Fallacies Presumption

The Fallacies of presumption include arguments with

premises and conclusions having no logical
correlation. The truth of the premise is dubious
inasmuch as the relevant facts are not
represented correctly or that they appear as a
matter of assumption. It follows then that no
conclusions can be more reliably deduced since
the premises fail to establish or sufficiently
justify the conclusion (unwarranted
assumption). This makes the entire argument
confusing or misleading.
A. Overlooking the Facts-The fallacies in this sub-category
are committed by neglecting important facts relevant to
the argument.
1. Accident (Sweeping Generalization or Dicto Simpliciter)
It means that a general rule is taken to be universal and the
possibility of an exception (accident) is ignored. The
error is committed on account of the following reasons:
a. That the premise which is a general rule is an
unwarranted assumption.
b. That the general rule is applied to specific cases without
any exception.
c. That the speaker fails to notice that the general rule in
the premise is something inapplicable when applied to a
specific case in the conclusion.
Ex.
Birds can fly. Therefore, kiwis can fly.

Birds can fly is a general rule which is a

matter of assumption because only some
of the birds capable of flying. When we
refer it to kiwis, a misapplication of a
general rule is committed since kiwis are
birds but they do not fly.
2. Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)
The fallacy of converse accident is precisely the
reverse of accident or sweeping
generalization. The theory of induction is
observable in the structure of this fallacy
wherein the premises are individual cases
and the conclusion is a generalization.
Ex.
Maria and Martha got pregnant before marriage
and they are happily married. Therefore, its
good to be pregnant before marriage.
3. False Dilemma or Bifurcation
The fallacy of false dilemma is also known as
bifurcation (bi means two and furca means
fork), black-or-white fallacy. These names suggest
that there are two choices involved in this fallacy.
Ex.
Imagine a boyfriend pressing his girlfriend to have sex
with him: If youll really love me, then youll give it to
me.
It seems that in this example, the two choices are
closed only to: (1) the girl will have sex with him or
(2) she does not love him at all. Love can be
expressed in many ways or options not only in sex. To
indulge the relationship into black and white issue is
wrong or fallacious.
B. Evading the Facts- the fallacies in this sub-category
are committed by evading the important facts
relevant to the argument.
1.Petitio Principii
It is popularly known as either begging the question
or circular reasoning.
1.1 Begging the Question
The role of the premise is supposed to render proof
to the conclusion. But in this instance, the premise
is incapacitated inasmuch as in itself it needs also a
proof. The error is committed when we move to the
next safer part of the argument but skips or evades
the very heart of the matter, the truth of the
premise.
Ex.
Useless course like Logic should not be included in
the baccalaureate curriculum. Therefore, we
should not waste our money for these courses.
The issue as stated in the premise is Useless course
like Logic should not be included in the
baccalaureate curriculum. Per se, it needs to be
proven why these courses are useless. This is the
real controversy and a proof to it is being
neglected or disregarded. The speaker directly
jumps to conclude we should not waste our
money for useless courses which is not the
important issue at all.
2.1 Circular Reasoning
This fallacy involves a process of reasoning that
depicts a circular relationship between the
premise and the conclusion. There is only one
idea you may notice in the premise and
conclusion. It is just repeated either in the same
or different terms.

