
Notice that we diagrammed the major premise first. This is not required logically, but whenever there is a particular and a universal premise, it is best to
diagram the universal one first. By diagramming the universal premise first, we have shaded out one of the sub regions, so now we know that the X for the other
premise must go outside the P circle. And that's useful information; it means that at least one S is not P. Since that is what the conclusion asserts, the argument is
VALID.
If a syllogism is invalid, a Venn diagram will reveal that fact in one of two ways. The combined diagram for the premises will either fail to shade out an area
excluded by the conclusion, or it will fail to put an X where the conclusion requires one.
( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 )
1. No search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are constitutional and valid.
2. All search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Courtare null and void.
3. Somenull and void search warrants are not constitutional and valid.
Mood-Figure:EAO-3
Notice that it does not contains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that some S are not P. Thus it requires that there is an X
between S and M, but there is none so the syllogism is INVALID. There should be an“X” here to
match the conclusion.

1. No Jehovah’s Witness believer is a man who salutes the flag, sings the national anthem, and recites the patriotic pledge.
2. Some men who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge are not foreigner.
3. Some foreigners are not Jehovah’s witness believers.
Mood-Figure:EOO-4
Notice again that it does notcontains the information asserted by the conclusion. The conclusion asserts that some S are not P. Thus it requires that there is
an X inside S, but there is none so the syllogism is INVALID.
There should be an “X” here, to
conform with the conclusion.
SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

1. A valid standard-form categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.
The necessity of having only three terms follows from the very nature of a categorical syllogism, in which a minor (t) and a major (T) term are
united or separated through the intermediary of a third term, the middle term (M).
The necessity of having three terms arranged in this way in three propositions also follows from the very nature of a categorical syllogism. Two
propositions (the premises) are required for the middle term to fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms and a third proposition
(the conclusion) is required to express the union or separation of the minor and major terms.
Example:
( HARRY S. STONEHILL vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 ).
1. All search warrants contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court are null and void.
2. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are searches that do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized.
3. All search warrants issued to Harry Stonehill are null and void.
FALLACY:Fallacy Of Four Terms
2. In a valid standard form categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed at least once.
The reason for this rule is that when the middle term is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion of its extension in each
occurrence and thus be equivalent to two terms, and therefore fail to fulfil its function of uniting or separating the minor and major terms.
Example:
( People vs. Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004
1. All victims of “Battered Woman Syndrome” are justified from criminal liabilities.
2. All people who are defending the person or rights of a stranger are justified from criminal liabilities.
3. All people who are defending the person or rights of a stranger are victims of “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
FALLACY:Undistributed Middle
3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise.
The reason for this rule is that we may not conclude about all the inferiors of a term if the premises have given us information about only some
of them. The conclusion is an effect of the premises and must therefore be contained in them implicitly; but all are not necessarily contained in some—at
least not by virtue of the form of argumentation alone.
Example:
1. All Jehovah’s witnesses areliving people.
2. Some Filipino citizens are not Jehovah’s witnesses.
3. Some Filipino citizens are not living people.
FALLACY:Illicit Major
1. All Jehovah’s witnesses are people who do not worship idols.
2. All people who do not worship idols are religious people.
3. All religious people are Jehovah’s witnesses.
FALLACY:Illicit Minor
4. In a categorical syllogism, two negative premises are not allowed. To fulfill its function of uniting or separating the minor and the major term, the middle
term must itself be united with at least one of them. But if both premises are negative, the middle term is denied of each of the extremes and we learn
nothing about the relationship of the extremes towards one another.
Example:
1. No person suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome” is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
2. No husband isa person suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome.”
3. No husband is incurring criminal and civil liability when they kill their husband.
FALLACY:Exclusive Premises
5. A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.
The reason for this rule is that the affirmative premise unites the middle term with one of the extremes (that is, with either the minor or the
major term) and the negative premise separates the middle term from the other extreme. Two things, of which the one is identical with a third thing and
the other is different from that same third thing, cannot be identical with one another. Hence, if a syllogism with a negative premise concludes at all, it must
conclude negatively.
Example:( White Light Vs. City Of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )
1. All ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are unconstitutional and void.
2. All Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 are ordinances that violate the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
3. No Manila City Ordinance Numbered 7774 is unconstitutional and void.
FALLACY:Drawing A Negative Conclusion From Affirmative Premises.
6. If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.
Example:
( White Light Vs. City Of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009 )
1. All ordinances that protect the right to privacy and the freedom of movement are constitutional and valid.
2. All Manila City Ordinance are ordinances that protect the right to privacy and the freedom of movement.
3. Some Manila City Ordinance areconstitutional and valid.
FALLACY:Existential Fallacy.
Ordinary Language Arguments
 What are Ordinary Language Arguments?

