c

 

?
drawn from true premises. They occur because the argument forms
c

 are ambiguous.2



Defining Fallacy
dood arguments are built on good reasons. Good reasons
are either truth-preserving or reasonably cogent. If the
reasons are truth-preserving, they warrant the truth of the
conclusion. That is, the conclusion necessarily follows from them.
Whereas, if the reasons are reasonably cogent, they make the
conclusion reasonably acceptable. That is, they provide reasonable
grounds for believing that the conclusion is more likely true than
otherwise.
On the other hand, arguments not supported by good
reasons are either incorrect or weak arguments. An argument is
incorrect if (a) the conclusion does not follow from the premises, (b)
the conclusion presupposes unwarranted context or (c) the
argument misuses or abuses language or meaning. An argument is
weak if the conclusion is not warranted by its premises. Either the
premises do not provide reasonable probability for the acceptability
of the conclusion or the premises themselves are false.
Incorrect arguments are often labeled fallacious arguments.
They contain errors. Better, they contain defects. Thus, we say that
a fallacious argument is an argument whose conclusion does not
follow from its premises as a result of the defect.1 This is committed
either formally or informally.
 ½
  . New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies are errors in deductive argument forms.
They look like valid forms. Yet, upon careful examination, they are
erroneous. The errors usually occur when false conclusions are
 

 . New
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
1
See Irving Copi, Carl Cohen and Daniel Flage. ½
  . 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentic Hall Education, Inc., 2007., p. 46. Herein after, the text is
cited as EL.
In syllogistic logic for example, formal fallacies sometimes
occur when terms are illicitly distributed.3 This illicit distribution of
terms applies to the major, the minor and the middle terms of the
syllogism. Thus, when the syllogism contains four terms, the
syllogism is invalid. Here, invalidity is committed by supposing
another ¶class· or ¶domain· not included in the original syllogism.4
The supposition usually takes place when a term is given diverse
meanings or inconsistent application in the argument.5
The argument:
Fallacious arguments are invalid.
Comatosed patients are invalid.
Therefore, comatosed patients are fallacious arguments.
exemplifies the said supposition. The middle term ¶invalid· is given
diverse meanings. It is therefore applied inconsistently in the
argument. The inconsistency does not establish an adequate basis
for inclusion or exclusion of either the major or the minor terms.
The argument so to speak, is defective because of its ambiguous
middle.6
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
2
See Robert G. Olson. å  
World, Inc., 1969. p. 180. Herein after, cited as MAR.
3
See EL, pp. 152ff
4
Although Copi and Cohen note that whenever the fallacy of four terms occur, the syllogism
in question is not considered a categorical syllogism at all. Ibid, p. 153.
5
This is sometimes referred to as the fallacy of ambiguous middle term. Since the middle term
is ambiguous, the problem lies in the argument·s inability to provide an adequate basis for
inclusion or exclusion of one class to another, in this case, between the major and the minor
terms. For a detailed discussion, please see Robert J. Kreyche.  
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. p. 104. Herein after, the text is cited as LFU.
6
The purpose of the middle term is built on the idea that it either includes or excludes the
major or the minor terms, better, to include or exclude either the class designated by the major
term or the class designated by the minor term. If the middle term is ambiguously applied,
such purpose is neglected. As a result, the argument turns out to be defective or fallacious.
Some logicians label such instance as a ¶logical quadruped·. See Raymond J. McCall.  

?
In the same sense, when either the minor term or the major
term is ambiguously applied, the argument results in a defect. The
defect is usually referred to as ¶overextension· of either the major or
the minor term.7 If the major term is ambiguous, the argument
commits the ¶fallacy of illicit process of the major term·. If the minor
term is ambiguous, the argument results in the ¶fallacy of the illicit
process of the minor term·. In either case, the argument contains a
defect in the internal structure of the syllogism. Consider the
argument:
No Students are teachers. But all
students are leaders. Therefore, no
leaders are teachers.
c

 
It contains an error in its internal structure. The error lies in
the overextension of the major term (designated by the P term). The
major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in
the conclusion. Since it 
 asserts something about some members
of the class it designates, it cannot be extended to assert something
about the whole class. The argument therefore is incorrect.
Similarly, an argument is incorrect if the middle term is not
distributed in both premises. It results in the ¶fallacy of
undistributed middle·. Precisely because the middle term is
undistributed, it does not provide an adequate basis for relating both
Mñ ² Pu the ¶S· and ¶P· terms. There is thus no point of comparison for either
Mñ + S inclusion or exclusion of one class to another.9 The argument AII-IV
Sñ ² Pu exemplifies this point. Consider:

The argument contains a defect. The defect lies in the All BA Psych students are #$ . Pu + M
overextension of the minor term. The minor term is undistributed in But some #$ are ABSS students. M + Sp
the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion. It thus Therefore, some ABSS students are BA Sp + Pp
commits the ¶fallacy of the illicit process of the minor term·. The Psych students.
process is illicit because the minor term 
 asserts something about
some· members of the class in the minor premise and yet it entailed The middle term (M) or ´CLSU studentsµ does not provide
a conclusion that asserts something about an ¶entire· class.8 grounds for the inclusion of some members of the class of ABSS
students in the class of BA Psych students. There is no basis or
Consider another argument: point of comparison for either inclusion or exclusion of the minor to
the major as designated by the corresponding terms because the
All BA Psychology students are Mñ + P mediating term is undistributed. Consequently, the conclusion is
CLSU students. But no ABSS Su ² Mñ absurd.
students are BA Psychology Su ² Pñ
students. Therefore, no ABSS Aside from the said fallacies, the fallacies of ¶exclusive
students are CLSU students. premises·, ¶drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise· and ¶existential fallacy· result in incorrect syllogism. They
are thus considered fallacious.
???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????
 c 


 c

   ! "New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., The 

  
%  
   
 
    