It is fallacious in the sense that the idea is just

repeated in vicious cycle but the main issue is
not resolved. The argument goes within the
circle but it proves nothing.
Ex.
God exists because the Bible says and the Bible is
an infallible word of God.
The circular reasoning of this argument can be
illustrated as follows:
1. God exists.
2. How do we know that God exists?
3. The Bible says so.
4. Why should I believe in the Bible?
5. Because it is an infallible word of God.
This typical example can be answered with either
of the two direct answers yes and no.
1. Yes, I have stopped visiting your wife,
implies I was visiting your wife.
2. No, I have not stopped visiting your wife, implies I
am still visiting your wife.
It is noticed that both of the direct answers implies,
youre still visiting my wife.
The best way to resolve this is to identify these hidden
questions and answer them separately as follows:
1. Have you ever visited my wife?
2. If so, are you still doing so?
3. Special Pleading
The fallacy of special pleading involves particular
standard, principles, rules, etc. that the speaker
has to apply to others but not to himself or to the
people who are special to him. This is a sort of
exemption to the rule.
The error occurs when the speaker who pleaded
exemption for his behalf or for others evades or
refuses in giving adequate justification to the
exemption, or if the given reason is irrelevant.
Ex.
The law requires everyone to follow the speed limit
and other traffic regulations, but exceptions
should be made for cops and their families.
C. Distorting the Facts
The fallacies in this sub-category are committed
by distorting the important facts relevant to
the argument.
1. Weak Analogy
To understand the mechanics of this fallacy, we
need to elaborate first some terminologies as
follows:
a. Inductive reasoning-proceeds from specific
details in the premise to a general
conclusion.
b. Analogous Terms. Are those terms that are
partly the same and partly different.
The fallacy of weak analogy adopts the
inductive structure of reasoning. It cites in
this premise specific properties attributed to
things or events, and ends up with a general
conclusion that speaks of comparison
between two things or events.
Ex. Bananas have shape that fits our face.
telephones have shape that fits our face.
Therefore, telephones taste like bananas.
2. False Cause
The fallacy of false cause involves events
or things as causes and effects. There is
error because the inference made is just
a presumption of causal connection
between the premises (cause) and
conclusion (effects), where this
connection does not exist. Cause-and-
effect reasoning is a valid form of
rational logic for as long as its causal
relationship is established.
There are three forms of Fallacy of False Cause:
2.1 Non Causa Pro Causa it means to accept as the
cause what actually is not the cause. It is
committed when it is believed that something is
the cause of an effect when in reality it is not.
Ex.
1. I prayed for rain and it comes.
It is presupposed that rain is caused by prayer, which
is not really the cause.
2. Its dark now, which make it very dangerous.
It is not the dark that causes danger.
2.2 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc- it means after this,
therefore, because of this. It mentions here a
temporal succession of events: first event comes
before the second event and the second event
comes before the third event, so on and so forth.
It is presupposed here that the event that comes
before is the cause of the event follows. There is
confusion between the concept of succession
and that of causation.
Ex.
Yesterday, I received a letter obliging me to write
the same for fifty pieces. Days had passed and I
failed to do so. I met an accident. Therefore, this
letter must be mysterious.
2.3 Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc- it means with this,
therefore, because of this. The conjunction (cum
or with) implies that two events are co-existent or
that they occur together at the same time.
The error arises when we consider the two
correlated events as having causal relationship.
There is a confusion between concept of
correlation and causation. It makes a presumption
that one co-existing event, with a complete
disregard of some other factors as causes.
These factors may include:
1. The other event may also be possible cause.
It is wrong to consider only one event as the
cause and neglect the other event.

Ex. Gun ownership increases crime rate.

To consider gun ownership as the only cause in
the increase of crime rate is a fallacy. The
reverse may also take place: Increase in
crime rate may compel people to own guns.
2. There could be third event as a cause.
Ex.
Drinking fresh water will keep you well.
(It may contribute, but it is not the only or
sufficient cause)

Money makes people arrogant.

(Not all people, and not always just money.)
3. The coincidental correlation may have an
acceptable sufficient evidence especially
scientific and statistical.

Ex.
I eat chocolates and got pimples.
(Chocolates Therefore are the causes of
pimples.)
Smoking causes lung cancer.
They are true because they are scientifically
proven.
3. Slippery Slope
The fallacy of slippery in slope involves an
advocated things, events or actions followed by
the consequent series of things, events or
actions arranged in a domino or stampede
effect. This series is represented in a string of if-
then statements.
Ex. If you do not go to bed early, then youll be
tired in your classes tomorrow, and then you
wont be able to get the lessons,and then you
fail the internship, and then could not graduate
from Nursing, and then youll end up as a
decent escort lady, a certified CGFNS (call girl for
night service)
4. Irrelevant Thesis (Igorantio Elinchi)
This fallacy occurs when the arguer purports to
establish one conclusion, and instead offers
evidence to prove another. There are two variations
of this fallacy: red herring and straw man.
4.1 Red Herring
The words red herring comes from the sport fox
hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is
red in color, is dragged across the tail of the fox to
throw the hounds off the scent. The symbolism
signifies that the red herring involves the concept
of diversion or distraction.
The fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the
attention of the listener or reader by simply
introducing some claim that is directly irrelevant to
the original issue.
Ex.
Environmentalists have complained about the
dangers of nuclear power for quite some time.
However, electricity is dangerous no matter how
its generated. In fact, people get electrocuted
each year because of such ignorance. Its really too
bad the government wont do more to educate the
public about the dangers of electricity.
4.2 Straw man
The term straw man is synonymous to an
imaginary man. There are two persons
involved here. The first person is the proponent
who presents the original statement, and is the
one treated as imaginary man. The second
person is the opponent who presents a
destructive statement, and is one treated as
real man.
This straw man fallacy is committed when the
arguer clearly understood the position of the
proponent but looks into the weakest point of
the issue and presents a counter position that
is completely a distorted, exaggerated, or
misrepresented version of the original position.
It can be illustrated in this form:
A presents original statement X.
B substitutes X with counter statement Y
(distorted version of X).
Therefore, X is false.
Ex.
Person A: I dont think children should run into
the busy streets.
Person B. I think that it would be foolish to lock
up children all day with no fresh air.
6. Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when the
arguer intentionally omits relevant data and
eventually destroys the entire sense of the
argument. It must be understood that the
argument at first can be good and reasonable with
the premises that are true, but by lifting out an
important fact, the perspective of the argument
changes.
Ex.
My friend bought a Toyota car and it was
manufactured poorly. It has been giving him
problem until now.