 Ordinary Language Arguments are philosophical arguments that see traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers
develop by distorting or forgetting what words actually mean in everyday use.
 As presented by Norman Malcolm in 1942, the ‘Ordinary Language Argument’ is an argument to the conclusion that “the ordinary uses of language are
correct uses of language.”
 In order to understand Arguments in Ordinary Language, one must understand the distinction between the phrases “the use of ordinary language” and
“the ordinary use of language.” Ordinary Language philosophers are more interested in the latter, not the former. (Ryle, 1953)
 The term “ordinary use of language” has come to mean that the ordinary use of language is to communicate. The most essential feature of this view about
language use is that people should conceive of terms and expressions (or any bearer of linguistic meaning) as kinds of tools, which have various uses in the
general purpose of saying things.
 However, one must understand that mere utterance in a context alone does not suffice to count as having used a sentence to say something. Remember
that not all utterances count as having said something.
 In order to count as having said something, to have actually succeeded in saying something, is to have used a sentence to express something meaningfully.
However, raising a meaningful or meaningless distinction is always dangerous unless one has very explicit criteria to distinguish. This is because there
might always be a conflict between two philosophers as to what is actually meaningful or meaningless.
 It was Austin (1955) who first made a distinction between mere utterance, or locution, and saying something in that utterance, or illocution. Austin also
provided the beginnings of the uses of expressions, which include the many kinds of saying something such as describing, referring, questioning,
demanding, promising, asserting, declaring, proposing, naming, requesting, informing, etc.
 Note that merely thinking that one has meant or said something successfully will not make it so.
 People reasoning in ordinary language rarely express their arguments in the restricted patterns allowed in categorical logic.
 The following are examples of Arguments in Ordinary Language:
 General warrants are not constitutional because they do not meet the requirements for valid warrants, and the valid warrants do. (Stonehill vs. Diokno,
G.R. No. L-19950, 19 June 1967)
 “Short-time” promotions in hotels are prohibited because they lead to immoral acts and traditional hotel promotions don’t. (White Light vs. City of
Manila, G.R. No. 122846, 20 January 2009)
 Women who suffer from Battered Women Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability because they acted in self-defense, unlike the women
who do not act in self-defense. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004)
 A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man. A battered woman is a woman
who has suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Marivic Genosa has suffered through two cycles of violence , therefore, Marivic Genosa is a
battered woman. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004)
 Valentin Legaspi is a Filipino citizen and since citizens have a right to information, Valentin Legaspi should be accorded that right. (Valentin Legaspi vs
Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, 29 May 1987)
 Reducing Terms in a Syllogistic Argument
 Why is there a need to Reduce the Terms?
 There is a need to reduce the terms in a syllogistic argument and transform them into standard-form categorical syllogisms before they can be tested.
 How to Reduce the Terms:
 First, the argument must be set up in standard form.
 The first sub-step is to find the conclusion.
 The conclusion can occur anywhere in a passage, although most often, it is the first or last sentence. The conclusion is often the “topic” sentence of the
paragraph.
 Example: (this is the Ordinary Language Argument)
 General warrants are not constitutional because they do not meet the standards for validity, and the constitutional warrants do.
 Topic sentence (Conclusion): General warrants are not constitutional.
 Note: If you cannot easily determine the conclusion from the use of the common premise and the conclusion indicator words (such as thus, therefore,
consequently, hence, so, it follows that, proves that, indicates that), then the conclusion can be found to answer the question you ask of the passage:
“What’s the point?” or “What are you (i.e. the author of the passage) trying to prove?”
 The second sub-step is to reduce the classes to three in number, and place the major premise first and the minor premise second so that the argument is
transformed into standard order.
 Example:
 Major Premise: General warrants do not meet the standards for validity.
 Minor Premise: Constitutional Warrants meet the standards for validity.
 Conclusion: General warrants are unconstitutional.
 Finally, each proposition in the argument is translated into the standard form and order before it is tested.
 Other Examples:
 1. People vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004
 Ordinary Language Argument: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man. A
battered woman is a woman who has suffered through at least two cycles of violence. Marivic Genosa has suffered through two cycles of violence ,
therefore, Marivic Genosa is a battered woman.
 Step One: Find the conclusion.
 Conclusion: Marivic Genosa is a battered woman.
 Step Two: Identify the major and minor premises.
 Major Premise: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man and who has
suffered through at least two cycles of violence.
 Minor Premise: Marivic Genosa has been repeatedly subjected to forceful physical and psychological behavior by a man.
 Step Three: Arrange into standard-form.
 Major Premise: A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man and who has
suffered through at least two cycles of violence.
 Minor Premise: Marivic Genosa has been repeatedly subjected to forceful physical and psychological behavior by a man.
 Conclusion: Marivic Genosa is a battered woman.
 2. Valentin Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119
 Ordinary Language Argument: The fundamental right of the people to be informed in matters of public concern can be invoked by the members of the
Philippine citizenry and since Valentin Legaspi is a Filipino citizen, he should also be accorded that right.
 Step One: Find the Conclusion.
 Conclusion: Valentin Legaspi should be accorded the fundamental right to be informed in matters of public concern.
 Step Two: Identify the major and minor premises.
 Major Premise: The fundamental right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern should be accorded to the members of the Philippine
citizenry.
 Minor Premise: Valentin Legaspi is a member of the Philippine citizenry.
 Step Three: Arrange into standard form.
 Major Premise: The fundamental right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern should be accorded to the members of the Philippine
citizenry.
 Minor Premise: Valentin Legaspi is a member of the Philippine citizenry.
 Conclusion: Valentin Legaspi should be accorded the fundamental right to be informed in matters of public concern.
 Note: A syllogism is ready to be tested with Venn diagrams (in testable standard form) only if it meets the following requirements:
 (1) Each statement in the argument is in Categorical Standard Form.
 (2) Exactly three [3] class terms appear in the argument.
 (3) Each of the three class terms appear twice.
 (4) The argument is in standard argument format.
 Translating Categorical Propositions to Standard Form
 Why is there a need to learn how to translate Categorical Propositions into standard form?
 As you know, people do not talk in standard categorical form for reasoning in everyday life. Categorical form is much to restricted and stilted for writing
and arguing in effective discourse. There is a need to develop skills of logical translation to standard form categorical propositions in order to minimize
errors in evaluating syllogistic arguments.
 Very often, translation into standard form reveals fallacies of equivocation and fallacies of amphiboly in the original text.
 Equivocation – “to call by the same name;” is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or
sense by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It generally occurs with polysemic words, that is, words with multiple meanings.
 Amphiboly – a fallacy that relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead an audience. More broadly, amphiboly may refer
to a fallacy that results from a faulty sentence structure of any kind.
 Translation Rules of Thumb:
 1. The subject and predicate terms must be the names of classes.
 a. If the predicate term is a descriptive phrase, make it a substantive one. (i.e. noun phrase)
 b. The translation must not significantly alter the original meaning of the sentence.
 2. Categorical propositions must have a form of the verb “to be” as the copula in the present tense.
 3. The quality and quantity indicators are set up from the meaning of the sentences.
 a. Quantity Indicators – “All,” “No,” “Some.”
 b. Quality Indicators – “No,” “Are,” “Are not.”
 4. The word order is rearranged according to the sense of the original sentence.
 - This rule requires special care – in some cases, it may well be the most difficult rule to follow.
 - On occasion, we may need to divide one sentence into two or more propositions.
 Examples:
 1. Cruz vs DENR Secretary and La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, INC., G.R. No. 127882 January 27, 2004
 Declared void were the provisions of the the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
WMC Philippines, Inc.
 translates to
 All the provisions of the the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines,
Inc. were declared void.
 2. Harry Stonehill vs. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967
 General warrants are invalid and unconstitutional.
 translates to
 All general warrants are invalid and unconstitutional warrants.
 Uniform Translation
 In order to achieve the uniform translation of all three propositions contained in a categorical syllogism, it is sometimes useful to modify each of the terms
employed in an ordinary-language argument by stating it in terms of a general domain or parameter.
 The goal here, as always, is faithfully to represent the intended meaning of each of the offered propositions, while at the same time bringing it into
conformity with the others, making it possible to restate the whole as a standard-form syllogism.
 The key to the procedure is to think of an appropriate parameter by relation to which each of the three categorical terms can be defined.
 Appropriate Parameter – any subject which is found on all the categorical statements.
 Example:
 All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments that have short-time admission and rates are places included in the
Ordinance.
 All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments that are found within the Ermita-Malate area that have short-time admission
and rates, are included in the Ordinance.
 Therefore, all hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments within the Ermita-Malate area, where there are short-time
admission and rates, are subject to the Ordinance. (White Light vs. City of Manila, G.R. 122846)
 The parameter here would be: All hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments.
 Enthymemes
 An “enthymeme” is an argument in which one proposition is suppressed – i.e. it’s missing for one reason or another.
 Also called a rhetorical syllogism, this technique employs subtle art of persuasion to engage one’s emotions, reasoning, and morals by virtue of rhetoric.
 An enthymeme is an informally stated reasoning that deliberately omits one part of the deduction – the premise or the conclusion – and is often based on
probabilities, examples, signs, or indications.
 A. In some cases, the missing proposition is not stated because it is obvious.
 Examples:
 a. You are a battered woman, you are exempted from civil and criminal liability. The missing premise is, “All battered women who incur civil and criminal
liability are exempted from it.”
 b. Citizens have the fundamental right to information on matters of public concern. You are a citizen.
 The missing premise is: “You have a fundamental right to information on matters of public concern.”
 c. You were issued a general warrant. General warrants are unconstitutional and have no force and effect.
 The missing premise is: “The warrant issued to you is unconstitutional and has no force and effect.”
 B. In other cases, if the missing proposition were present, the argument might lose rhetorical force.
 Examples:
 a. There were 6,327,952 voters who signed the petition. Those who signed the petition wanted to amend the Constitution. The 6,327,952 who signed the
petition wanted to amend the constitution.
 b. There was an Ordinance prohibiting any “short-time” promotions or schemes in hotels, motels, pension houses, inns, or lodging houses within the City
of Manila because these promotions or schemes were thought to be promoting immorality.
 c. Marivic Genosa killed her husband. Marivic Genosa was suffering from Battered Women Syndrome. Marivic Genosa killed her husband because she was
suffering from Battered Women Syndrome.
 C. Occasionally, the proposition is suppressed in order to conceal the unsoundness or invalidity of the argument.
 Examples:
 a. All hotels with “short-time” rates are considered immoral, so all hotels within the Ermita-Malate area are immoral.
 The missing premise would be the false premise, “All hotels within the Ermita-Malate area are hotels with “short-time rates.”
 NOTE: Many accounts define an enthymeme as an argument in which a premise is missing. Nevertheless, some enthymemes omit the conclusion for
rhetorical effect.
 In addition, in enthymemes, remember to always supply the missing premise because you cannot test for the validity of an argument if there is a missing
premise.
 A very important skill in logic is determining whether or not an argument has hidden assumptions.
 Other Examples of Enthymemes:
 Filipino citizens need to take an active part in cleaning up the environment. You are a Filipino citizen.
 Missing Premise: “You need to take an active part in cleaning up the environment.”
 Only members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are excused from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge. You are not a
member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
 Missing Premise: “You are not excused from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge.”
 There were only 6, 327, 952 registered voters who signed the petition and were in favor of amending the Constitution. I was not one of those 6, 327, 952
voters who signed.
 Missing Premise: “I did not sign the petition and I was not in favour of amending the Constitution.”
 Steps in Finding the Missing Premise in Enthymemes:
 1. Be sure that there really is a missing proposition.
 2. Identify the conclusion first. It is rarely left out.
 3. Put it into logical form.
 4. Identify the missing premise or conclusion.
 5. If there is an argument, deduce the common (minor) term.
 a. All pronouns should be converted to nouns.
 b. Synonyms should be changed to one word.
 c. Change word order if necessary. (NOTE: Changing of the word order should not affect the meaning of the sentence.)
 d. Reword possessives as independent nouns.
 6. Once the two non-hidden propositions are written out and the common term is found, find the missing premise.
 The missing premise can most likely be deduced from both the non-hidden propositions.
 Sorites
 Sorites is a pattern of ordinary language argumentation which involves several categorical syllogisms linked together. The conclusion of one syllogism
serves as one of the premises for another syllogism, whose conclusion may serve as one of the premises for another, and so on. In any such case, of
course, the whole procedure will comprise a valid inference so long as each of the connected syllogisms is itself valid.
 Examples:
 1) Valentin Legaspi vs. CSC, G.R. No. 72119, 19 May 1987
 a. Valentin Legaspi is a citizen.
 b. Citizens comprise the general public.
 c. The general public possesses the right to information on matters of public concern.
 d. Valentin Legaspi possesses the right to information on matters of public concern.
 2) Harry Stonehill vs. Jose Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967
 a. Harry Stonehill was issued a general warrant.
 b. General warrants are unconstitutional warrants.
 c. Unconstitutional warrants have no force and effect.
 d. Harry Stonehill’s warrant has no force and effect.
 3) People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004
 a. Marivic Genosa killed her husband.
 b. The killing of one’s spouse is parricide.
 c. Parricide is punishable by death.
 d. Marivic Genosa’s act should be punishable by death.
 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms
 Disjunctive Syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises. It is also a valid rule of inference.
 The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is:
 Either A is true or B is true. (A exclusive or B)
 Thus, if A is true, B is false. If A is false, then B is true.
 A and B cannot both be true or false at the same time.
 Major Premise – the major premise is given in the form of choice between alternatives, with the assumption that one out of two or more alternative
choices is right and that the rest are wrong. This may appear as a single sentence.
 Minor Premise – the minor premise either selects or rejects alternatives, thus leading to the conlusion.
 Conclusion – the conclusion may be spoken, although often it is not, as it is intended that the target of the major premise concludes this by his or herself.
 Examples:
 1. Either the general warrants are constitutional or unconstitutional.
 The general warrants are unconstitutional.
 Therefore, the general warrants are not constitutional.
 2. Either Battered Women Syndrome is a valid defense or invalid defense.
 Battered Women Syndrome is not an invalid defense.
 Therefore, Battered Women Syndrome is a valid defense.
 3. Either the petition was valid or it was wanting in requirements.
 The petition was not valid.
 Therefore, the petition was wanting in requirements.
 Hypothetical Syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. In propositional logic,
hypothetical syllogism is a name of a valid rule of inference called the chain argument rule.
 They are short, two-premise deductive arguments, in which at least one of the premises is a conditional, the antecedent or consequent of which also
appears in the other premise.
 “Pure” Hypothetical Syllogism
 In this type of hypothetical syllogisms, both of the premises, as well as the conclusion are conditionals. For such a conditional to be valid, the antecedent of
one premise must match the consequent of another.
 What one may validly conclude then is a conditional containing the remaining antecedent as the antecedent and the remaining consequent as the
consequent.
 Simply think of the “middle term” – the proposition in common between the two premises – as being cancelled out.
 Symbolic Representation:
 If P, then Q.
 If P, then not R.
 If Q, then R.
 If not R, then not Q.
 (So) if P, then R.
 (So) if P, then not Q.
 Other Example:
 If religious freedom is a fundamental right, then it is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights.
 Religious freedom is a fundamental right.
 Therefore, religious freedom is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights.
 The Dilemma
 The Dilemma is a syllogism that is both conditional and disjunctive. The major premise is a compound conditional proposition consisting of two or more
simple conditional propositions connected by the word “and” or its equivalent.
 The minor premise is a disjunctive proposition that alternatively posits the antecedent (constructive dilemma) each of the simple conditional propositions.
 Simple Constructive Dilemma – the conditional premise infers the same consequent from all the antecedents presented in the disjunctive proposition.
Hence, if any antecedents are true, then the consequents must be true.
 Example:
 If a student does not sing the national anthem, He is subject to expulsion.
 If a student does not salute the flag, He is also subject to expulsion.
 Either the student does not salute the flag or does not sing the national anthem.
 Therefore in any case he is subject to expulsion.
 Complex Constructive Dilemma - the conditional premise infers a different consequent from each of the antecedents presented in the disjunctive
proposition. If any of the antecedents are true, its consequent is likewise true. But since the antecedents are posited disjunctively and since a different
consequent flows from each of them, the consequents must likewise be posited disjunctively.
 Example:
 If the search warrant is valid, the seizure is justified and if the warrant is a general warrant then it is void.
 The warrant is either valid or general warrant.
 Therefore the search warrant is either justified or void.
 Refutation of a Dilemma
 Normally, the formal validity of a dilemmatic argument is not in question. Since a dilemma is a complex form of hypothetical-categorical syllogism, no new
principles are involved in determining the formal validity of dilemmatic arguments. In most cases, dilemmatic arguments are based on assumptions which
are not correct.
 There are three main ways of evading the conclusion of a dilemma.
 A. Escaping Between the Horns
 In this method, one refutes a given dilemma by showing that the alternatives given in the minor premise are not exhaustive and that there is a third
alternative which goes in favor of the opponent. It is akin to looking for a loophole in both instances.
 Another form of this method is a metaphor describing an alternative to two equally problematic choices when one finds himself on the horns of a
dilemma. Instead of choosing either one of the two horns, one takes the bull by both horns and walks through the horns to a third, less problematic,
alternative.
 Examples:
 A. If Marivic Genosa kills her husband, she will be a murderer and be convicted for parricide. If Marivic Genosa does not kill her husband, she will continue
to be a battered woman.
 Solution: Marivic Genosa could “escape between the horns” by either leaving her husband or reporting him to the authorities.
 B. If a Jehovah’s Witness member salutes the flag, sings the national anthem, and recites the patriotic pledge, he or she will be reprimanded by the
parents. If a member of the Jehovah’s Witness does not salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, he or she will be expelled
from the school.
 Solution: The member of the Jehovah’s Witness could simply stand and stay still during the flag ceremony; that way, he or she will still be present in the
ceremony without offending anyone.
 B. Taking by the Horns
 In this method, one may point out that either one consequent or both consequents do not follow from their antecedents. Thus, the dilemma is wrong and
the conclusion cannot be established.
 Example:
 A. If we allow the “short-time” promos in hotels, we are encouraging the immoral acts of those who avail of it. If we do not allow the “short-time” promos,
then people will engage in more productive activities.
 Solution: The dilemma is wrong since the consequents do not follow the antecedents. One can “take the bull by the horns” by assailing the validity of the
proposed conclusions.
 C. Rebutting a Dilemma with a Counter Dilemma
 This method is one of the most ingenious ways by which a dilemma can be rebutted by another counter dilemma whose conclusion is opposed to the
original conclusion.
 Example: (generic example)
 Original Dilemma: If you say what is just, men will hate you; and if you say what is unjust, God will hate you; but you must say either one or the other;
therefore, you will be hated.
 Refutation: If you say what is just, God will love you; and if you say what is unjust, the men will love you; you must say either one or the other; therefore,
you will be loved.
Introduction to Logic
The Language of Symbolic Logic
Abstract: Conventions for translating ordinary language statements into symbolic notation are outlined.
I.We are going to set up an artificial "language" to avoid the difficulties of vagueness, equivocation,
amphiboly, and confusion from emotive significance.
A. The first thing we are going to do is to learn the elements of this "new language."
B. The second is to learn to translate ordinary language grammar into symbolic notation.
C. The third thing is to consider arguments in this "new language."
II. Symbolic logic is by far the simplest kind of logic—it is a great time-saver in argumentation.
Additionally, it helps prevent logical confusion when dealing with complex arguments..
. The modern development of symbolic logic begin with George Boole in the 19th
century.
A. Symbolic logic can be thought of as a simple and flexible shorthand:
1. Consider the symbols:
[(p q) (q r)] (p r).
2. This rule was well known to the Stoics, but they expressed it this way:
"If, if the first then the second and if the second then the third, then, if the first then
the third."
3. We will find that all of the essential manipulations in symbolic logic are about as
complex and working with numbers made up on ones and zeros.
III. We begin with the simplest part of propositional logic: combining simple propositions into
compound propositions and determining the truth value of the resulting compounds.
. Propositions can be thought of as the "atoms" of propositional logic.
1. Simple propositions are statements which cannot be broken down without a loss in
meaning.
a. E.g., "John and Charles are brothers" cannot be broken down without a change in
the meaning of the statement. Note the change in meaning from "John and Charles
are brothers" to the mistranslation "John is a brother" and"Charles is a brother."
b. On the other hand, "John and Charles work diligently" can be broken down
without a change in meaning:
"John works diligently." "Charles works diligently." (It is assumed contextually

that the meaning of the original statement is not that John and Charles work
diligently together.)
Conventionally, capital letters (usually towards the beginning of the alphabet) may
be used as abbreviations for propositions.
E.g., "John and Charles are brothers" can be symbolized asB.
and "John and Charles work diligently" can be symbolized as the two
statements: J and C.
The logical operator "and," as we will see, will be symbolized in these notes as
" " although other symbols are often used elsewhere.
A. In addition to propositions, propositional logic uses operatorson propositions.
Propositions can be thought of like the sticks of a tinker-toy set.

Operators are like the connecting blocks. Typical operators include "and," "or," and
"implies."
By adding more and more operators, we get more complex structures.
B. For evaluation of statements, there is only one condition to be learned:
"In order to know the truth value of the proposition which results from applying an
operator to propositions, all that need be known is the definition of the operator
and the truth value of the propositions used."
Conjunction, Negation, and Disjunction
Abstract: The logical operations of conjunction, negation, and disjunction (alteration) are discussed with respect to their truth-table definitions.
I.Truth Functionality: In order to know the truth value of the proposition which results from
applying an operator to propositions, all that need be known is the definition of the operator and the
truth value of the propositions used.
II.Conjunction is a truth-functional connective similar to "and" in English and is represented in

symbolic logic with the dot " ".
A. Ordinary language definition of the dot: a connective forming compound propositions which
are true only in the case when both of the propositions joined by it are true.
B. One way of expressing this definition is by way of truth tables. Consider the following
examples.
1. "John left and Carol arrived" can be symbolized as " J C " (i. e., (without the
quotation marks), so long as we remember that the statement does not mean "Carol
arrived after John left" which is a simple proposition).
2. There are four possible states of affairs which might have occurred with respect to
John leaving and Carol arriving. These cases can be listed as follows in what is
called a truth table.
p q p q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
3.
C. Other ordinary language conjoiners besides "and" include some uses of "but," "although,"
"however "yet," and "nevertheless."
D. The dot as a truth functional connective doesn't do everything that the "and" does in English.
It might be thought of in terms of a "minimum common logical meaning" to conjoined statements.
1. I.e., the temporal or causal sequence "Bill tripped and fell" cannot be transposed as
"Bill fell and tripped." The clauses cannot be interchanged.
2. Truth functional connectives are more limited than their corresponding English
connectives: the whole meaning of the truth functional connective is given in its
truth table.
3. So long as we do not expect more from truth-functional connectives, there should
be few difficulties in translation.
E. Some characteristics of conjunction (in mathematical jargon) include:
1. associative—internal grouping is immaterial