1952. p. 138
7

 for instance disregards the idea that class inclusion is
See LFU, Op. cit., p. 107ff
8
Copi, Cohen and Flage explains the illicit process of the minor term in this way. See EL, p. ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
9
154. Op. cit., p. 105.

?
possible only through an affirmative premise. If an affirmative
conclusion is drawn from a negative premise, what is otherwise
excluded in the premise, in such case, the class designated by either
the S term or P term, becomes included in the conclusion.
Apparently, such shift is erroneous. No inclusion can follow from
exclusion.10 For example:
Any lead is a poor conductor of electricity.
Some metals are not poor conductors of electricity.
Therefore, some metals are lead.
The exclusion of some members of the class of metals from
the class of poor conductors of electricity, as indicated by the minor
premise, does not allow for the inclusion of some members of the
class of poor conductors of electricity from the class of lead. There is
no point or better, no adequate basis through which the ¶S· term may
be included in the ¶P· term. The syllogism thus is incorrect.
Quite similarly, a syllogism is incorrect if a conclusion is
drawn from two negative premises. They are mutually exclusionary.
As such, the relationship between the ¶S· and the ¶P· term is
ambiguous or undefined or worst, there is none. Apparently, it is
not possible to infer any conclusion so to speak, when both premises
are negative. In such case, there is no basis for the assertion or denial
that one class, either in part or in whole, is included in or excluded
from, another class, either in part or in whole. Consider:
No male professors are mothers.
Some female professors are not mothers.
Therefore, some female professors are male professors.
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
 (



)
 *+
 
10
Copi, Cohen and Flage explain that an affirmative conclusion can follow only from an
. Following this interpretation thus, it appears that universal propositions, in
affirmative premises. Since an affirmative premise affirms the inclusion of one class to another,
it can only be inferred from another affirmative premise. A negative premise, in so far as it
asserts the exclusion of one class to another, cannot, in principle, lead to inclusion. See EL,
Op. cit. p. 156.
c

 &
The major premise excludes the class of male professors
from the class of mothers. The minor premise, whereas, excludes a
portion of the class of female professors from the class of mothers.
The conclusion nonetheless asserts the inclusion of a portion of the
class of female professors in the class of male professors.
Interestingly, such inclusion lacks a reasonable basis. The logical
relation of terms, in this case, S, P and M terms does not say
anything about how such inclusion is or is not possible.
The fallacy of drawing a particular conclusion from two
universal premises, generally understood as ¶existential fallacy· is
likewise an example of an erroneous or incorrect syllogistic form.
This stipulates that given two universal premises, in so far as they do
not exhibit existential import, no particular conclusion may be
possibly derived from them.11 It is not possible for instance to declare
that ¶there are one-eyed unicorns· simply on the basis of the
universal proposition ¶all unicorns are one-eyed·. Similarly, it is
highly unlikely to deduce that because ¶all angels are spiritual
entities·, spiritual entities do exist. To do that is to risk this kind of
fallacy.
Errors of this kind however are not only limited to
syllogistic logic. They also crop up even in propositional logic. The
errors result in defective argument forms or structures. Among these
errors include the fallacies of ¶affirming the consequent·, ¶denying the
antecedent·, ¶affirming an alternative disjunct·, ¶subtracting an
alternative· and ¶adding a conjunct·. They have defective logical
structures taken from valid argument forms.
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
11
This stipulation is correct following the Boolean interpretation of categorical propositions
according to which x ' 

 *
this case both A and E, do not have existential imports since they are understood as
conditional propositions. Unlike particular propositions, which are understood as
conjunctive statements. On the contrary, this does not apply on the Aristotelian
interpretation. Ibid, p. 113f, p. 157.

?
The fallacy of 
  ) for instance, resembles is found out to be incorrect after a careful evaluation of its form.
the logical structure of the valid argument of . The error
lies in the assumption that affirming the consequent of a conditional
proposition entails the affirmation of the antecedent. This is not
quite the case. Consider:
If Mae is a dentist, then, Mae is a doctor.
Mae is a doctor. Therefore, Mae is a dentist.
represented symbolically as
MâD
D / M The argument seems to be valid. It indeed resembles modus
The affirmation of the consequent proposition, in this case,
¶mae is a doctor· does not permit us to conclude that ¶mae is a
dentist·.12 While it may be true that she is a doctor, it does not
necessarily follow that she is a dentist. She may be other than a
dentist. This brings to mind the idea that in any conditional
proposition, the affirmation of the ¶if· clause necessarily entails the
affirmation of the ¶then· clause, but not the reverse.
Given the said argument, following the said principle, if
what is affirmed is the ¶if· clause of the given conditional proposition,
in this case, ¶mae is a dentist·, that ¶mae is a doctor· necessarily
follows. She cannot be otherwise. This is to say that if the
antecedent proposition is true, there is no way in which the
consequent proposition is false. The antecedent or the ¶if· clause so
to speak, preserves the truth of the consequent proposition.
¶Denying the antecedent· is another fallacy in propositional
logic. It resembles the valid argument form of modus tollens except
that what it denies is the antecedent rather than the consequent. It
reverses the mood of the valid argument that it mimics. Although, it
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
12
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is said to have been identified by Aristotle in his
Sophistical Refutations at http://www.logoslibrary.org/aristotle /sophistical/17.html
c

