kenneth g.

opina, ma
DoLL / Summer 2015
FALLACY
 is, very generally, an error in reasoning
 is an "argument" in which the premises
given for the conclusion do not provide
the needed degree of support.
 any unsound mode of arguing, which
appears to demand our conviction, and
to be decisive of the question at hand,
when in fairness it is not (Richard
Whately)
TYPES OF FALLACIES

 Fallacies of Evidence
 Fallacies of Reasoning
 Fallacies of Language
 Fallacies of Pseudoarguments
 These movies are popular because
they make so much money. They
make a lot of money because people
like them. People like them because
they are so popular.
BEGGING THE QUESTION
 also known as CIRCULAR LOGIC
 happens when the writer presents an
arguable point as a fact that supports
the argument; this error leads to an
argument that goes around and around,
with evidence making the same claim as
the proposition
 a statement which says the same thing
in the conclusion as in the premise
 the thing to be proved is used as one of
the assumptions
 Lizer is the most clever student in
USC therefore he should be granted
basketball scholarship.
NON SEQUITUR
 does not follow a logical sequence; The
conclusion doesn’t logically follow the
explanation. These fallacies can be
found on both the sentence level and
the level of the argument itself.
 The arguer draws a conclusion from a
premise without showing a valid
connection between the assumed or
known truth in the premise and the
alleged truth in the conclusion.
 The Congress passes a new tax
reform law that benefits wealthy
Filipinos. Shortly thereafter the
economy takes a nose dive. The
activist group claims that the tax
reform caused the economic woes
and they push to get rid of it.
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC
 “after this, therefore also this arguments”;
assume a faulty causal relationship
 This fallacy arises when the debater
assumes that since one occurrence
precedes another in point of time, that
event is the cause of the one that follows.
 Writers must be able to prove that one
event caused another event and did not
simply follow in time. Because the cause is
often in question in this fallacy, we
sometimes call it a false cause fallacy.
 Government is like business, so just
as business must be sensitive
primarily to the bottom line, so also
must government.
FALSE ANALOGY
 In an analogy, two objects (or
events), A and B are shown to be
similar. Then it is argued that since A
has property P, so also B must have
property P.
 An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a
way which affects whether they both
have property P.
 My Christian / atheist neighbour is a
real grouch. Therefore: Christians /
atheists are grouches.
HASTY GENERALIZATION
 committed when a person draws a
conclusion about a population based on
a sample that is not large enough
 It has the following form:
 Sample S, which is too small, is
taken from population P.
 Conclusion C is drawn about
Population P based on S.
 In other words, the size of the
sample is too small to support the
conclusion.
 "You may claim that the death
penalty is an ineffective deterrent
against crime--but what about the
victims of crime? How do you think
surviving family members feel when
they see the man who murdered their
son kept in prison at their expense?
Is it right that they should pay for
their son's murderer to be fed and
housed?"
RED HERRING
 a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is
presented in order to divert attention from the
original issue
 The basic idea is to "win" an argument by
leading attention away from the argument and
to another topic.
 This sort of "reasoning" has the following
form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of
being relevant to topic A (when topic B is
actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
 Criminal actions are illegal, and all
murder trials are criminal actions,
thus all murder trials are illegal.
EQUIVOCATION
 committed when a term is used in two or more
different senses within a single argument.
 The same word is used with two different
meanings.
 For an argument to work, words must have the
same meaning each time they appear in its
premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch
between different meanings of words
equivocate, and so don’t work. because the
change in meaning introduces a change in
subject. If the words in the premises and the
conclusion mean different things, then the
premises and the conclusion are about different
things, and so the former cannot support the
latter.
 During a press conference, a political
candidate is asked a pointed, specific
question about some potentially
illegal fund-raising activity. Instead of
answering the allegations, the
candidate gives a rousing speech
thanking all of his financial
supporters. The speech was eloquent
and moving, but shifted the focus
from the issue at hand.
IGNORING THE QUESTION
 similar to presenting a red herring
 rather than answering the question
that has been asked or addressing
the issue at hand, the writer shifts
focus, supplying an unrelated
argument. In this way, the writer
dodges the real issues of the debate.
 People from Quebec want to secede
from Canada to get their own
currency. Don’t they realize money
isn’t everything?
OPPOSING A STRAW MAN
 Is a tactic used by a lot of writers
because they find it easier to refute
an oversimplified opposition
 Writers may also pick only the
opposition’s weakest or most
insignificant point to refute. Doing so
diverts attention from the real issues
and rarely, if ever, leads to resolution
or truth.
 Either we go to Panama City for the
whole week of Spring Break, or we
don’t go anywhere at all."