I. e.," [(p q) r] " is equivalent to " [p (q r)] ".
2. communicative—order is immaterial
I. e., " p q " is an equivalent expression to " q p ".
3. idempotent—reduction of repetition
I. e., " p p " is an equivalent expression to " p ".
III.Which brings us to an overdue additional convention: lower-case letters are variables, the small
letters of the English alphabet usually beginning with letters after " p "(toward the end of the
alphabet).
. A variable is not a proposition, but is a "place holder" for any proposition.
A. Think of a variable as a "labeled box" which can be filled with any proposition, so long as
we set up a correspondence between the "labeled box" and the variable.
B. E. g., just as "All S is P" is the form of statements like "All men are mortal" and "The whale
is a mammal," " p q " is the form of statements like "John left and Carol arrived" and " J C "
(which symbolizes the statement "John left and Carol arrived."
C. E. g., suppose Alice and Betty are in this room, but Charles is not. The form of the statement
corresponding to each person being in the room is
[(p q) r]
and the statement "Alice is in this room and Betty is in this room, and Charles is in this room" can,
itself, be symbolized as
[(A B) C]
The truth of the compound expression is analyzed by substituting in the truth values corresponding
to the facts of the case, viz.,
[(T T) F]
so by the meaning of the " " the compound statement resolves to being false by the following
step-by-step analysis in accordance with the truth table for conjunction:
[(T T) F]
[( T ) F]
[T F]
F
IV.Disjunction (or as it is sometimes called, alternation) is a connective which forms compound

propositions which are false only if both statements (disjuncts) are false.
. The connective "or" in English is quite different from disjunction. "Or" in English has two
quite distinctly different senses.
1. The exclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B (but not both)" as in "You may go to
the left or to the right." In Latin, the word is "aut."
2. The inclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B {or both)." as om "John is at the

library or John is studying." In Latin, the word is vel."
A. It is the second sense that we use the "vel" or "wedge" symbol:

" "
B. The truth table definition of the wedge is
p q p q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
C.
D. Consider the statement, "John is at the Library or he is Studying." If, in this example, John is
not at the library and John is not studying, then the truth value of the complex statement is false:
F F
F
V.Another truth functional operator is negation: the phrase "It is false that …" or "not" inserted in
the appropriate place in a statement.
. The phrase is usually represented by a minus sign " - " or a tilde "~"
A. For example, "It is not the case that Bill is a curious child" can be represented
by "~B".
B. The truth table for negation is as follows:
p ~p
T F
F T
VI.The general principles that govern parentheses for grouping are as follows.
. A " ~ " standing in front of a letter negates only that proposition, while a " ~ " in front of an
expression in parentheses negates the whole compound statement within those parentheses.
Note the difference between: ~ A B and ~( A B ).
A. Each occureence of a connective has associated with it a set of parentheses which indicate
what it is connecting.
Hence, ( A B) C is quite different from A (B C)
E. g., let A and B be false, and let C be true. The resolution of the truth value of these expressions
would be as follows.
(A B) C A (B C)
(F F) T F (F T)
F T F T
T F
Conditional Statements and Material Implication
Abstract: The reasons for the conventions of material implication are outlined, and the resulting truth table for is vindicated.
I.The word "implies" has several different meanings in English, and most of these senses of the word
can be conveyed in the ordinary language connection of statements with "If … then …" In
symbolic logic, implication is present for "If … then …" propositions which assert some logical or
causal or other relationship.
A. Implication is a relation that holds for conditional statements—there are many types of
conditionals:
1. Logical: E. g., "If all philosophers are thinkers and John is a philosopher, then John
is a thinker."
2. Definitional: E. g., "If Carol is anemic, then Carol has a low concentration of
erythrocytes in her blood."
3. Causal: E. g., "If you strike the match, it will light."
4. Decisional: E. g., "If you donate to educational television, then the company you
work for will match the amount."
B. Material implication is the weakest common meaning for all types of "If … then
…" statements.
1. By convention the first part of the conditional is termed theantecedent (also less
often called the "implicans" or the "protasis"), and the second part of the conditional
is theconsequent (less often termed the "implicate" or "apodosis").
E. g., in the conditional statement "If you study diligently, then you might see
positive results," the antecedent is "You study diligently" and the consequent is
"You might see positive results."
2. In general, the weakest common meaning is that (1) if the antecedent and
consequent of a conditional statement are true, then the conditional as a whole is
true, but (2) if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the conditional
as a whole is false.
3. Thus, we can display these values in the following truth table:
p q p q
1 T T T
2 T F F
3 F T ?
4 F F ?
4.
II. If we assume completeness for our truth functionality, then lines (3) and (4) of the
truth table for "p q" must have truth values unique to the substitution instances
for implication. Let's try out various combinations of truth values.
. If the resultant truth values for "p q" on lines (3) and (4) of the truth table, were both false,
then this truth table would be the same truth table for conjunction (or the dot " ").
Consequently, these two lines cannot both result in false because conditionals mean
something different from conjunctions.
A. If the resultant truth values were a T and a F respectively, for lines (3) and (4) of the
truth table for "p q", then the truth of the conditional would depend on the truth of the
consequent regardless of the first statement.
However, "If p then q" does not mean "q whether or not p."
B. If the resultant truth values were respectively a F and a T for lines (3) and (4) of the
truth table, then a similar objection would apply. This objection can be explained with
the help of the following tentative truth table:
p q p q
1 T T T
2 T F F
3 F T F?
4 F F T?
C.
Suppose we have the conditional statement, "If the match is struck, the match lights."
By the above truth table, if we do not strike the match and the match lights, then the
conditional would be false. But surely the match could light in many other ways than the
method of striking.
I. e., The tentative truth table implies the match lights only in case the match is struck;
we want to allow that the match could light in other ways.
D. The final suggestion for the truth table for " " for is this:
p q p q
1 T T T
2 T F F
3 F T T
4 F F T
E.
This interpretation we shall adopt even though it appears counterintuitive in some

instances—as we shall see when we talk about the "paradoxes of material implication."
III. The conditional expressed by the truth table for " p q " is called material implication
and may, for convenience, be called a fifth type of conditional.
. So we have the following main kinds of conditionals: logical, definitional, causal, decisional,
and material.
A. Note two points:
1. The material kind of implication is not the only relation of implication.

2. Material implication does not somehow stand for all the meanings of the "If … then
…"
B. But we can say that it has a common partial meaning with all of the other kinds of
conditional statements.
IV. Another way of expressing the relation of material implication in in terms of the dot
symbol: ~ ( p ~ q ).
. That is, these expressions are equivalent:
[ ~(p ~q)] (p q)
whatever the substitution instances for p and for q are, the truth values of each compound
will remain the same.
A. Another way of expressing this relations, is to say that this expression is a tautology—
a statement form that has only true substitution instances.
B. We will express these ideas in terms of truth tables. But first, what is a truth table and
how it is constructed is the subject of the next tutorial
How to Construct a Truth Table
Abstract: The general principles for the construction of truth tables are explained and illustrated.
I.How to construct the guide columns:
A. Write out the number of variables (corresponding to the number of statements) in

alphabetical order.
B. The number of lines needed is 2n where n is the number of variables. (E. g.,
with three variables, 23 = 8).
C. Start in the right-hand column and alternate T's and F's until you run out of
lines.
D. Then move left to the next column and alternate pairs of T's andF's until you
run out of lines.
E.Then continue to the next left-hand column and double the numbers of T's and F's
until completed.
II.Example: construct a truth table for p (q r)
I,
Avariables
in
alphabetical
Line order
No. ↓
↓
III, A p q r q rp (q r)
First
line
1 T T T T T
all T
→
I, B 2 T T F T T
number 3 T F T T T
of 4 T F F F T
lines 5 F T T T T
= 2n 6 F T F T T
→ 7 F F T T T
III, D
half T's 8 F F F F F
half F's
III, ↑ ↑ ↑
B I, E I, D I, C
last alternate alternate alternate
line double of pairs of T and F
all F previous T and F
T and F
III.As check that the guide columns were done correctly:
. The first horizonal line will be all T's.
A. The last horizonal line will be all F's.
B. The left-most column will be evenly divided; the first half all T's and the
second half all F's.
FURTHER IMMEDIATE INFERENCES
Conversion
 Interchange the subject (S) and the predicate (P) terms of the proposition.
 The premise or the original proposition is called the convertend; the conclusion is called the converse.
 Applies to E and I propositions only:
Proposition Convertend Converse

E (No S is P) No service contracts (No P is S) No valid contracts are
which vest full control over natural service contracts which vest full
resources to foreign companies are control over natural resources to
valid contracts foreign companies
I (Some S is P) Some EDU activities (Some P is S) Some projects
are projects which require foreign which require foreign technical and
technical and financial assistance
financial assistance are EDU
activities
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et. Al. vs. Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, DENR, et. al., GR
127882, December 1, 2004
 Valid with A propositions only by limitation (conversion by limitation)

 Conversion by limitation
a. interchange the subject and predicate terms and change the quantity of the proposition from
universal to particular;
b. or get the subaltern (it being a valid proposition derived from the A proposition) of the
convertend and convert it.
Convertend Converse
(All S is P) (Some P is S)
All FTAA contracts are documents approved Some documents approved by the president
by the president are FTAA contracts
Convertend Subaltern Converse

(All S is P) (Some S is P) (Some P is S)
All FTAA contracts are Some FTAA contracts are Some documents approved
documents approved by the documents approved by the by the president are FTAA
president president contracts
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et. Al. vs. Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, DENR, et. al., GR
127882, December 1, 2004
 Not valid with O propositions.
Obversion
 Change the quality of the proposition and replace the predicate term by its complement.
 The premise is called the obvertend, the conclusion, the obverse.
 Complement:
a. The collection of all things that do not belong to the original class
b. The complement of the class S is non-S
Proposition Obvertend Obverse

A (All S is P) All DECS directives are (No S is non-P) No DECS
orders that should be followed by all directives are non-orders that
schools should be followed by all
schools
E (No S is P) No symbols (All S is non-P) All symbols
representing the state such as the representing the state such as
national flag are religious icons the national flag are non-
religious icons
I (Some S is P) Some activities such (Some S is not non-P) Some
as flag ceremonies are efforts to activities such as flag
inculcate patriotism and nationalism ceremonies are not non-efforts
to inculcate patriotism and
nationalism
O (Some S is not P) Some school (Some S is non-P) Some
administrators are not tolerant of school administrators are non-
defiance of government orders on tolerant of defiance of
account of religious beliefs government orders on account
of religious beliefs
Roel Ebralinag, et.al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, GR 95770 and 95887, March
1, 1993
Contraposition
 Replace its subject term by the complement of its predicate term and replace its predicate term by the
complement of its subject term (or by obverting, converting, and obverting again the proposition).
 The conclusion of this form of inference is called a contrapositive
 Applies to A and O propositions only:
Proposition Premise Contrapositive

A (All S is P) All government (All non-P is non-S) All non-
agencies who had been ordered by primarily responsible for the bay’s
the RTC to rehabilitate Manila bay degradation are non-government
are institutions which are primarily agencies which had been ordered
responsible for the bay’s by the RTC to rehabilitate Manila
degradation Bay
O (Some S is not P) Some duties of (Some non-P is not non-S) Some
government agencies are not non-ministerial duties are not non-
ministerial duties duties of government agencies
MMDA, et. al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947-48, December 18, 2008
 Valid with E propositions only by limitation (contraposition by limitation)

 Contraposition by limitation – obvert, convert by limitation and obvert again
Premise Obverse Converse by Obverse

(No S is P) (All S is non-P) limitation (Some non-P is not
(Some non-P is S) non-S)
No government duty All government Some non- Some non-
clearly and duties clearly and discretionary legal discretionary legal
expressly indicated expressly indicated mandates are mandates are not
by law is a by law are non- government duties non-government
discretionary legal discretionary legal clearly and duties clearly and
mandate mandates expressly indicated expressly indicated
by law by law
MMDA, et. al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947-48, December 18, 2008
 Not valid with I propositions

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT
A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is uttered to assert the existence of objects of some
kind. A proposition has existential import if it is axiomatically true.
Some inferences derived from the traditional square of opposition become invalid if the existential import of a
class were to be taken into account. If the subject class is empty, for instance, in contradictory propositions A
and O, both are false. One proposition must be true in contradictories. Ergo, if both are false, it is no longer a
contradictory. It’s the same story with the rest of the corresponding propositions in the square – if the subject
class is empty, no valid inference may be drawn.
This may be cured by applying existential presupposition which quite simply is stipulating that a certain class
does exist, even if it actually doesn’t, before drawing inferences. This however poses three problems: we will
never be able to formulate the proposition that denies that a class has members, sometimes what we say does
not suppose that there are members in the classes we are talking about and we often wish to reason without
making any presuppositions about existence. Also propositions based on false assumptions are erroneous and
are referred to as existential fallacies.
In light of the foregoing, it is inevitable that the square should be scrapped considering its existential pitfalls.
We instead adopt George Boole’s schema of logic which retains some features of the square, but on the whole
it is a completely different system.
In Boolean logic, I and O propositions have existential import. A and O and E and I propositions are still
contradictories. A and E propositions are generally considered to have no existential impor – if A and E
propositions are empty, their subalterns I and O respectively are false. A and E however may still assume
existential import provided they are expressed using a valid particular proposition and an empty universal
proposition. A and E are no longer contraries and I and O cease to be subcontraries. Immediate inferences
thru conversion, obversion and contraposition may still be made but not those which involve limitation namely
conversion and contraposition by limitation.
SYMBOLISM AND DIAGRAMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
S = 0 – class S has no members
S ≠ 0 – class S has members
SP – product or intersection of classes i.e. common part or membership of the classes
Representation for Categorical Propositions in Boolean Logic:
SP = 0: E proposition
a. No members of class S belong to P

b. No common members or the product of the classes is empty
SP ≠ 0: I proposition
a. At least one member of S is also a member of P

b. The product of the classes is not empty
S P = 0: A proposition
a. The product of the classes is empty

b. All S is P obverts to No S is non-P or symbolically: S P = 0
c. S = non-S or complement of S; P = non-P or complement of P
S P ≠ 0: O proposition
a. Some S is not P obverts to Some S is non-P or symbolically: S P ≠ 0
A: S P = 0 E: SP = 0
Contradictories
I: SP ≠ 0 O: S P ≠ 0
VENN DIAGRAM
S S S
X
S: S = 0: S ≠ 0:
S P
SP:
S P
S SP P
SP
S P : Part of the circle S that does not overlap with circle P
S P: Part of the circle P that does not overlap with circle S
SP: product of the two classes or circles
SP : All things that don’t belong to either circle S or circle P