 ,
Consider:
If Mae is a dentist, then, Mae is a doctor.
Mae is not a dentist. Therefore, Mae is not a doctor.
If represented into symbols, the form of the argument is
expressed as:
MâD

M /
D
tollens. However, if what it represents is carefully analyzed, one
may intuitively infer that the denial of the antecedent proposition
does not necessarily imply the denial of the consequent proposition.
Although it may be true that ¶mae is not a dentist·, it remains
possible that she is a doctor. If it may be said further, that the denial
of the antecedent is indeed true, the conclusion drawn on such basis,
may turn out false. It may have been different if what is denied is the
consequent proposition rather than the antecedent. This is to say
that if she is not a doctor, then, it is possible to infer that she is not a
dentist.13
Similarly, the fallacy of affirming an alternative disjunct is
founded on the assumption that one alternative may be disjoined by
positing the other alternative. This is not quite true. To posit an
alternative disjunct does not necessarily imply that the other
alternative may be disjoined. It is not hence possible to infer that ¶BJ
does not play table tennis· because ¶she plays volleyball·. For
example, the set of propositions
Either BJ plays volleyball or she plays table tennis.
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
13
Argument involving conditionals follow certain logical rules. If the main premise is a
conditional proposition, either you posit the antecedent or you deny the consequent. If you
posit the antecedent, you posit the consequent. Whereas, if you deny the consequent, you
deny the antecedent. If the positing and denying are reversed, the result is erroneous.

?
She plays volleyball.
does not allow us to infer that she does not play table tennis. She
may well be. This is to say that even if it is true that she plays
volleyball, it does not always follow that ¶she does not play table
tennis· is false. It may still be true. To assume that it is false is to
commit an erroneous inference.
In much the same sense, it is not possible to infer that ¶Mae
is both a dentist and a doctor· simply because ¶Mae is a dentist· is
true. It commits the ¶fallacy of adding a conjunct·. ¶Adding a
conjunct· is premised on the assumption that since a statement is
known to be true, another statement may be conjoined to it. This is
a mistake. The statement:
Mr. Jay Villafria teaches Philippine history.
even if known to be true, does not permit the addition of another
conjunct. Thus, it is erroneous to infer, based on the given statement
that:
Therefore, Mr. Jay Villafria teaches Philippine history and
Southeast Asian history.
 of
symbolically represented, the invalid argument assumes the logical
form:
H
/ HS
It may have been another case if instead of adding a
conjunct, an alternative disjunct is posited. Thus, if it is true that
Mr. Jay Villafria teaches Philippine history, it may be inferred that
¶Mr. Jay Villafria teaches Philippine history or he teaches Southeast
Asian history. Thus:
H See Irving Copi and Carl Cohen. ×
  . 13th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New
c

 -
/ HS
An error is also committed if an alternative disjunct is
disjoined simply on the basis that an alternative is known to be true.
The error is generally referred to as ¶subtracting an alternative·. It is
erroneous for instance to infer that ¶Mr. Jay Villafria teaches
Philippine history on the basis that he is known to be teaching
either Philippine history or Southeast Asian history. The error lies
on the assumption that what is disjoined  true. It may be false. It
assumes the logical form:
HS
/ H
The case may have been different if one infers that ¶Mr. Jay
Villafria teaches Philippine history· because he is known to be
teaching both Philippine history and Southeast Asian history. In
either case, it is possible to infer one or the other simply because it is
known to be true that he teaches both Philippine history and
Southeast Asian history.14
Informal Fallacies
Some errors however are not caused by defects in the 
the argument. They are referred to as informal fallacies. Informal
fallacies often result in (a) relevance, (b) context, (c) language and
meaning and (d) weak premises.15 Although, the most recurring
fallacies are the fallacies of relevance.
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
14
Simplification is founded on this norm. If two statements are known to be both true, it is
always possible to say that one of them is true. For instance, if it is true that both Peter and
John are apostles, then, to infer that Peter is an apostle, is a correct inference. The same
applies when one infers, on the basis that they are both apostles, that John is an apostle. Thus,
for any conjunction, in this case, p  q, if the conjunction is true, it necessarily follows that p is
true and q is true. One may infer that p is true or q is true.
15
Copi and Cohen for example note that there is no precise or definite taxonomy of fallacies.
Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. pp. 119ff, henceforth in the text, cited as ILO.
 c

 
?
The fallacies of relevance for example, arise when the Accent Composition
premises do not provide good reasons to warrant the conclusion. Division
Interestingly, the premises are considered irrelevant to the truth of
the conclusion. The fallacies of relevance include:16 Fallacies of Relevance