 (This rigid argument ignores the

possibilities of spending part of the
week in Panama City, spending the
whole week somewhere else, or any
other options.)
FALSE DILEMMA (EITHER-OR)
 Reduce complex issues to black and
white choices.
 Most often issues will have a number
of choices for resolution. Because
writers who use the either-or
argument are creating a problem that
doesn’t really exist
 If I give you a free ticket, then I’ll have
to give everyone a free ticket. Then
my boss will get mad and fire me,
and I will become homeless. So
giving you a free ticket will make me
homeless.
SLIPPERY SLOPE
 Suggests that one step will inevitably
lead to more, eventually negative steps.
 While sometimes the results may be
negative, the slippery slope argues that
the descent is inevitable and
unalterable. Stirring up emotions
against the downward slipping, this
fallacy can be avoided by providing
solid evidence of the eventuality rather
than speculation.
 Most of the Christian community
believes that the Reproductive Health
Bill is contrary to the teachings of the
church. The leaders of the church
and many religious associations are
strongly against it. Therefore, it is a
bad law.
AD POPULUM (BANDWAGON)
 Try to get everyone on board. Writers
who use this approach try to convince
readers that everyone else believes
something, so the reader should also.
The fact that a lot of people believe it
does not make it so
 It is also equated to Peer Pressure.
 A popular sports star may know a lot
about boxing, but very little about
shampoo. His expertise on the
boxing ring does not qualify him to
intelligently discuss the best anti-
dandruff shampoo.
FALSE AUTHORITY
 a tactic used by many writers,
especially in advertising.
 An authority in one field may know
nothing of another field. Being
knowledgeable in one area doesn’t
constitute knowledge in other areas.
 A: “I believe that abortion is morally
wrong."
 B: "Of course you would say that, you're
a priest."
 A: "What about the arguments I gave to
support my position?"
 B: "Those don't count. Like I said,
you're a priest, so you have to say that
abortion is wrong. Further, you are just
a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe
what you say."
AD HOMINEM
 These arguments ignore the issues
and attack the people.
 Arguments limit themselves not to
the issues, but to the opposition
itself.
 Writers who fall into this fallacy
attempt to refute the claims of the
opposition by bringing the
opposition’s character into question.
 A: Why should I hire you?
 B: You should hire me because I am
the eldest in a brood of 10. My
parents are counting on me to help
them send my siblings to school. If I
will not be able to help, they will have
to stop which is not good for their
future…
AD MISERICORDIAM
 appeal to pity
 instead of providing an argument
based on facts alone, the emotion of
the listener is addressed instead in
order to gain sympathy
 A: "I think the RH bill shouldn't be
supported because it cannot really
resolve the problem of
overpopulation in the country.”
 B: "Well, just last month you
supported the bill. So I guess you're
wrong now."
TU QUOQUE (YOU TOO)
 argument avoids the real argument by making
similar charges against the opponent and do
little to arrive at conflict resolution.
 committed when it is concluded that a person's
claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with
something else a person has said or 2) what a
person says is inconsistent with her actions.
 This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X. Person B asserts that
A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with
the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false.
References
 Freeley, A. & Steinberg, D. (2014).
Argumentation and debate: Critical
thinking for reasoned decision making.
(13th ed.). USA: Wadsworth CENGAGE
Learning.
 Abangan (2011)
 Ramirez (2009)
 Villaruel (2012)