Shading a section in the diagram would indicate that that particular section is empty. While placing an x mark at
the center of a specific section would show that it has at least one member or is not empty.
All owners of hotels in manila are legitimate litigants by virtue of the overbreadth doctrine and third party
standing.
White Light Corp., et. al. vs. City of Manila, GR 122846, January 20, 2009
S P
SP = 0
No petition for people’s initiative whose signatories have not seen the full text of the amendments is a
valid means to amend the constitution.
Raul Lambino, et.al. vs. Comelec, GR 174153, October 25, 2006
S P
SP = 0
Some women, after suffering multiple cycles of violence at the hands of their partner, are liable of
committing murder.
People vs. Genosa, 135981, January 15, 2004
S P
SP ≠ 0
Some judges who test complaints for probable cause so that they may issue warrants are not so
thorough in their examination.
Harry S. Stonehill, et. al. vs. Jose W. Diokno, et. al., GR L-19550, June 19, 1967
S P
SP ≠ 0
The following are the converses of the above propositions:
S P S P S P
A: P S = 0 E: PS = 0 I: PS ≠ 0
S P
O: P S ≠ 0
Historical Considerations.
A. After 2,000 years the standard treatment of fallacies remain much the same as the thirteen fallacies pointed
out by Aristotle in hisSophistical Refutations.
1. What is a sophist? (Note the word "philosophy" and "sophomore.") Originally, a sophist was a wise of
learned person, one who engaged in the pursuit or communication of knowledge. Now, a sophist is one
who makes use of fallacious arguments--a specious reasoner.
2. Some logicians, e.g., Bacon and Locke, dropped the treatment of informal fallacies because logic is
concerned with correct reasoning only.
3. Yet, unless we are aware of some of the mistakes that are likely to be made, i.e., unless we know what
to avoid, we cannot reason correctly.
B. No one is particularly satisfied with the traditional treatment of fallacies--it is too unsystematic. Nevertheless,
there seems to be no way to give a systematic treatment of fallacies.
1. De Morgan writes in his Formal Logic (276): "There is no such thing as classification of the ways men
arrive at error: it is much to be doubted whether there ever can be."
2, Joseph says in his Introduction to Logic (569): "Truth may have its norm, but error is infinite in its
aberrations, and they cannot be digested in any classification."
3. There is no theory of fallacy except by negative definition.
II. Even though there is no standard treatment, fallacies in this course will be grouped as follows.
A. First, what is a fallacy? In general, it is some form of deceptive reasoning.
1. A fallacy, then, is an argument which seems to be valid, but is not really so.
2. Unfortunately, this is a psychological definition. What counts as something "deceptive"?
3. Fallacy: a type of mistake in argumentation that might appear to be correct, but which proves upon
examination not to be so. (This definition is clearly inadequate, but we will use it for a working
definition.)
B. Let us classify two basic types:
1. Informal Fallacy: those dependent upon language-- i.e., a fallacy that arises from the content of an
argument (the what is said, not the how it is said).
2. Formal Fallacy: those outside the content of language--i.e., a fallacy that arises from an error in the
form of an argument; it is (usually) independent of content.
III. The following chart of fallacies, with some suggestive examples, is an indication of some of the terrain to be
discussed.
Fallacies
________________|_____________
Informal Formal
______|______ ______|______
Relevance Presumption Syllogistic Symbolic
Affirming the
ad baculum Complex Question Exclusive Premisses
Consequent
IV. In our discussion of informal fallacies, we will also look at arguments which initially seem to be fallacious because
they are drawn along the same lines, but are not not really so.
A. Once the fallacies are introduced, there is a tendency to see a fallacies in passages where there are just appeals
and no arguments present. Unless an argument is present, no fallacy can occur.
B. Thus, before the labeling of "fallacy" is done with respect to a passage, one must be sure that an argument is
being given. (An argument must have at least two statements: a premiss and a conclusion.) You will find many
textbooks talk about appeals rather than arguments--a topic related to "disagreements in belief and attitude"
discussed in Logic and Language and similar to "arguments and nonarguments" discussed in The Nature of
Arguments.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis
that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in
reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is
Statement not-p is unproved.
unproved.
p is true.
Not-p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been
proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on doexist because their non-existence
has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
II. Some typical ad ignorantiam fallacy examples follow.
In spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been authenticated. We may assume,
therefore, there are not such things as flying saucers.
No one has objected to Lander's parking policies during the last month of classes, so I suppose those
policies are very good.
Since the class has no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the class is ready for a test.
Biology professor to skittish students in lab: There is no evidence that frogs actually feel pain; it is true
they exhibit pain behavior, but as they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.
Johnson: It is impractical to send more men to the moon because the money spent for that project could
be spent on helping the poor..
Hanson: It is not impractical.
Johnson: Why?
Hanson: Just try to prove that I wrong.

(Hanson is defending his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is true, if Johnson cannot refute
him.)
"The Soviet news agency Tass declared Saturday that the abominable snowman, thought by some to
stalk the Himalayan Mountains, does not exist.
Quoting arguments by Vadim Ranov, a man described as a well-known Soviet explorer, Tass said that
no remains--skull or individual bones--had ever been found.
Alleged yeti tracks spotted in the mountains are more likely to be those of other animals distorted by
bright sunrays, Tass said.
Accounts by 'eye witnesses' are the fruit of their imagination,' the official news agency said." (New York
Times)
(Be sure to note why this argument is not a case of the ad verecundiam fallacy.)
"Our universe, however, did begin with the primordial explosion, since we can obtain no information
about events that occurred before it. The age of the universe, therefore, is the interval from the big bang
to the present." (Scientific American)
III. The uses of the ad ignorantiam in rhetoric and persuasion are often similar to the technique of "raising
doubts." E.g., suppose you wanted to convince a police officer not to give you a ticket by using this technique.
"I'm sure you know how unreliable radar detectors are. Why, I saw an a news program a tree was timed
at 50 mph, and Florida, at one time, threw out such evidence in court. I certainly wasn't going that fast.
Some other driver must have sent back that erroneous signal. You probably timed the car passing me
which looked like mine."
IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts, and some specific other situations,
one must, for practical reasons, assume that something is false unless it is proved true and vice-versa.E.g., "the
assumption of innocence until proved guilty" is a practical, not a logical, process. Obviously, someone can be
legally innocent, but actually guilty of a crime.
A. In many instances, if a decision must be made and we cannot prove something in spite of serious
attempts to do so, then we presuppose as a pragmatic consideration, without deductive proof, that
whatever that something is, is probably the case.
B. At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystallize because after extensive testing, there
was no proof that it would. This conclusion is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA
will crystallize.
C. There is no fallacy in the following passage:
"Today we can be confident that a sample of uranium 238, no matter what its origin, will gradually
change into lead, and that this transmutation will occur at a rate such that half of the uranium atoms
will have become lead in 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to believe that the nature of rate of this
process was any different in the very remote past, when the universe was new." Schramm,Scientific
American (January, 1974), 67.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an
authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the
reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper
authority.
A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious
people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is probably best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad
populum.
B. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the ad verecundiamand the ad populum when the authority
cited is a group with high status.
This example from a popular logic text can be identified as either an ad verecundiam or an ad populum:
"Those who say that astrology is not reliable are mistaken. The wisest men of history have all been
interested in astrology, and kings and queens of all ages have guided the affairs of nations by it."1
C. The informal structure generally has the basic pattern:

Authority on
subject x, L says
accept
statement p.
p is outside the
scope of or not
germane to the
subject x.
p is true.
C. For example:
Linus Pauling as
the only person
ever to win two
unshared Nobel
prizes, one for
chemistry, the
other for peace
stated his
taking of
Vitamin C
delayed the
onset of cancer
by twenty
years.
(Winning a
Nobel Prize in
chemistry and
for peace does
not imply
expertise in the
medical science
of the diagnosis
and treatment
of malignant
neoplasms.)
Therefore,
vitamin C is
effective in the
treatment of
cancer.
E. Many advertising campaigns are built on this fallacy. Popular sports figures, musicians, or actors endorse
products of which they have no special expertise and, in this context, this fact is offered as a mistaken reason
we should use those products.
Even so, occasionally a movie star, for example, might also be an appropriate authority in another subject. For
example, Ronald Regan can be relevantly quoted as a political authority or Paul Newman can be quoted as a
race car driver. Their reasoning in those respective fields would not ordinarily be open to the charge of an ad
verecundiam fallacy.
F. Note also that an ad verecundiam inductive argument (i.e., an argument whose conclusion is claimed to
follow not with certainty but with probability) is not necessarily a fallacy even if the relevant or appropriate
authority in the field is mistaken.
For example, in 1948, readers of Science News were invited to buy a fluffy dish towel made from 80 percent
cotton and 20 percent asbestos from "Things of Science," an experiment of the month program provided by
Science Service.1 Concluding that the towel would be safe and useful would not have been an ad
verecundiam fallacy even though the authority in this case, theScience News program, was being relied
upon. The authority was relevant but simply mistaken.
II. Examples of the ad

verecundiam fallacy:
A. The brilliant William Jenkins, the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, states uncategorically that the flu
virus will be controlled in essentially all of its forms in the next two decades. The opinion of such a noted
scientist cannot be disregarded.
B. The United States policy toward mainland China in the 1980's was surely mistaken because Shirley
McLaine, the well-known actress, emphasized at the time she had grave misgivings about it.
III. Uses of the ad verecundiam.
A. Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should have direct
bearing on the argument at hand—especially if we have no better evidence to base a conclusion securer
grounds.
B. To qualify as an authority, the individual must be generally recognized by peers in the same field by peers
who either hold a similar view or recognize the cogency of the point of view being expresses. (Examine, for
yourself, why this condition of citing what many authorities in a field believe is not an instance of the ad
populumfallacy.)
IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad verecundiam.
A. Former President Bush said that America would be much stronger if the people would return to traditional
American values, and indeed he argues that we should.
B. Although the following passages are considered fallacies by a popular logic textbook, note why they are not
fallacious.
1. "But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear testimony of Aristotle affirming that all
the elements have weight including air, and excepting only fire?"
(Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences)3
2. "In that melancholy book The Future of an Illusion, Dr. Freud, himself one of the last great theorists of the
European capitalist class, has stated with simple clarity the impossibility of religious belief for the educated
man of today."
(John Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power)4
I. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the

character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument
instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
A. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personemargument": the statement or
argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's
character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
B. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption
is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or
special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
II. The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor
speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to
disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of
having the same character or circumstances.
A. In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be
bad, but yours is worse."
B. If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So I
do x [some specific action], but you do too."
III. Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the
abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.
Informal Structure of ad Hominem
Person L says argument A.

Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.
IV.
V. Examples of the ad hominem:
 A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars
are not trustworthy.
 Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his
chancellorship for dishonesty.
 Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your students," and Prof.
White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to say so. Just last week I heard
several of your students complaining."
 I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax
on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly
an unbiased source.
VI. Uses of ad hominem considerations:
. When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or

circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other
words, ad hominemconsiderations can show motives and can sometimes provide
explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of
the ideas.
A. The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views

being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.
VII. Self-reference and ad hominem:
. If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing that all

knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its environment and at
the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an exception to this generalization,
then the ad hominem fallacy would occur.
A. If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either tender-minded or
tough-minded except for him with respect to his own variety of pragmatism, then
an ad hominem appeal should not be ruled inadmissible against James..
I. Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of

attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms
of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two
forms.
A. "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what

an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or
believes.
(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these
areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)
Person L says statement p or argument A.

Person L is in the elite.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.
B.
C. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all
or most people think or believe it is true.
Most, many, or all persons believe statement pis true.

Statement p is true.
D.
E. "appeal to emotion": the fallacy of using expressive andemotively laden language to

arouse emotion in support of a conclusion.
Emotions such as enthusiasm, pride, anger, or disgust are used to express evidence for
statement p
F.
<="" li="">
II. Many advertising slogans are based on this fallacy: Strictly speaking, one statement
considered by itself cannot be a fallacy because it's not an argument. Nevertheless, the
import of these "catch-phrases" seems to be in some cases by conversational implicature
an implicit argument. I.e., the statement can easily be reconstructed from its context into
an implicit argument.
§ "Coffee is the think drink."