Appeal to Emotion Attack on the Person Generally, fallacies of relevance have irrelevant conclusions.
Red Herring Appeal to Force They are not supported by good reasons. The conclusion is thus
Straw Man Missing the Point asserted to be either true or false on the basis of appeals to other
things other than reason.
The fallacies of presumption or contextual fallacies result in
too much reliance on presumptions not warranted by the context. The appeal to emotion for example, pleas to popular assent
Oddly enough, the conclusion depends too much on the premises or dissent. Instead of directly arguing for or against the given issue,
even if the premises themselves are overstated. Some fallacies of it builds the argument upon reasons that evoke feelings. As a result,
presumption are: the issue is accepted or approved through them. Consider:
Accident
Complex question The right of every person to physical integrity is an inalienable
right. It is an essential component of the right to life. If physical
Begging the Question integrity is threatened by coercion or harassment, the right to
life is endangered and so are we. Have we forgotten how our
The fallacies of defective induction are brought about by ancestors fought for this right? Have we abandoned their
weak premises or ineffective reasons. They are insufficient to assert ideals? Are the glorious days of freedom that we have inherited
taken over by the unevenness of violence paralyzing our souls?
the truth of the conclusion. Although the premises themselves are Is life so beloved or the right to physical integrity so precious, as
relevant, drawing conclusions from them does not really establish a to be bought at the price of endless violence, coercion,
reasonable conclusion. Among these fallacies include: insecurity and meaningless deaths? Can we not do anything to
claim our right from the lingering shadow of our identities
forged by the blood of our ancestors? I say we stand up and
Appeal to ignorance Appeal to inappropriate authority fight! We fight until this right is won! And ask God Almighty to
False Cause Hasty Generalization give us courage and countenance, then regain our rights
ridiculed to death. May God help us all!
Incorrect reasoning or fallacious arguments also arise from
ambiguity of language and meaning. Ambiguity is brought about by While it is true that the right to physical integrity is an
equivocal use of words and phrases.17 When a word or phrase for essential component of the right to life and any threat to it is also a
example is used with diverse meanings, the conclusion is bound to threat to life, it cannot simply be demonstrated to be true by simply
be erroneous. The fallacies of ambiguity include: appealing to the emotions or feelings of the listeners. Whether or
not any threat to the right to physical integrity is a threat to life has
Equivocation Amphiboly nothing to do with what we feel about the past or about how our
ancestors fought for it. Although at some point, appeal to emotion
???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? serves a purpose, it cannot be used to convince that something is
16
The taxonomy of fallacies illustrated here is based on Copi and Cohen, Ibid, p. 120.
17
Ibid true or acceptable. To say that something is true is to say that there

?
are good reasons to believe that it is in fact true. Emotions, even if
appealed to cannot warrant that something is true or acceptable. It
does not follow for instance that because an actor or artist or singer
uses   

, head and shoulders is a better shampoo.
A variant of the appeal to emotion argument is the appeal to
pity. It also appeals to emotion or feeling. Although what it
particularly attempts to win is generosity and mercy instead of
popular assent.18 For example:
You are not serious in relieving him from his work, are you?
Relieving him from his work means starvation for his family. His
children will go hungry and thirsty. Without work, this
condition will become worse. They may end up all dead. Can
you really deal with that? Have you no conscience?
The real issue here is not whether his family will starve or
his children will go hungry or thirsty after he is relieved from work.
Rather, the issue is whether or not there are reasonable grounds for
relieving him from duty. It is erroneous to suppose that because
unwanted consequences are inevitable, he will not be relieved from
work. This is not reasonable. At best, it is a mistake.
A similar error also occurs when one appeals to the person.
The appeal to the person argument grounds its conclusion based on
the character, circumstance, position and status of the person who
makes a claim. The argument is built upon them. Rather than
provide good reasons based on critical appraisal of the issue, the
reasons provided are directed against the person who makes the
claim. The reasons may be abusive or they may be circumstantial. In
either way, the conclusion is rejected or denied through them.19
Consider:
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
18
Copi and Cohen for instance remark that there are other appeals to emotions. One can
appeal to envy, or fear perhaps, pride or even hatred and use them as premises. Although
persons appeal to these emotions at one point or another, appealing to them to convince
others that something is the case or otherwise not case is highly reasonable. It is erroneous.
The error lies in the assumption that appealing to feelings or emotions can actually make a
claim true. See ILO, p. 124.
19
The appeal to the person argument has two variants. It may be circumstantial or abusive.
c

 .
Mr. Delgado: The first obligation of university institutions, at
all times, is to uphold the right to physical
integriy.20 This is to say that they have to adopt
positive measures that will ensure its
continuity. An institution that fails to provide
this condition is not therefore fit to serve as an
academic institution.
Mr. Ilagan: I am not sure whether any reasonable idea can
come from you. You barely know this
institution. Besides, you are not in the position
to say that in the same way that you do not have
the relevant qualifications to make such
judgments.
Whether or not Mr. Delgado has the relevant qualifications
and knowledge to make such judgments have nothing to do with the
truth or falsity of the issue. The attack on Mr. Delgado·s
qualifications and his circumstance cannot be used as reasons to
deny the relevance of the issue. It is not correct to say that the issue
is false simply because Mr. Delgado does not have the relevant
qualifications or that he barely knows the institution. They are
beside the point. Whether he has them or not, the issue has to be
decided upon by reasons directed to or against it and not by reasons
directed against the person. This is to say that to argue against the
person or build the counter-argument upon a person·s character or
circumstance or person·s association with some groups as grounds
for the rejection of the conclusion of the argument or accepting it as
false is to commit this mistake.
In the same way, it is erroneous to deny the merits or
demerits of the argument simply because it is associated with some
social movements or protest groups. The association of a person to
any movement so to speak has nothing to do with the issue or issues
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
20
Adopted and proclaimed on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United
Nations, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that ¶everyone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person·.