("London (AP) The coffee industry says it will try to convince youngsters that coffee is the
‘think drink’. … ‘We want to capture the youth market.’"
[The Fredericksburg Virginia Free Lance-Star "Industry Promoting Coffee as ‘Think Drink’"
(December 10, 1966), 82 No. 390, 10.])
§ "Join the Pepsi People Feelin' Free" (slogan early 1970s,)
§ "Join the Pepsi generation" (slogan mid-1980s)
§ "Sony. Ask anyone." (Sony trademark, 1970s)
A. Occasionally, it is difficult to make a distinction between thead verecundiam (appeal

to authority) and the ad populum (appeal to the elite) fallacies.
B. The basis of the ad populum appeal is the assumption that large numbers of persons
are more likely to be right than a given individual is likely to be right. Also, in light of
peer pressure, many persons feel it's better to be normal than to go against the
crowd. Moreover, our social desire to be approved by others often results in our
joining the "bandwagon" of the probable winning side in a political contest.
III. The main problem with this fallacy is the mere fact that many people agree on something
often does not imply that what they agree on is true; nevertheless, the fact that many
people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances, as shown below.
The distinction is based on the nature of the relevance of the premisses to the conclusion.
IV. Examples of the ad populum:
 "But officer, I don't deserve a ticket; everyone goes this speed. If I went any slower, I
wouldn't be going with the stream of traffic."
 It is well recognized by most persons that the present technological revolution has
affected the ethical basis of the nation's institution of education. Since this belief is
so widely held, there can be little doubt of its accuracy.
 "Man could alleviate his misery by marriage. This close companionship enhances the
joys of one and mitigated the sorrow of the other, and anyone knew God always
provided for married people."
[Lee Emily Pearson, Elizabethans at Home, (London: Oxford University Press, 1957),
289.]
 "Shell was charged with misleading advertising in its Platformate advertisements. A

Shell spokesman said: 'The same comment could be made about most good
advertising of most products.'"
[Samm Sinclair Baker, The Permissible Lie (Cleveland: World Publishing Company,
1968), 39.]
 "To his dying day, Governor Marvin Mandel will never understand what was wrong in
accepting more that $350,000 worth of gifts from wealthy friends who happened to
engage in business ventures that benefited from his gubernatorial influence. The
governor has lots of company … And to a man they have cried in bewilderment that
‘everybody does it,’ that politics survives on back scratching."
[Martha Angle and Robert Walters, "In Washington: The Public Isn't Buying" Bowling
Green Daily News (September 6, 1977), 123 No. 212, 16.]
 St. Augustine wrote, "For such is the power of true Godhead that it cannot be
altogether and utterly hidden from the rational creature, once it makes use of its
reason. For with the exception of a few in whom nature is excessively depraved, the
whole human race confesses God to be author of the world."
[Erich Przywara, An Augustine Synthesis (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 122.]
Note, as well, the ad hominem implications of this argument.
V. Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most
persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true.
Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, and clothing
styles, or voting in juries, meetings, or political elections are typical examples where the
appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so
would not be fallacious.
. Many logic sources associate the ad populum fallacy with the presence of emotion
alone in expressions of rhetorical passages, patriotic speeches, diatribes, or cheerful
accolades. However, it's important to understand that no fallacy occurs unless the
literal significance of the emotionally expressed evidence is irrelevant to the
purported conclusion. The presence of emotively laden language alone does not
constitute a fallacy unless an argument is being presented.
A. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their
authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., Is is a
legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat
diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy.
B. The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth
of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the
number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim.
C. Other examples of where an ad populum appeal would not be fallacious include

the "the wisdom of crowds," "swarm intelligence," and "crowd sourcing" because
these instruments are often more reliable than other inductive methods.
VI. Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum argument:
 "We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant

America, open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools
and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a
life beyond the nearest street corner. To the funiture worker's child in North
Carolona who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an
entrepreneur, a diplomat ore even a president—that's the future we hope for. That's
the vision we share. That's where we need to go—forward. That's where we need to
go." ["Transcript of President Obama's Election Night Speech."New York
Times (November 7, 2012) quoted in Donna Brazile, "Forward," Index-Journal 94 No.
194 (November 12, 2012), 6A.]
These statements do not constitute an argument and so no fallacy is present in this

passage.
 "Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so
many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because—so many people are attracted
to the Grand Prix!"
[A ABC-TV 1992 advertisement quoted in Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction
to Logic New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994), 129.}
Undoubtedly, Copi and Cohen are assuming that there is an elliptical conclusion
being implied, but the passage as it stands is the fallacy of petition principii
I. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a
related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
A. Hence, assent or dissent to a statement or an argument is sought on the basis of an irrelevant appeal to
pity. In other words, pity, or the related emotion is not the subject or the conclusion of the argument.
B. The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:
Person L argues statement p or argument A.

L deserves pity because of circumstance y.
Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
II. Some typical ad misericordiam fallacy examples follow.
Georgia Banker Bert Lance should be excused from conflict of interest divestiture problems, former
President Jimmy Carter asserted, because Lance's promise to sell his stock so that he can serve his
government has depressed its market value.
Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way
to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be
repossessed.
Members of Congress can surely see in their hearts that they need to vote in favor of passage of the Gun
Bill allowing concealed weapons because their constituents who lobby for liberalizing firearms will be
greatly saddened if they do not do so.
Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully
realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who
could score much better on easier exams.
Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, has been misunderstood almost all of his life.
Since World War II, he came close twice to having a mental breakdown--first with the death of his wife
and second with the explosion of the atomic bomb. I think that the Journal of Science should publish
some of his later theoretical work out of our kind regard for his memory and from the interest of human
concern for his difficult life.
III. Related emotions include sympathy, love, regard, mercy, condolence, and compassion. Occasionally, an
occurrence of a fallacy can be correctly analyzed as either the ad populum or the ad misericordiamfallacy since
these fallacies overlap in their appeal.
IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad misericordiam include arguments where the appeal to pity or a related
emotion is the subject of the argument or is a pertinent or germane reason for acceptance of the conclusion.
A. Relief arguments are relevant to the problems raised by a disaster caused by a tidal
wave and cholera outbreak in India.
B. If we have the choice of buying a newspaper from a blind news vendor, ad

misericordiam considerations are not necessarily irrelevant. The essential question is
whether the pity or compassion is relevant to the situation at hand and is being appealed to
exclusively or excessively for the acceptance of the conclusion.
C. In Voltaire's Candide, examples of misery are used time and time again to falsify
Leibniz's (Pangloss') assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds. The evidence would
be relevant to the argument being adduced.
I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or
the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
A. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a
fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the
emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement
with the purported conclusion of the argument.
B. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea
that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats,per se, however, are not fallacies because
they involve behavior, not arguments.
C. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.
If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen.
Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening.
Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.
II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:
Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new
department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’"
The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on

interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for
Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.
I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I
receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to the
janitorial division of this corporation..
The basis of an ad baculum concerns the fate of medieval philosopher and astronomer
Giordano Bruno. Bruno (1548-1600) envisioned a multitude of solar systems in limitless
space and believed in the astronomical hypothesis of Copernicus. The Medieval Inquissition
threatened his life unless he changed his views. Bruno refused to accept the conclusion of
the ad baculum as so was burned at the stake.
"On October 10, 1971, Secretary of State William P. Rogers cautioned foreign ministers that
Congress might force the United States reduce its financial contributions to the United
Nations if Nationalist China is expelled."
As a logical argument, Rogers' caution is fallacious; as a political maneuver no argument is

being adduced.
III. Since many threats involve emotional responses, they can overlap with the emotional appeal of
the ad populum fallacy. The appeal to the fear of not being accepted as part of a group can often be
analyzed as either the ad baculum or the ad populum.
IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad baculum: the appeal is relevant when the threat or the force
is directly or causally related to the conclusion.
A. Greenpeace argued that the large underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island off Alaska
in the early 1970's had the possible results of earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation. Hence,
these environmentalists opposed testing. The threat is logically connected with the
argument because of the probability of these consequences is not decisional (or
prescriptive) but causal—hence, no fallacy occurs.
For example, when environemtal groups object to the use of thermonuclear weapons for in
situ recovery of oil from tar sands[1]or use against ground troops, excavation of a new
Panama canal or harbor in Australia [2] on the grounds of the dangers of radioactive
contamination, the implied threat is relevant and causally connected to the proposed
nuclear explosions. Consequently, such arguments would not commit the ad
baculum fallacy.
B. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not
arguments and so are not fallacies. E.g., "Study hard or your grades will fall" would not be
fallacious for two reasons: (1) no argument is present, and (2) the connection between the
two statements of the disjunction suggest a causal relation of relevancy. It is unfortunate
that many logic sources identify a fallacy occurring in disjunctive statements like ths.
C. Undecideable Cases: In some controversies the relevancy of the threat cannot be directly
determined from the context of the argument, and so the agrument cannot be reliably
assessed without background research and contextual analysis in order to determine the
facts.
E.g., Consider the following argument:
(1) Publication of research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the
capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an
intermediate host constitutes a risk for human pandemic influenza.
(2) Human pandemic influenza signifies the death of millions.
----------------------------------------------------
(Conclusion) Research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity
for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate
host should not be published.
Analysis: In the summer of 2011 Dutch researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center
created an airborne H5N1 avian flu virus and estimated the virus could kill 59% of the
people it infects. [3]The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity recommended
that the Research should not tbe published with experimental details because of the
"unusually high magnitude of risk" of someone transforming the virus causing "a pandemic
of significant proportions."[4] But many scientists thought the potential threat from
terrorists creating a deadly H5N1 virus was greatly exaggerated because the virus could not
be easily transmitted among people. So in this case the potential benefit for public health
outweighed concerns of terrorists unleashing a pandemic and the paper was published.[5]
I. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and
quite different from that which was intended or required.
A. The ignoratio elenchi is usually considered slightly narrower in focus than the non
sequitur. Strictly speaking, any time a conclusion does not follow from its premisses, the non
sequitur fallacy occurs. Other similar fallacies include diversion, red herring, subject
changing, and ignoring the issue. In law, such a response given to a question can be called
"nonresponsive."
B. Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses have no direct relation on
the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an
instance of ignoratio elenchi.
C. In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific
conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often
termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to
divert attention away from the main issue.
D. At least, this seems to be the way Aristotle, to some extent, described the fallacy. He writes, "Those that
depend upon whether something is said in a certain respect only or said absolutely, are clear cases
of ignoratio elenchi because the affirmation and the denial are not concerned with the same point.…
Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not
the cause, are clearly shown to be cases ofignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.."
(Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) 11.) Literally,ignoratio elenchi is
"ignorance of the nature of how something is refuted."
More recently, ignoratio elenchi is described less broadly as an argument, whether valid or invalid, not
relevant to or a digression from the point at issue. Douglas Walton points out, "It may not come as such
a big surprise to find subsequently that the treatment of theignoratio elenchi fallacy in the twentieth-
century logic textbooks can be described as a conceptual disarray, mixing several fallacies together in
ways that makes it hard to separate them. (Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2004) 44.)
II. Ignoratio elenchi will be used in a special sense in these notes as a "catch-all" classification for
fallacies of irrelevance which do not clearly fit into the other fallacies outlined here. As such, few
examples of this fallacy are provided in these notes and in the exercises and tests.
A. The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being
given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted.
B. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad
populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes
leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said.
III. The key in evaluating argument is determining whether or not the appeal used in the argument
is relevant to the conclusion or not. Relevance is established by either logical or evidential
connection.
A. One quick way to establish relevance is to ask yourself if the premisses were false, would
that fact imply that the conclusion is false also? It it would not, then the premisses can be
considered irrelevant to the conclusion.
B. Consider the following example:
"The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his
achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission."
Irene Coyne, "Letters" Time (Vol 117, No. 7), 4.
1. Ms. Coyne is arguing that the servicemen who failed to rescue the hostages are heroes
for the reason that heroes are admired for their achievements and qualities. For this
premiss to be relevant to the conclusion, we must assume that the servicemen who
failed are admired for their achievements and qualities. If this assumption were to be
supported by further reasons, the ignoratio elenchi need not have occurred.
2. In other words, in order to determine relevance, we would ask Ms. Coyne, "Would
those servicemen be true heroes if they had not volunteered, and if they would
have rescued the hostages?" Doubtless, she would agree that they still would be
considered heroes; hence, the fallacy of ignoratio elenchioccurs. (Note how
this ignoratio elenchi is coupled with ad populum consideration.)
C. Is the following example the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi?
"We request your help in compiling a book which recalls memories from our parents' first 50 years of marriage. On the
enclosed sheet, we ask that you write one memory or event that you have shared with them, and return it to us by April 25.
We believe that loving memories they have shared with you, their friends, would be the most treasured gift they could
receive; therefore, we request that no other gift be sent."
I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes
something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To
be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question)
must be present either implicitly or explicitly.
A. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. The
fallacy involves the asking of a question that tacitly assumes the truth of a statement (or
occurrence of a state of affairs) not generally granted or given unto evidence.
B. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as a statement, i.e., a

verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.
C. The informal structure of the fallacy is often similar to the following:
How are related statements p and q true (or false), where p is an unwarranted assumption.
Statement p is true (or false).
D.
E. The problems associated with both the fallacy and the rhetorical techniques of complex
question often are used as techniques of subterfuge by persons in authority to elicit a
confession or to manipulate attitudes.
A. Although often manipulative, unethical, and improper, complex questions in the

form of leading questions occur in surveys, law courts, journalistic interviews, and
police cross-examinations. Leading questions can be assumptive, implicative, or
intimidating, not all of which are
1. Assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very question at
issue. As a former police interrogator and fraud examiner states, "Regardless
of the questioner's surety of … guilt, it would be most sensible to start with [a]
question [that] … assumes guilt, which makes the job of denial more difficult
than issuing a simple ‘no.’[1]
2. Counselors, psychologists, and related professionals use complex question as

an investigative technique.
For example, a noted psychotherapist writes, "We therapists have our little
cunning ways—statements such as: ‘I wonder what blocks you from acting
upon the decision you already seem to have made.’"[2]
3. Although some leading questions may be asked as the discretion of the

presiding judge, in general they are not permitted because they have been
shown to alter testimony. In Hugo Münsterberg's experiments at Harvard,
"the leading question was put to each menber of the class—‘Did you notice
the stove in the room?’ (there was no stove there)—and 59 per cent of the
class answered ‘Yes,’ and having once admitted seeing the stove they
proceeded to locate it, and tell in what part of the room it was."[3]
4. Francis Wellman, the famous trial lawyer, writes, "[I]t is easy to produce
evidence that varies very widely from the exact truth. This is often done by
overzealous practitioners by putting leading questions or by incorporating two
questions into tone, the second a simple one, misleading the witness into a
‘yes’ for both, and thus creating an entirely false impression.[4]
B. Identification of the presuppositions of a complex question and clarifying what is at

issue has much in common with "dividing the question" as is done in an application
of the rules of order in conducting meetings:
"(1.) Dividing a question. When a motion embraces several parts, each of which
forms substantially a separate proposition, the rsolution of it into distinct motions or
questions is called dividing the question. (2.) Advantage of such division. It affords
the assembly an opportunity to recieve or to reject what part it thinks proper …"[5]
C. The technique of resolving complex questions is also similar to understanding the

need for a "line-item veto" where particular provisions of a list can be vetoed
without rejecting all provisions of a proposal.
F. Occasionally, the fallacy of complex question is simply an unwarranted assumption in an

argument and a question (i.e., an interrogative sentence) is not present in the passage.
For example, in Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Assistant
Secretary of State Susan Rice condemned Clinton's policy of Iraq and Iran by demanding an
"explanation of how and why she got those critical judgements wrong."[6]
G. Rarely, the fallacy occurs with the presuppositions of the question explicitly stated in
separate statement as in this example:
"Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote recently: ‘It is the president of the
United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend
political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set
about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks ‘millionaires
and billionaires.’ Who regularly makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the
other—the good Americans. How's that for presidential tone?’"[7]
II. The assumption or presupposition to a complex question can only be known from the context.
Not all cases where something not generally granted is assumed are fallacious because not all such
passages involve arguments.
A. E.g., a prosecutor demands from a defendant, "Did you commit the murder before or after
you bought the soft drink?"
Here, no argument is being given, so no fallacy occurs. Obviously, the whole sense of the
question changes if the prosecutor is asking the question just after the defendant
confessed to the murder.
B. The classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would not be a fallacy unless
explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming without evidence that you beat your wife,
and this is the very point he wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this
example in such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs. This
interrogative sentence, often used as a defining example of the fallacy of complex
question is not a fallacy unless it occurs as a premise in an argument.
C. As an example of "unpacking" presuppositions of a question, analyze what is being

assumed in the following example sentence:
"What church do you and your family attend?"
The main presupposition can be listed as follows.
1. You attend church.