?
he advocates. One therefore errs when a claim is rejected or denied
on this basis. Consider:
Mr. Delgado: Upholding the dignity of the teaching profession
is the foremost responsibility of the teachers.
The confidence to truth and pursuit of academic
excellence are therefore primordial. No act
contrary to this principle must be tolerated.
Mr. Ilagan: Surely you will say that. But why shall I take
your word for it? You were once an astute
activist whose activism brought this institution
to shame.
It is also an error in thinking when a  from the real issue
is attempted. The shift is a red herring. The red herring fallacy is
committed by diverting the argument from the issue being talked
about. It intentionally changes the subject and distracts the issue. In
the end, the real issue is neglected. For example:
Mr. Dimagiba should not be held responsible for the grave
threat he has allegedly committed nor be held accountable for
his violation of the professional code of ethics for teachers.

 the celebration is to give them freedom and liberty. Unbounded


0 

 
 %  %
 
 %
 yet they were not freedom and unrestricted liberty are not good for this
held accountable nor responsible for them.
The real issue here is whether or not there are reasons to
hold Mr. Dimagiba responsible or accountable for his offenses.
Surely, there may well be others whose offenses were far worse, but
that is another issue quite removed from the issue at hand. To say
that he must not be held responsible because others who have
committed worse offenses have not been held responsible is of
course erroneous and does not address what is under consideration.
Similarly, the fact that many students who join protests or
demonstrations are not performing well in school is not a reason to
ban them from joining the advocacy. The decision to stand up for an
advocacy, whenever they see fit, is not decided upon by how well
 1. New York: Harper and Row, 1956. p. 40. Herein after, the text is cited as
c

 /
they perform in school. To argue in this way is to shift from one
point to another. It distracts the issue altogether.
If the distraction sought however adopts the extreme case
possible or shifts from either categorical or absolute contention to
misrepresent what is being considered the case, the straw man
fallacy is committed. The error here lies in the misrepresentation or
distortion or perhaps even exaggeration of the original argument. It
creates an illusory issue and attack it instead. The purpose is to
make the original argument appear weak. One takes some features of
the original issue and builds the argument around it and demolishes
what is built later on as if what is demolished is the original issue.21
Consider:
Mr. Delgado: A protest march is being prepared to
celebrate the women·s struggle for equality before the law.
There is nothing wrong with that I suppose. Everyone has the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Anyone
who thinks it fit must join the celebration.
Mr. Dimagiba: are you kidding? Encouraging others to join
institution. In the end, the institution may fall because its
employees are given unrestricted franchise to freedom. You do
not surely consider that such unrestricted franchise will
possibly lead to chaos. Do you?
The central issue here is based on everyone·s right to
freedom of a peaceful assembly. If the cause is found reasonable, one
 join the celebration. One is thus given the right to decide and
evaluate whether the advocacy has merits. To argue that
encouraging everyone to join the advocacy is giving them
unrestricted franchise to freedom is in fact to misrepresent the
argument. The issue now shifts from the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly to unrestricted franchise to freedom. One then
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
21
To some extent, to create a straw man is to over generalize. See Stuart Chase. d 
$
GST.

?
attacks the unrestricted franchise to freedom and demonstrates that
it is in fact wrong without properly addressing the real issue. The
argument thus has turned really red.
Another error in reasoning is the ¶appeal to force argument·
or the ¶might makes right argument·. It compels one to accept a
given conclusion based upon force or might. Any threat or form of
coercion such as intimidation or fear, does not really make a given
conclusion true but may influence one to accept it to avoid
unnecessary consequences. It is erroneous for example to forbid
employees from joining protests or demonstrations based simply on
the status of their tenure. Likewise, it is a mistake to call one·s
parents because one writes in a newsletter that criticizes the
institution.22 They are simply irrelevant and therefore have nothing
to do with the truth or falsity of the conclusion. For example:
I have no problem with you joining the rallies or
demonstrations. It is a right and you ought to exercise it.
However, may I remind you that until this moment, you are still
temporary. Note that I can make necessary recommendations
for your permanency.
Although an agreement to join the rally or demonstration is
given and the right to exercise it is implicitly made clear, the added
remark concerning one·s status and the capacity of the speaker to
affect permanency obviously obscure the main idea. It vividly
displays a subtle yet firm application of threat or force. It thus
nullifies the previous agreement between them. Such remark may
influence how one thinks about one·s right to join the rally or the
demonstration. If the speaker indeed understands that such right
ought to be exercised, he is thus committed to agreeing with it
without appeal to force or threat.
One likewise commits an error in reasoning through appeal
to irrelevant conclusion. Generally, irrelevant conclusion argument
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
22
This assumes however that what is written is reasonable and the manner of writing
qualifies to what the newsletter accepts as standard ethical journalism.
c

 2
draws an inference and makes a conclusion not provided by the
premises. Not that what it draws as a conclusion is mistaken but
that it is not allowed by the set of reasons offered in support of the
real issue at hand. For instance, the argument:
If you have a master·s degree, chances are, you will be
permanent. If you become permanent, incentives and benefits of
tenure will surely flow. If incentives and benefits flow, then,
you will have a secure future in the institution. Thus, you
should not join rallies and demonstrations while your status is
undetermined.
The suggested conclusion may have been right given another
set of premises. To draw such a conclusion from such set of
premises is certainly a mistake. The main point of the argument
centers on the positive effects of having a master·s degree and what
benefits or incentives follow if one acquires a security of tenure. It
does not have anything to do with one·s joining the rally given one·s
undetermined tenure. The conclusion should have been, ¶if you have
a master·s degree, you will have a secure future in the institution·.
The suggested conclusion therefore is irrelevant to the points under
consideration.
Similarly, the argument:
Good student journalism is built on commitment to truth and
responsible reporting. It claims no bias and presents its news
based on gathered data. It strictly follows the ethics of writing
and avoids prejudicial reporting and unwarranted issues.
Therefore, a student journalist should not criticize one·s
institution.
A closer analysis of the said point clearly manifests the
irrelevance of the suggested conclusion. It is unfounded. The issue at
hand talks about good student journalism and the practices that it
observes. There is no suggestion whatsoever on specific practice of a
student journalist. Whether one criticizes one·s institution or not, is
to some extent irrelevant and properly falls into another issue not
quite supported by the context itself. It may have been different if

?
what is provided discusses the dangers of criticizing one·s
institution. There is really no fact of the matter to be right or wrong
about if conclusions are drawn without good reasons.
Fallacies of Defective Induction
Unlike the fallacies of relevance whose conclusions are
drawn from irrelevant premises, fallacies of defective induction have
weak and insufficient premises. They do not provide good reasons to
warrant the truth or falsity of the conclusions. Precisely because the
premises are weak and insufficient, the conclusions drawn from
them are most likely erroneous. To a large extent, they are
oftentimes based upon (a) ignorance, (b) hasty generalization, (c)
false cause or appeal to improper authority.
The appeal to ignorance for example, accepts the truth or
falsity of the conclusion simply on the fact that the conclusion
cannot be known to be true or false. In the absence of facts or
evidences perhaps that may provide reasons to believe that the
conclusion is true or false, it is either accepted as true or false. This is
to say that in the absence of evidences that will falsify the
conclusion, the conclusion is assumed to be true. The same applies
with the reverse. Consider:
I do not have sufficient evidence to believe that the complaint
filed against Mr. Dimagiba for alleged gross misconduct and
outright neglect of duty is true and meritorious. So, it must be
false, much worse, the complaint must be unreasonable.
It is an error to suppose that since one does not have
sufficient evidence to believe that the complaint is true, the
complaint is false. The lack or absence of evidence does not give an
adequate basis to make such judgment. In such case, suspension of
judgment appears to be the most reasonable thing to do until enough
evidences are provided to warrant its truth or falsity.
Similarly, the argument,
c

 .3
There was a complaint that one of the employees was physically
abused. She was throttled and choked. The bruises on her face
and arms revealed that there were intense struggles as if she
were fighting him. I could not believe it. I have no reason to
convince her otherwise. So I think the complaint is true.
also commits the same mistake of appealing to ignorance. It is an
error to suppose that since one does not have reason to convince the
victim otherwise, the complaint is true. The truth or falsity of the
complaint does not rest upon it. Whether one is able to convince her
otherwise or not, it does not have any bearing as to its truth or
falsity.
An erroneous reasoning is similarly committed when a
conclusion is drawn from an improper authority. Although appeal
to authority is sometimes reasonable, an appeal to an improper or
inappropriate authority is not. Here, inappropriate authority means
outside one·s field of expertise or specialization. Conclusions drawn
however within the domain or context of one·s field of expertise may
be reasonably thought of as pertinent to the acceptance of their
truth or falsity. Consider the following nuances:
Professor and Human Rights Lawyer Libertad, a renowned and
distinguished Professor of Law and a highly sought consultant
of the International Human Rights Commission, explained the
inalienability of the right to physical integrity as a central
component of the right to life. He said that the right to life is
meaningless if the right to physical integrity is compromised.
Well, I actually believe him. The right to life is meaningless if
one·s body is compromised.
Professor and Scientist Mustache, a Nobel Prize winner in
Physics, explained the inalienability of the right to physical
integrity as a central component of the right to life. He said that
the right to life is meaningless if the right to physical integrity is
compromised. Well, I actually believe him, he is an expert. The
right to life is meaningless if one·s body is compromised.
The conclusion of the first example may perhaps be
considered reasonable. The source of the information is a known
lawyer and a highly sought consultant of the IHRC. His discussions

?
and explanations I think fall within his area of expertise, i.e. he has
pertinent authority to talk about such matters. Accepting the
conclusion thus is perhaps a reasonable thing to do. Whereas, the
second example, although may perhaps influence to accept the
conclusion, does not really provide a sound basis that it must be
  and on the other
accepted. To conclude on such basis is to appeal to a defective
0