2. You have a family.
3. Your family attends church.
4. You and your family attend the same church.
III. Assorted examples of the fallacy of complex question:
"If a choice must be made, I'll adopt God's nonexistence as a working assumption. If I am
mistaken, I hope He is not offended by my demand for evidence. (Many believers seem to
think that God is offended by atheists. Is he overly proud or merely insecure?)"[8].
"When software programs are trying to outsmart other software programs and hack the
world's trading platforms, that is a recipe for disaster.… How many times an hour are there
failures across individual equities around the world because of software running algorithms
battling each other for supremacy to make a profitable trade? We have no idea."[9].
"Look very closely. You will see that no person and no circumstance can prevent you from
becoming a self-understanding man or woman. Who is stopping you at this very moment?
No one."[10].
The following passage on the problem of redistribution is discussing whether people should
be paid on how hard they try, rather than rewarding those with natural ability:
"How hard you're willing to work is powerfully influenced by how much skill nature has
given you and thus how much chance you have of achieving a satisfying success. The case
for redistribution is not without its troubles: Anyone who says that what nature has given
you has nothing to do with what you should be allowed to keep must ultimately answer
questions like why couples who produce beautiful children shouldn't be made to give some
of them to parents who can only turn out ugly ducklings." [11]
IV. Nonfallacious examples of complex question are usually rhetorical techniques, as explained
above. Again for a fallacy to occur an argumentmust be present.1
A. If a question's presuppositions are legitimately assumed by all parties, and the

presuppositions are all relevant, then no fallacy has been committed.
B. Fallacy Practice: Analyze the following passages and state whether or not the fallacy of
complex question has occurred.
1. "An almost equally exasperating aspect of the autonomy struggle is the toddler's
inability to make choices. The parent asks whether the child wants a cookie or a
lollipop. First the child says, ‘Cookie,’ but as soon as he gets the cookie, he wants a
lollipop. The parent patiently takes away the cookie and gives the toddler a lollipop,
but now the child wants the cookie again. The problem is that the child wants the
right to choose, but does not want to make a choice. From the child's point of view,
he does not have a choice unless he can choose them both."[12]
2. "Shoppers at F.W. Woolworth Co.'s stores might detect one means of a company
minimizing its borrowing needs. According to Ellis Smith, executive vice president of
finance, the company ‘hardly acknowledges’ it own charge system. The first question
our people are instructed to ask is, ‘Is the purchase cash?’ If it isn't, the second
question is ‘Is this Visa or Master Charge?’"[13]
3. "Agence France-Presse concluded its story by noting, ‘Studies have described a rise
in the prevalence of mental disorders in China, some of them linked to stress as the
pace of life becomes faster and socialist support systems falter.’ There [sic] is sheer
preposterous propaganda. What ’study‘ could possibly prove that stress regarding
‘the pace of life’ and the decline of ’socialist support systems‘ (whatever they are)
had increased mental illness? Western intellectuals, very much including the press,
are still in love with socialism—even its communist variant."[14]
4. "Concerning the July 16 Cover Story, ‘The Euro's Fate’ Is that the best Europe can do?
Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking
inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for
irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will
be impoverished with debt." [15]
5. "There is a tale, probably apocryphal, told of that notoriously merry monarch Charles
II. There was a dinner to commemorate the foundation of the Royal Society. At the
end of the evening, ‘with the peculiar gravity of countenance which he usually wore
on such occasions,’ he put a challenge to the Fellows. ‘Suppose two pails of water
were fixed in two different scales that were equally poised, and which weighted
equally alike, and that two live bream, or small fish, were put into either of these
pails.‘ He wanted to know the reason why that pail, with such additions should not
weigh more than the other pail which stood against it. Many suggested possible
explanations, and argued for their own suggestions with more or less vigour. But at
last one who perhaps remembered that the motto of that great society is ‘Nullium in
verba’ (Take no man's word for it!) denied the assumption: ‘It would weigh more.’
The King was delighted: ‘Odds fish, brother, you are in the right.’"[16]
6. "Romney did what he has done when in trouble in the past. He lashed out. ‘Do you
want four more years with 23 million people out of work or underemployed?’ he
asked. ‘Do you want four more years where incomes go down every single year? You
want four more years with gasoline prices doubling? Do you want four more years
with unemployment above 8 percent?‘ Romney was shouting, jabbing his finger in
the air."[17]
7. "Bion, that was an atheist, was showed in a port city, in a temple of Neptune, many
tables of pictures, of such as had in tempests made their vows to Neptune, and were
saved from shipwreck: and was asked, ‘How say you not? Do you not acknowledge
the power of the gods?’ But he said, ‘Yes, but where are they painted that have been
drowned after their vows?’"[18]
8. " Joe, let's take a look at what is happening for you in the group. Here you are, after
two months, not feeling good about yourself in this group and with several members
impatient with you (or intimidated, or avoidant, or angry, or annoyed, or feeling
seduced or betrayed). What's happened? Is this a familiar place for you? Would you
be willing to take a look at your role in bringing this to pass?"[19]
9. "Cutting your next year's budget by 2% but still having it up 4% from this year and
calling it a ‘cut’ is ludicrous. [The suggestion is] our leaders must kick the deficit-
reduction can down the road one more time. I ask: When exactly will it be a good
time to have economic contraction?"[20]
10. "Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by
crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only
serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next
several generations that will be impoverished with debt[?]"
[21]
I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal
connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of
arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that
event.
1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal

connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies,
the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."
2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore

Republicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental generalizations need not always
be causal relations.
B. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of
inquiry in the philosophy of science.
C. Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a
mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of
"false cause."
II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.
Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.

Event x caused event y.
or
Events of kind x are followed by events of kind y.

Events of kind x cause events of kind y.
III. Examples of false cause:
"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors beer
company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large quantities of
Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so supposedly non-intoxicating, at
his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff was insidiously marinating his mind; and as
a result he has been unable to finish writing his second novel. The author may have a point.
But we have to wonder whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of
product liability suits." Wall Street Journal(02.14.79).
There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, theJournal's, is tongue-in-cheek
"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."
(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)
"Dear ABBY: If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her head, she
should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her head every
night. (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her pillow.) I started losing my
hair after the birth of my child. My grandmother gave me this remedy and it worked. Index
Journal (02.01.80).
"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV crime shows
such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for 'diseasing his mind and
impairing his behavior controls.' 'Without the influence of television ... there would not have
been any crime,' Rubin argued." Index Journal(08.13.77).
"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an
instrument of the devil. But others pointed out that, according to Moslem doctrine, the devil
is incapable of reciting the Koran. When several verses of the Koran were recited and heard
over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street
Journal (11.11.79).
"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are reports in the
media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy athletes. There are many
causes of chest pain in children. The most common cause is called idiopathic chest
pain. Idiopathic means the cause is unknown. One can only call chest pain idiopathic after
they have ruled out other causes." Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index
Journal (n.d.).
IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult. Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one
suspect that A caused B. But even this generalization could be a coincidence. For the most part,
causality is no longer used in science; correlation is sought instead.
I. Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the
fallacy of assuming as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion.
A. The least convincing kind of petitio principii is the repetition of the same words in the same
order in both premiss and conclusion.. Generally, such an argument would not be
misleading and would only be given in unusual circumstances, e.g., the speaker is very tired,
talking to a child, or talking to a subordinate. Two examples follow.
1. "Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for
a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree." Oscar Wilde, De Profundis.
2. --"What a brain! And you know how to prove things, like the big shots?
--Yeah, I have a special method for that. Ask me to prove something for you,
something real hard.
--All right, prove to me that giraffes go up in elevators.
--Let's see. Giraffes go up in elevators ... because they go up in elevators.
--Good, that was great! ... Suppose I asked you to prove giraffes don't go up in
elevators.
--That's easy. I just prove the same thing, but the other way around." Fernando
Arrabal, El Cementerio de Automoviles, el Arquitecto y El
B. A more common kind of petitio principii is the transformation of the conclusion into a
premiss using logical or grammatical principles. For example ...
1. "You know that God is a just and loving God because God is God and cannot be
unjust or unloving."
2. "Women write the best novels because men do not write novels as well."
3. "There are many juvenile delinquents because many juveniles break the law, and the
reason so many juveniles break the law is that they are juvenile delinquents."
C. A third kind of petitio prinicpii is the use of an intermediate step in shifting to the same
meaning from the premiss to the conclusion. A linking of premisses and conclusions return
to the beginning. For example ...
1. "The soul is simple because it is immortal, and it must be immortal because it's
simple."
2. "I once overheard three brothers dividing two candy bars. The oldest one gave each of
the two younger ones half of a candy bar, and kept a whole bar for himelf. When
asked why he got more candy, he said he was the smartest. A few minutes later, one
of the younger ones asked why he was the smartest, and in reply the oldest said
\'Because I have more candy.'" Ernest J. Chave, Personality Development in
Children (Univ. of Chicago, 1937), 151.
D. The most difficult kind of petitio principii to identify is the kind where the premiss and the
conclusion have the same "propositional content." I.e., the statements are suitable
paraphrases of each other, and each depends upon the other for its truth.
1. "The elemental composition of Jupiter is known to be similar to the sun... The core
would be composed mainly of iron and silicates, the materials that make up most of
the earth's bulk. Such a core is expected for cosmogonic reasons: If Jupiter's
composition is similar to the sun's, the the planet should contain a small portion of
those elements." J. Wolfe, "Jupiter,"Scientific American (Vol. 230 No. 1), 119.
2. The following example is a description of a petitio principiicommitted by Engel:
"A law has been named after Engel in light of this work. Engel's law states that 'the
poorer the individual, the family or a people, the greater must be the percentage of the
income needed for the maintenance of physical sustenance, and of this a greater
proportion must be allowed for food.' It is odd to find this as a law, since Engel had
used the proportion of outgoings on food as the measure of material standard of
living." Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 140.
3. A contradiction to my theory of dream produced by another of my women patients

(the cleverest of all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same
pattern: namely that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of
another. One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes.
Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her mother-
in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays
together. Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea of spending the
summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she had successfully
avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a far distant resort. And
now her dream had undone the solution she had wished for; was not this the sharpest
contradiction of my theory that in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt; and it was
only necessary to follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its
interpretation. The dream showed that I was wrong. Thus it was her wish that I might
be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled (italics original)" Sigmund
Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams (New York: Avon, 1966), 185.
II. The informal structure of the petitio principii is usually similar to one of the following.
Statement not-p is not true.
or
Statement q is true.
Statement r is true.
III. The reason petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid
(because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive. A
statement cannot prove itself. A premiss must have a different source of reason, ground or
evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.
I. Accident: the fallacy of applying a general rule to a particular case whose special circumstances
render the rule inapplicable.
A. The fallacy of accident results from using a statement which has a qualified meaning as if it
had no qualification whatsoever.
1. E.g., "Thou shalt not kill; therefore, you should not try to control termites in your
home or fight for your country."
2. E.g., "All persons are created equal, so since you made a C in this class, you haven't
been working as hard as you should."
Even though people are supposedly created equal politically, it does not follow that
they are created equal in academic pursuits."
B. The fallacy of accident arises from believing the general premiss which has a qualified
meaning applies in all circumstances without restriction.
1. "The U.S. is a true democracy; therefore, children and criminals should be allowed to
vote."
2. "People are defined as rational animals. Therefore, you should spend more time
reasoning and thinking rather than enjoying yourself with what you do."
C. Recognition of this fallacy sometimes leads to the statement, "It is the exception that proves
the rule."
D. The generalization used in the premiss is sometimes termed "a glittering generality."
II. The informal structure of accident is as follows.