"In either case, a cause which
induction of appeal to inappropriate authority.
The fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority is ably
explained and demonstrated in commercial advertising. Actors or
joining
actresses, famous personalities including models and athletes are
generally contracted to endorse branded products or clothing or
beverages. There is the unstated presumption that through them,
 
 
  
such branded products may be publicly recognized or accepted. Of
course, nothing is wrong really when these persons are contracted
  (  on the basis that you always get high scores
for possible endorsements; the error comes in when the product is
accepted to be of good quality because it is endorsed by a reputable
persona.
Hasty generalization is as well an erroneous reasoning.
Given a single instance or example perhaps, one either affirms or
denies that something is acceptable or not. This is to say that a
¶generalization· is made even if the evidences are insufficient. It is a
, it is included in the
mistake to infer that ¶all student leaders are delinquent· simply on
the basis that one student leader is delinquent. Such conclusion is
hasty.
In the same way, it is incorrect to conclude that ¶students
who join rallies are subversive· because one student is found out to
be one. Even if there were indeed one who is both member and
subversive, it does not follow that every member is subversive.
There is simply not enough basis to reach such generalization.
c

 .
Closely connected to hasty generalization is false cause.23
False cause is committed when a thing is identified as the cause of
something, although in reality it is not. It is, to some extent, a
mistake in causal attribution. The causal attribution takes two
forms. On one end, there is the   
end, there is the 
 not really a cause, is identified as the cause of something.24
It is erroneous to infer for instance,   ¶you must not join
the mass protest· because every time you join, it rains. 4
the mass protest does not have anything to do with the rain. The
rain is caused by whether condition, not by your presence. In the
same vein, it is a mistake to conclude that 
 
whenever you cross your fingers. To reason in this manner is to
commit the false cause fallacy.
Other forms of fallacies, aside from what is mentioned here
also occur in reasoning. They were already introduced earlier. Some
of these fallacies result in the misuse of language and meaning.
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
23
In the ½
  0 Copi, Cohen and Flage included ¶false cause· in the fallacies of
presumption (p. 68) whereas, in the 13th Edition of the ×
fallacies of Defective Induction (p. 146).
24
Hume·s analysis of causality for example may provide an initial basis for viewing this
erroneous reasoning. He remarks that our notion of cause and effect is largely generated by
contiguity, constant conjunction and resemblance that we normally experience whenever we
see objects. Interestingly, we attribute a causal power to them and are convinced that there is
a necessary connection between them. Because two objects are constantly conjoined and they
are contiguous in space and time, we are inclined to think that the first causes the other. This
is a mistake. Hume says that such connection or attribution cannot simply be made. There is
no necessary connection that may arise from them because no impression may clearly
correspond to such causal attribution.
In the same way, the fallacy of false cause may seem to be explained on such principle.
Going beyond what one experiences whenever two things are found to be contiguous and
constantly conjoined, is to some extent to attribute some causal connections between them.
This is where the error lies. We do not know whether there really is a causal connection
between them or whether such conjunction will continue to hold. In the absence of sufficent
evidence that one object causes another, the causal attribution seems to be a defective
induction. For a discussion on Hume, See John K. Roth and Frederick Sontag. 5

. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1988., pp. 40-54. Herein
after, cited as TQP.

?
Others result from appeal to inappropriate context. They presumed
too much and go beyond what is given in the premises.
is not the same as
The fallacy of complex question for example is a case in
point. It assumes too much and goes beyond what it does not
warrant. In short, complex question is a loaded question. It assumes
hidden truth. It poses a question that contains an unstated
presumption that something is (true) or is not (false) the case. This
is to say that the question presupposes another question that is not
in itself posed as a question. For example, the questions ¶have you
stopped stealing examination questions?· or ¶did you quit joining the
rallies?· are complex questions. They both contain an unposed
question. In either case, a ¶yes· or ¶no· response, answers the
unstated question. To say ¶yes· means that (a) one admits that one
steals examination papers and (b) one admits that one has stopped
stealing examination papers. A ¶no· answer is the same. It answers
the hidden truth contained in the complex question. The same is
true with the second question. To say ¶yes· means that (a) one
admits that one joins rallies and (b) one admits that one has stopped
joining the rallies.
Although a complex question is not in itself wrong, it is
considered erroneous since it serves as a basis or ground to commit
an error. The error lies in the answer it provides since it may be used
as a basis to build an argument.
Another form of erroneous reasoning is begging the
question. It is referred to as begging the question because the
conclusion is the same as the premise or the premise is the same as
the conclusion. It is therefore a circular reasoning. The premise
does not really provide good reasons to support the truth or falsity of
the conclusion. The argument,
Mr. Ilagan: Temporary employees must refrain themselves from
joining activities, protests, rallies or
demonstrations of any kind because they are not
tenured.
c

 .
is a begging the question argument. It uses the premise as a
reason to support the conclusion as if the
the conclusion. The words ¶temporary· and ¶not tenured· mean the
same thing given the context of the argument. There is no good
reason provided to forbid temporary employees from joining
demonstrations of any kind. It really begs the question.
Errors also occur when words or phrases are used
ambiguously in reasoning. Unintentional or deliberate shifts in
meaning, sense or phrases are cases of ambiguous reasoning. They
obscure the argument. As a result, the reasoning is erroneous. The
error lies in the obscurity of the argument from which an inference
or conclusion is drawn. The most common errors of ambiguity are
equivocation, amphiboly, accent, division and composition.
Regardless however, the essential point goes more than
one·s ability to identify the names of the fallacies. The main concern
is to learn how to evaluate arguments and show how such
arguments are mistaken. Ironically though, even if all these fallacies
are discussed and explained, there will remain instances that they
will be sought and appealed to. Whatever the reasons are and for
whatever purposes they are used, they have to be identified and
evaluated if cannot be avoided. Evaluating them or avoiding them
may actually contribute to the development of human reason.
Human reason then, can generate necessary conditions for
agreement and provide a basis or justification perhaps to resolve
issues and problems within the rules and norms that reason assents
to or dissents from.

?
Self
earning ercises: Answer the following exercises as if a test
is being administered to you.
 rmal allacies: Identify the fallacies committed in the
following arguments.
1.? If indirect violence is present in academic institutions, then, the
right to physical integrity is compromised. The right to physical
integrity is compromised. Therefore, indirect violence is present
in academic institutions.
2.? Either one adheres to the policies of the institution one works
for or one exercises one·s freedom to have a peculiar political
belief. One adheres to the policies of the institution one works
for. It follows that one does not exercise one·s freedom to have a
peculiar political belief.
3.? Provided that there is a venue for a genuine dialogue, then, a
possible agreement can be made to resolve the issue. But there is
no venue for a genuine dialogue. Therefore, it necessarily follows
that no agreement can be made to resolve the issue.
4.? Mr. Dimagiba has been charged of gross neglect of duty.
Therefore, Mr. Dimagiba has been charged of gross neglect of
duty and grave abuse of authority.
5.? Either a peaceful solution can be made to resolve pizza
controversy or an alternative form of communication will be
developed. It follows that an alternative form of communication
will be developed.
6.? Some right of resistance is a claim to justice since every claim to
truth is a claim to justice and every right of resistance is a claim
to truth.
c

 .&
7.? It follows that some communists are not student activists
because all communists are subversives and some student
activists are subversives.
8.? It is true that some B is C since all C is A and some A is B.
9.? If the right of resistance is a claim to truth and justice, then, it
can be exercised in the midst of an unjust political institution. It
can be exercised in the midst of an unjust political institution. It
follows that, the right of resistance is a claim to truth and
justice.
10.? The class president enjoys some amount of power. Therefore,
the class president has both power and fame.
11.? If gravity is true, objects will fall. Objects are falling. Therefore,
gravity is true.
12.? It seems that no college students are individuals committed to
the discovery of the truth because all student-journalists are
individuals committed to the discovery of the truth and no
student journalists are college students.
13.? All X is Y but some Z is not X. Therefore, some Z is not Y.
14.? It is false that a crime against humanity is committed by
unknown armed men. It follows that a crime is not committed
against humanity by unknown armed men and martial law is not
real.
15.? Nothing is wrong. Therefore, nothing is both wrong and
mistaken.
16.? Some sardines are handmade products since some goods are
handmade products and all sardines are good.

?
17.? If it is not possible for objects to move in the absence of potency,
then, if it is possible to force an object to move through actuality,
then, there is a reason to believe that energy is real. It is false
that energy is not real. Therefore, it is not possible for objects to
move.
18.? Freedom implies responsibility. There is no freedom. Thus,
there is no responsibility.
19.? If class distinctions are maintained, unequal distribution of
power is inevitable. Therefore, unequal distribution of power is
inevitable.
20.? Either there is no correct ethical standard or there is no such
thing as moral phenomena. It is true that there is no correct
ethical standard. Therefore, it is false that there is no such thing
as moral phenomena.
 nfrmal allacies: Identify the informal fallacies committed in
the following arguments.
1.? I always come here every afternoon. But I have never seen a wolf.
I think wolf does not exist.
2.? Sigmund claims that he is an atheist. So he does not believe in
creation.
3.? You need to have your phone. Everyone has.
4.? Be reminded that the submission of grades is not yet over. Start
performing well or we might end up discussing your condition.
5.? He has no reason to be here and talk about human rights. He is a
soldier.
6.? A second year psychology student likes siomai. Perhaps all
psychology students like siomai.
c

 .,
7.? If you allow students to borrow your pen, they will soon ask for
paper. Later on they will ask for money until you end up lending
them your bike.
8.? If you terminate him, who will send his brothers and sisters to
school. Where shall they go and how will they live? You do not
want that on your conscience, do you?
9.? Have you stop smoking? When was the last time you smoke?
10.? God exists because the bible says so.
11.? Before joining the rally, be reminded that I am your teacher.
Besides, the semester is not yet over.
12.? Manny Pacquiao drinks coke, so coke must be good.
13.? Illegal drugs must be banned because it is unlawful.
14.? I suggest that you buy this painting. This is the president·s
choice. So I think it must really be beautiful.
15.? I saw a golden carabao. So all carabaos must be gold.
16.? Nobody has proven that ghosts do not exist. So they must be
true.
17.? Good professors usually wear eyeglasses. So you should wear
one if you want to be good.
18.? I once invited Peter to church but he refused. He probably does
not believe in God.
19.? Everyone is using Nokia. Therefore, nokia must be good.
G
?The CIC chorale sings well. So Judith sings well since she is
part of it.?