Rule or general statement p is true in circumstances x.
Rule or general statement is true in circumstances y.
III. The rule or general statement in the fallacy of accident can be of several different kinds.
A. Aphorism: a concise statement of a truth, a maxim, or an adage.E.g., "Honesty is the best

policy," or "A new broom sweeps clean."
B. Cliché: a trite or overworked expression. E.g., "No pain, no gain," or "Go for it!"
C. Moral principles, empirical generalizations, and presuppositions are also generalizations

often used as premisses in the fallacy of accident
I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering certain exceptional cases
and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the
opposite of accident.
A. Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the basis of
only a few examples.
1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage drivers are really
pathetic."
2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view that boys have greater
inherent mathematical ability. "When I was four, my father taught me the beauty of
numbers, and I have excelled in mathematics ever since. My conclusion? The males
who grew up with a high aptitude for math are not spending enough time with their
daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time 117, No. 1 (January 4, 1981), 6.
B. The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly selected evidence
1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in Greenwood on Friday night, and
they all stated they would rather be there than watching TV. I conclude that the folks
in Greenwood don't like to watch TV on Friday night."
2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had its turn
signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in South Carolina are not trained to drive very
well."
3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many instances of a class must
be observed before one can be really sure? Having experienced two uncoordinated
woman-drivers, am I justified in making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For
too many men, a sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
course, never make this sort of error.)"
[James L. Christian, Philosophy (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1998), ]
4. As legislators, women make a difference. They are far more likely to identify
problems of gender bias, and we know this firsthand. Cokie's mom, Lindy Goggs,
served 18 years in Congress and authored legislation banning discrimination against
women in bank lending practices.
[Cokie Roberts and Steve Roberts, "Women Are Flexing Their Political
Muscles," Index-Journal 94 No. 153 (September 30, 2012), 11A.]
C. Converse accident, as with other fallacies, is determinable in context, and the argument
sometimes has to be reconstructed:
"[T]he [P]resident [commented] last February: ‘One of the proudest things in my three
years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world.’ In
light of the uprising that included the burning of American flags in the Middle East and the
murder of Americans in Libya, that's one more broken promise that can be added to a
growing list."
[Cal Thomas, "Distractions and Diversions," Index-Journal 94 Vol. 146 (September 24, 2012),
8A.]
Two tragic events are cited in support of generalization that the President is not helping to
restore a sense of respect for America around the world. Since these two examples are not
particularly atypical examples, this converse accident is also a weak inductive argument
because they do lend some probability to the unstated implicit or enthymematic
conclusion.
D. Fallacies of converse accident and hasty generalization are sometimes difficult to

distinguish.
1. Converse accident occurs when a generalization about all instances of a kind is based
on either too few examples which are not known to be typical or based on instances
of a different kind, whereas false cause occurs when the conclusion of a causal
relation is based on a correlation in time or circumstance. The generalization in
converse accident need not be causal, and the causal relation in false cause need not
be general.
a. E.g., "There's nothing you can't get used to. Just think about all the unpleasant
things you've accepted as ordinary, like wading through traffic or dealing with
a bad-tempered relative or coworker."
[Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, The Joy of Living (New York: Harmony Books,
2007), 44.]
The argument is that since you got used to a few ordinary annoying situations,
the conclusion then follows that you can get used to anything. Since the
conclusion is not a causal generalization, the argument is converse accident
rather than false cause.
b. E.g., "[T]he market as a rule does better under Democratic presidents than
their counterparts. Certainly, the last four years proves the point."
[Robert E. Anderson, "Mailbag: Earnings and Interest,"Barron's (November 12,
2012) 92 No. 46, 50.]
The last four years refers to the first Barack Obama administration when the
stock market rose about 20% and the correlation is being suggested between
a Democratic President and an improving market. The general conclusion is
said to follow from this one correlation that the stock market does better
under Democratic leadership than it does under Republican leadership. Since
no causal relation is explicitly being asserted in the conclusion, the better
identification of this fallacy is converse accident.
2. When the conclusion about a causal generalization is reached from a premise or

from premises involving one or more atypical correlations or atypical causal relations
either fallacy may be said to occur.
E.g., "A balanced, healthy diet is the best remedy for disease in general. I have a
cousin who is a breast cancer survivor, and she now consumes juiced fruits and
vegetables in enormous quantities to keep herself healthy, and so far her cancer has
stayed in complete remission."
[Karen Lee, "Restoring Your Inner Balance -- How to Stop the Aging Process in its
Tracks," Pick the Brain, http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/restoring-your-inner-
balance-how-to-stop-the-aging-process-in-its-tracks/, accessed April 8, 2012.]
The conclusion that the remedy for all diseases is affected by a good diet is based on
the reason cited of a cousin whose healthy diet has kept her cancer in remission. This
example can be identified as either converse accident or false cause since a causal
relation of remedying all diseases is concluded from the correlation or causal relation
of one person remedying one disease.
II. As a quick check of your understanding of the fallacies of accident and converse accident,
evaluate the following passages.
A. "Former Brooklyn Dodger Joe Black, speaking in Clinton, helped put the drug situation in
professional athletics in better perspective. The former pitcher, a black man, said he has no
sympathy for the argument that pressures of the professional athlete's lifestyle can lead to
drug abuse. “There are no pressures in professional sports that make you use drugs or
booze. Jackie Robinson didn't use drugs. Willie Mays didn't use drugs. I didn't use drugs.
That's a cop out,’ Black said." [Index-Journal 64 No. 99 (August 8, 1982), B-3.]
B. "All persons admitted to Lander University must abide by its policies. Therefore you must
abide by the university parking rules."
C. The USDA policies for farmers are worthless. Why I know a guy who collects thousands of
dollars for not planting wheat and spends his spare time at the race track.
D. "I'm generalizing from one example, here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At
least, I do."
[Steven Brust, Issola (New York: Macmillan, 2002), Ch. 14.]
E. "The external world is simply the suggestion, the occasion, which sets you to study your
own mind, but the object of your study is always your own mind. The falling of an apple
gave the suggestion to Newton, and he studied his own mind; hr rearranged all the
previous links of thought in his mind and discovered a new link among them, which we call
the law of gravitation. It was not in the apple nor in anything in the centre of the earth. All
knowledge therefore, secular or spiritual, is in the human mind."
[Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of the Swami Vivekananda (Mayavati: Advaita
Ashram, 1915), 46.
I. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a
related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
A. Hence, assent or dissent to a statement or an argument is sought on the basis of an irrelevant appeal to
pity. In other words, pity, or the related emotion is not the subject or the conclusion of the argument.
B. The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:
Person L argues statement p or argument A.

L deserves pity because of circumstance y.
Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
II. Some typical ad misericordiam fallacy examples follow.
Georgia Banker Bert Lance should be excused from conflict of interest divestiture problems, former
President Jimmy Carter asserted, because Lance's promise to sell his stock so that he can serve his
government has depressed its market value.
Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way
to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be
repossessed.
Members of Congress can surely see in their hearts that they need to vote in favor of passage of the Gun
Bill allowing concealed weapons because their constituents who lobby for liberalizing firearms will be
greatly saddened if they do not do so.
Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully
realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who
could score much better on easier exams.
Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, has been misunderstood almost all of his life.
Since World War II, he came close twice to having a mental breakdown--first with the death of his wife
and second with the explosion of the atomic bomb. I think that the Journal of Science should publish
some of his later theoretical work out of our kind regard for his memory and from the interest of human
concern for his difficult life.
III. Related emotions include sympathy, love, regard, mercy, condolence, and compassion. Occasionally, an
occurrence of a fallacy can be correctly analyzed as either the ad populum or the ad misericordiamfallacy since
these fallacies overlap in their appeal.
IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad misericordiam include arguments where the appeal to pity or a related
emotion is the subject of the argument or is a pertinent or germane reason for acceptance of the conclusion.
A. Relief arguments are relevant to the problems raised by a disaster caused by a tidal
wave and cholera outbreak in India.
B. If we have the choice of buying a newspaper from a blind news vendor, ad

misericordiam considerations are not necessarily irrelevant. The essential question is
whether the pity or compassion is relevant to the situation at hand and is being appealed to
exclusively or excessively for the acceptance of the conclusion.
C. In Voltaire's Candide, examples of misery are used time and time again to falsify
Leibniz's (Pangloss') assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds. The evidence would
be relevant to the argument being adduced.
. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or
the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
A. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a
fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the
emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement
with the purported conclusion of the argument.
B. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea
that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats,per se, however, are not fallacies because
they involve behavior, not arguments.
C. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.
If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen.
Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening.
Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.
II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:
Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new
department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’"
The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on

interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for
Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.
I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I
receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to the
janitorial division of this corporation..
The basis of an ad baculum concerns the fate of medieval philosopher and astronomer
Giordano Bruno. Bruno (1548-1600) envisioned a multitude of solar systems in limitless
space and believed in the astronomical hypothesis of Copernicus. The Medieval Inquissition
threatened his life unless he changed his views. Bruno refused to accept the conclusion of
the ad baculum as so was burned at the stake.
"On October 10, 1971, Secretary of State William P. Rogers cautioned foreign ministers that
Congress might force the United States reduce its financial contributions to the United
Nations if Nationalist China is expelled."
As a logical argument, Rogers' caution is fallacious; as a political maneuver no argument is

being adduced.
III. Since many threats involve emotional responses, they can overlap with the emotional appeal of
the ad populum fallacy. The appeal to the fear of not being accepted as part of a group can often be
analyzed as either the ad baculum or the ad populum.
IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad baculum: the appeal is relevant when the threat or the force
is directly or causally related to the conclusion.
A. Greenpeace argued that the large underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island off Alaska
in the early 1970's had the possible results of earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation. Hence,
these environmentalists opposed testing. The threat is logically connected with the
argument because of the probability of these consequences is not decisional (or
prescriptive) but causal—hence, no fallacy occurs.
For example, when environemtal groups object to the use of thermonuclear weapons for in
situ recovery of oil from tar sands[1]or use against ground troops, excavation of a new
Panama canal or harbor in Australia [2] on the grounds of the dangers of radioactive
contamination, the implied threat is relevant and causally connected to the proposed
nuclear explosions. Consequently, such arguments would not commit the ad
baculum fallacy.
B. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not
arguments and so are not fallacies. E.g., "Study hard or your grades will fall" would not be
fallacious for two reasons: (1) no argument is present, and (2) the connection between the
two statements of the disjunction suggest a causal relation of relevancy. It is unfortunate
that many logic sources identify a fallacy occurring in disjunctive statements like ths.
C. Undecideable Cases: In some controversies the relevancy of the threat cannot be directly
determined from the context of the argument, and so the agrument cannot be reliably
assessed without background research and contextual analysis in order to determine the
facts.
E.g., Consider the following argument:
(1) Publication of research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the
capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an
intermediate host constitutes a risk for human pandemic influenza.
(2) Human pandemic influenza signifies the death of millions.
----------------------------------------------------
(Conclusion) Research for the creation of avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses with the capacity
for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate
host should not be published.
Analysis: In the summer of 2011 Dutch researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center
created an airborne H5N1 avian flu virus and estimated the virus could kill 59% of the
people it infects. [3]The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity recommended
that the Research should not tbe published with experimental details because of the
"unusually high magnitude of risk" of someone transforming the virus causing "a pandemic
of significant proportions."[4] But many scientists thought the potential threat from
terrorists creating a deadly H5N1 virus was greatly exaggerated because the virus could not
be easily transmitted among people. So in this case the potential benefit for public health
outweighed concerns of terrorists unleashing a pandemic and the paper was published.[5]
I. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and
quite different from that which was intended or required.
A. The ignoratio elenchi is usually considered slightly narrower in focus than the non
sequitur. Strictly speaking, any time a conclusion does not follow from its premisses, the non
sequitur fallacy occurs. Other similar fallacies include diversion, red herring, subject
changing, and ignoring the issue. In law, such a response given to a question can be called
"nonresponsive."
B. Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses have no direct relation on
the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an
instance of ignoratio elenchi.
C. In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific
conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often
termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to
divert attention away from the main issue.
D. At least, this seems to be the way Aristotle, to some extent, described the fallacy. He writes, "Those that
depend upon whether something is said in a certain respect only or said absolutely, are clear cases
of ignoratio elenchi because the affirmation and the denial are not concerned with the same point.…
Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not
the cause, are clearly shown to be cases ofignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.."
(Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations (Kessinger Publishing, 2004) 11.) Literally,ignoratio elenchi is
"ignorance of the nature of how something is refuted."
More recently, ignoratio elenchi is described less broadly as an argument, whether valid or invalid, not
relevant to or a digression from the point at issue. Douglas Walton points out, "It may not come as such
a big surprise to find subsequently that the treatment of theignoratio elenchi fallacy in the twentieth-
century logic textbooks can be described as a conceptual disarray, mixing several fallacies together in
ways that makes it hard to separate them. (Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2004) 44.)
II. Ignoratio elenchi will be used in a special sense in these notes as a "catch-all" classification for
fallacies of irrelevance which do not clearly fit into the other fallacies outlined here. As such, few
examples of this fallacy are provided in these notes and in the exercises and tests.
A. The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being
given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted.
B. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad
populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes
leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said.
III. The key in evaluating argument is determining whether or not the appeal used in the argument
is relevant to the conclusion or not. Relevance is established by either logical or evidential
connection.
A. One quick way to establish relevance is to ask yourself if the premisses were false, would
that fact imply that the conclusion is false also? It it would not, then the premisses can be
considered irrelevant to the conclusion.
B. Consider the following example:
"The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his
achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission."
Irene Coyne, "Letters" Time (Vol 117, No. 7), 4.
1. Ms. Coyne is arguing that the servicemen who failed to rescue the hostages are heroes
for the reason that heroes are admired for their achievements and qualities. For this
premiss to be relevant to the conclusion, we must assume that the servicemen who
failed are admired for their achievements and qualities. If this assumption were to be
supported by further reasons, the ignoratio elenchi need not have occurred.
2. In other words, in order to determine relevance, we would ask Ms. Coyne, "Would
those servicemen be true heroes if they had not volunteered, and if they would
have rescued the hostages?" Doubtless, she would agree that they still would be
considered heroes; hence, the fallacy of ignoratio elenchioccurs. (Note how
this ignoratio elenchi is coupled with ad populum consideration.)
C. Is the following example the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi?
"We request your help in compiling a book which recalls memories from our parents' first 50 years of marriage. On the
enclosed sheet, we ask that you write one memory or event that you have shared with them, and return it to us by April 25.
We believe that loving memories they have shared with you, their friends, would be the most treasured gift they could
receive; therefore, we request that no other gift be sent."
"Dear Abby," The Index Journal (02.02.80), 14.
I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes
something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To
be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question)
must be present either implicitly or explicitly.
A. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. The
fallacy involves the asking of a question that tacitly assumes the truth of a statement (or
occurrence of a state of affairs) not generally granted or given unto evidence.
B. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as a statement, i.e., a

verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.
C. The informal structure of the fallacy is often similar to the following:
How are related statements p and q true (or false), where p is an unwarranted assumption.
Statement p is true (or false).
D.
E. The problems associated with both the fallacy and the rhetorical techniques of complex
question often are used as techniques of subterfuge by persons in authority to elicit a
confession or to manipulate attitudes.
A. Although often manipulative, unethical, and improper, complex questions in the

form of leading questions occur in surveys, law courts, journalistic interviews, and
police cross-examinations. Leading questions can be assumptive, implicative, or
intimidating, not all of which are
1. Assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very question at
issue. As a former police interrogator and fraud examiner states, "Regardless
of the questioner's surety of … guilt, it would be most sensible to start with [a]
question [that] … assumes guilt, which makes the job of denial more difficult
than issuing a simple ‘no.’[1]
2. Counselors, psychologists, and related professionals use complex question as

an investigative technique.
For example, a noted psychotherapist writes, "We therapists have our little
cunning ways—statements such as: ‘I wonder what blocks you from acting
upon the decision you already seem to have made.’"[2]
3. Although some leading questions may be asked as the discretion of the
presiding judge, in general they are not permitted because they have been
shown to alter testimony. In Hugo Münsterberg's experiments at Harvard,
"the leading question was put to each menber of the class—‘Did you notice
the stove in the room?’ (there was no stove there)—and 59 per cent of the
class answered ‘Yes,’ and having once admitted seeing the stove they
proceeded to locate it, and tell in what part of the room it was."[3]
4. Francis Wellman, the famous trial lawyer, writes, "[I]t is easy to produce
evidence that varies very widely from the exact truth. This is often done by
overzealous practitioners by putting leading questions or by incorporating two
questions into tone, the second a simple one, misleading the witness into a
‘yes’ for both, and thus creating an entirely false impression.[4]
B. Identification of the presuppositions of a complex question and clarifying what is at

issue has much in common with "dividing the question" as is done in an application
of the rules of order in conducting meetings:
"(1.) Dividing a question. When a motion embraces several parts, each of which
forms substantially a separate proposition, the rsolution of it into distinct motions or
questions is called dividing the question. (2.) Advantage of such division. It affords
the assembly an opportunity to recieve or to reject what part it thinks proper …"[5]
C. The technique of resolving complex questions is also similar to understanding the

need for a "line-item veto" where particular provisions of a list can be vetoed
without rejecting all provisions of a proposal.
F. Occasionally, the fallacy of complex question is simply an unwarranted assumption in an

argument and a question (i.e., an interrogative sentence) is not present in the passage.
For example, in Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, Assistant
Secretary of State Susan Rice condemned Clinton's policy of Iraq and Iran by demanding an
"explanation of how and why she got those critical judgements wrong."[6]
G. Rarely, the fallacy occurs with the presuppositions of the question explicitly stated in
separate statement as in this example:
"Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote recently: ‘It is the president of the
United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend
political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set
about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks ‘millionaires
and billionaires.’ Who regularly makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the
other—the good Americans. How's that for presidential tone?’"[7]
II. The assumption or presupposition to a complex question can only be known from the context.
Not all cases where something not generally granted is assumed are fallacious because not all such
passages involve arguments.
A. E.g., a prosecutor demands from a defendant, "Did you commit the murder before or after
you bought the soft drink?"
Here, no argument is being given, so no fallacy occurs. Obviously, the whole sense of the
question changes if the prosecutor is asking the question just after the defendant
confessed to the murder.
B. The classic question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would not be a fallacy unless
explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming without evidence that you beat your wife,
and this is the very point he wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this
example in such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs. This
interrogative sentence, often used as a defining example of the fallacy of complex
question is not a fallacy unless it occurs as a premise in an argument.
C. As an example of "unpacking" presuppositions of a question, analyze what is being

assumed in the following example sentence:
"What church do you and your family attend?"
The main presupposition can be listed as follows.
1. You attend church.

2. You have a family.
3. Your family attends church.
4. You and your family attend the same church.
III. Assorted examples of the fallacy of complex question:
"If a choice must be made, I'll adopt God's nonexistence as a working assumption. If I am
mistaken, I hope He is not offended by my demand for evidence. (Many believers seem to
think that God is offended by atheists. Is he overly proud or merely insecure?)"[8].
"When software programs are trying to outsmart other software programs and hack the
world's trading platforms, that is a recipe for disaster.… How many times an hour are there
failures across individual equities around the world because of software running algorithms
battling each other for supremacy to make a profitable trade? We have no idea."[9].
"Look very closely. You will see that no person and no circumstance can prevent you from
becoming a self-understanding man or woman. Who is stopping you at this very moment?
No one."[10].
The following passage on the problem of redistribution is discussing whether people should
be paid on how hard they try, rather than rewarding those with natural ability:
"How hard you're willing to work is powerfully influenced by how much skill nature has
given you and thus how much chance you have of achieving a satisfying success. The case
for redistribution is not without its troubles: Anyone who says that what nature has given
you has nothing to do with what you should be allowed to keep must ultimately answer
questions like why couples who produce beautiful children shouldn't be made to give some
of them to parents who can only turn out ugly ducklings." [11]
IV. Nonfallacious examples of complex question are usually rhetorical techniques, as explained
above. Again for a fallacy to occur an argumentmust be present.1
A. If a question's presuppositions are legitimately assumed by all parties, and the

presuppositions are all relevant, then no fallacy has been committed.
B. Fallacy Practice: Analyze the following passages and state whether or not the fallacy of
complex question has occurred.
1. "An almost equally exasperating aspect of the autonomy struggle is the toddler's
inability to make choices. The parent asks whether the child wants a cookie or a
lollipop. First the child says, ‘Cookie,’ but as soon as he gets the cookie, he wants a
lollipop. The parent patiently takes away the cookie and gives the toddler a lollipop,
but now the child wants the cookie again. The problem is that the child wants the
right to choose, but does not want to make a choice. From the child's point of view,
he does not have a choice unless he can choose them both."[12]
2. "Shoppers at F.W. Woolworth Co.'s stores might detect one means of a company
minimizing its borrowing needs. According to Ellis Smith, executive vice president of
finance, the company ‘hardly acknowledges’ it own charge system. The first question
our people are instructed to ask is, ‘Is the purchase cash?’ If it isn't, the second
question is ‘Is this Visa or Master Charge?’"[13]
3. "Agence France-Presse concluded its story by noting, ‘Studies have described a rise
in the prevalence of mental disorders in China, some of them linked to stress as the
pace of life becomes faster and socialist support systems falter.’ There [sic] is sheer
preposterous propaganda. What ’study‘ could possibly prove that stress regarding
‘the pace of life’ and the decline of ’socialist support systems‘ (whatever they are)
had increased mental illness? Western intellectuals, very much including the press,
are still in love with socialism—even its communist variant."[14]
4. "Concerning the July 16 Cover Story, ‘The Euro's Fate’ Is that the best Europe can do?
Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by crushing savers and stoking
inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for
irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that will
be impoverished with debt." [15]
5. "There is a tale, probably apocryphal, told of that notoriously merry monarch Charles
II. There was a dinner to commemorate the foundation of the Royal Society. At the
end of the evening, ‘with the peculiar gravity of countenance which he usually wore
on such occasions,’ he put a challenge to the Fellows. ‘Suppose two pails of water
were fixed in two different scales that were equally poised, and which weighted
equally alike, and that two live bream, or small fish, were put into either of these
pails.‘ He wanted to know the reason why that pail, with such additions should not
weigh more than the other pail which stood against it. Many suggested possible
explanations, and argued for their own suggestions with more or less vigour. But at
last one who perhaps remembered that the motto of that great society is ‘Nullium in
verba’ (Take no man's word for it!) denied the assumption: ‘It would weigh more.’
The King was delighted: ‘Odds fish, brother, you are in the right.’"[16]
6. "Romney did what he has done when in trouble in the past. He lashed out. ‘Do you
want four more years with 23 million people out of work or underemployed?’ he
asked. ‘Do you want four more years where incomes go down every single year? You
want four more years with gasoline prices doubling? Do you want four more years
with unemployment above 8 percent?‘ Romney was shouting, jabbing his finger in
the air."[17]
7. "Bion, that was an atheist, was showed in a port city, in a temple of Neptune, many
tables of pictures, of such as had in tempests made their vows to Neptune, and were
saved from shipwreck: and was asked, ‘How say you not? Do you not acknowledge
the power of the gods?’ But he said, ‘Yes, but where are they painted that have been
drowned after their vows?’"[18]
8. " Joe, let's take a look at what is happening for you in the group. Here you are, after
two months, not feeling good about yourself in this group and with several members
impatient with you (or intimidated, or avoidant, or angry, or annoyed, or feeling
seduced or betrayed). What's happened? Is this a familiar place for you? Would you
be willing to take a look at your role in bringing this to pass?"[19]
9. "Cutting your next year's budget by 2% but still having it up 4% from this year and
calling it a ‘cut’ is ludicrous. [The suggestion is] our leaders must kick the deficit-
reduction can down the road one more time. I ask: When exactly will it be a good
time to have economic contraction?"[20]
10. "Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle class by
crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally low interest rates that only
serve to provide cover for irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next
several generations that will be impoverished with debt[?]"
[21]
I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal
connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.
A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of
arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that
event.
1. I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal
connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies,
the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."
2. Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore

Republicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental generalizations need not always
be causal relations.
B. Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of
inquiry in the philosophy of science.
C. Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a
mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of
"false cause."
II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.
Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.

Event x caused event y.
or
Events of kind x are followed by events of kind y.

Events of kind x cause events of kind y.
III. Examples of false cause:
"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors beer
company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large quantities of
Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so supposedly non-intoxicating, at
his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff was insidiously marinating his mind; and as
a result he has been unable to finish writing his second novel. The author may have a point.
But we have to wonder whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of
product liability suits." Wall Street Journal(02.14.79).
There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, theJournal's, is tongue-in-cheek
"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."
(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)
"Dear ABBY: If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her head, she
should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her head every
night. (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her pillow.) I started losing my
hair after the birth of my child. My grandmother gave me this remedy and it worked. Index
Journal (02.01.80).
"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV crime shows
such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for 'diseasing his mind and
impairing his behavior controls.' 'Without the influence of television ... there would not have
been any crime,' Rubin argued." Index Journal(08.13.77).
"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an
instrument of the devil. But others pointed out that, according to Moslem doctrine, the devil
is incapable of reciting the Koran. When several verses of the Koran were recited and heard
over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street
Journal (11.11.79).
"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are reports in the
media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy athletes. There are many
causes of chest pain in children. The most common cause is called idiopathic chest
pain. Idiopathic means the cause is unknown. One can only call chest pain idiopathic after
they have ruled out other causes." Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index
Journal (n.d.).
IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult. Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one
suspect that A caused B. But even this generalization could be a coincidence. For the most part,
causality is no longer used in science; correlation is sought instead.

Legal Technique and Logic Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Legal Technique and Logic Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LOGIC

Example 1 :Life is short, and so we should seize every moment.

Here is the corresponding argument map:

We can then draw the argument map like this:

True Premises, False Conclusion

Impossible: no valid argument can have true premises and a false

Cats are mammals.

True Premises, True Conclusion

Cats are mammals.

Cats are mammals.

False Premises, False Conclusion

Dogs are cats.

Cats are birds.

False Premises, True Conclusion

Cats are birds.

Cats are birds.

0 yes no yes IMPOSSIBLE N/A

1 yes no no possible unsound

2 yes yes yes possible SOUND

3 yes yes no possible unsound

4 no no yes possible unsound

6 no yes yes possible unsound

7 no yes no possible unsound

two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans.

Literal and Emotive Meaning

IV. DEDUCTIVE REASONING

 Categorical Propositions and Classes

 From the first example…

A standard-form categorical syllogism is one that meets the following fourconditions:

Second we diagram the minor premise.

Second we diagram the minor premise.

( RaulEbralinagvs Division Superintendent of Schools, GR No. 95770, March 1, 1993 )

SIX RULES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

 What are Ordinary Language Arguments?

A. Symbolic logic can be thought of as a simple and flexible shorthand:

1. Consider the symbols:

[(p q) (q r)] (p r).

. Propositions can be thought of as the "atoms" of propositional logic.

"John works diligently." "Charles works diligently." (It is assumed contextually

E.g., "John and Charles are brothers" can be symbolized asB.

A. In addition to propositions, propositional logic uses operatorson propositions.

Propositions can be thought of like the sticks of a tinker-toy set.

B. For evaluation of statements, there is only one condition to be learned:

II.Conjunction is a truth-functional connective similar to "and" in English and is represented in

E. Some characteristics of conjunction (in mathematical jargon) include:

1. associative—internal grouping is immaterial

. A variable is not a proposition, but is a "place holder" for any proposition.

IV.Disjunction (or as it is sometimes called, alternation) is a connective which forms compound

2. The inclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B {or both)." as om "John is at the

A. It is the second sense that we use the "vel" or "wedge" symbol:

B. The truth table definition of the wedge is

B. The truth table for negation is as follows:

Note the difference between: ~ A B and ~( A B ).

Hence, ( A B) C is quite different from A (B C)

3. Causal: E. g., "If you strike the match, it will light."

3. Thus, we can display these values in the following truth table:

This interpretation we shall adopt even though it appears counterintuitive in some

A. Note two points:

1. The material kind of implication is not the only relation of implication.

. That is, these expressions are equivalent:

I.How to construct the guide columns:

A. Write out the number of variables (corresponding to the number of statements) in

II.Example: construct a truth table for p (q r)

III.As check that the guide columns were done correctly: