SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

English for Academic and Professional Purposes SY 2018 – 2019

Handout Name: __________________________________

Logical Fallacies Section: __________ Class Number: _______

How do I make my arguments strong, valid, and logical?

Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument—that is, to present reasons for a
particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. Each argument you make is composed of
premises (this is a term for statements that
express your reasons or evidence) that are P1 ➔ P2 ➔ P3 = Conclusion
arranged in the right way to support your Some premises contain hidden assumptions - a fact
conclusion (the main claim or interpretation you or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or
are offering). You can make your arguments notion) taken for granted.
stronger by:

1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the
issue at hand),
2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not some other
conclusion, or no conclusion at all),
3. checking that you have addressed the most important Correlation ≠ Causation
or relevant aspects of the issue (that is, that your Smoking is related to lung
premises and conclusion focus on what is cancer. This is correlation but not
really important to the issue), and causation because not all
4. not making claims that are so strong or smokers get lung cancer, yet there
sweeping that you can’t really support is a connection between them.
them. Some Hasty Generalization
5. not mistaking correlation (relationship between things or Dicto Simpliciter fallacies are
that happen or change together) as a cause examples of this Correlation ≠
Causation concept.

What weaknesses in logic should I avoid to prevent fallacious thinking?

Fallacies – common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be
either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack
evidence that supports their claim.

1. Hasty Generalization -
making assumptions about
a whole group or range of
cases based on a sample
that is inadequate
- remember the
assumption may not be applicable to all concepts
- remember also not to jump to conclusions
1
 2.Dicto Simpliciter (sweeping
generalization)
- the error lies in making a general
statement without qualifying it so that it
appears to include all cases
- remember not to stereotype people,
groups, or events

3. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after this,

therefore, because of this)
- this is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A'
occurred before 'B' then 'A' must have
caused B'
- remember to avoid being superstitious also

4. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad

Speculum) – offering a poorly supported claim about
what might have happened in the past or future if
circumstances or conditions were other than what they
actually were or are
- “an argument that starts with an untrue hypothesis and
then tries to draw supportable conclusions from it” (http://
www.mesacc.edu/)
- The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs
can have only one possible cause.
- Avoid speculating “what might have been” or “what will
be”

If Marcos had been aborted in utero, the Philippines would

have never experienced Martial Law, or if Pacquiao did not
pursue boxing, the Philippines would not have been well-
known internationally.

5. Contradictory Premises (logical paradox) - Establishing a premise in such a way that it

contradicts another, earlier premise
- arguments cancel out each other (incompatible claims)
- arguing a case that contains two or more propositions that could not possibly be true at the
same time

“If God can do anything, he can make a stone so

heavy that he can't lift it?"

A father tells his son that he should trust no one.

2
 6.Slippery Slope - the arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually
ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not
enough evidence for that assumption
- arguer assumes that there is no stopping the chain reaction
- also a type of non-sequitur fallacy

(Common arguments against LGBT groups in the PH)

Same-sex marriage:
(1) will cause population implosion; (2) will definitely promote more promiscuous behavior.

7. False Analogy - Relying only on comparisons to

prove a point rather than arguing deductively and
inductively
- Situation/premises are different

8. Argumentum Ad Hominem (Poisoning the Well) – argument toward the person.

- Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument
itself.
- Personal character of the individual is irrelevant to the argument

3
 9. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam – An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical
issue during a debate.

9. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (appeal to emotion)

- an emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue
- the weakness of an argument cannot be demonstrated by an appeal to pity

10. Argumentum Ad Populum (appeal to popularity) – this asserts that since the majority of people
believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, the course of
action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice.

(A common response to rallies against Marcos’ Burial at

LNMB)

"Lahat naka-move on na, ikaw na lang ang hindi!"

4
11. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (appeal to inappropriate authority)
- appeal to an improper authority such as a famous person who might not know anything about the topic,
or a source that may not be reliable.
- not all appeal to authority is fallacious; it is fallacious when it is the wrong authority

12. Red Herring Fallacy

- a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to
some side-point.

(A response to critics of the drug war)

Critic: I would like to have these extra judicial killings

investigated.



Response: Hindi ko maintindihan kung bakit mahal
na mahal mo ang mga drug addicts! (I don’t
understand why you love drug addicts so much!)

5
12. Strawman Fallacy

– this is any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the
arguments of the opposing side.

(A response to critics of the drug war)

Critic: We implore our judiciary and legislative

bodies to uphold the precepts of Universal
Human Rights.



Response: So ang mga criminal may
Human Rights pero ang mga biktima wala? (So
you think criminals have Human Rights but
victims don’t?)

Sources
“Argumentative Fallacies.” n.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2012. <http://www.mesacc.edu/~paoih30491/
ArgumentsFallaciesQ.html>
"College of Arts and Sciences." Fallacies. n.p., 2012. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. <http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/>.
Hoover, A.J. "Don't You Believe It!" Don't You Believe It! n.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2012.
Thompson, Bruce ER. "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact." Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. allacies/
contrarytofact.htm>.
Weber, Ryan, and Allen Brizee. "Welcome to the Purdue OWL." Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing. n.p., 2012.
Web. 04 Dec. 2012. <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/>.
Wheeler, Dr. L. Kip. "Logical Fallacies Handlist." Logical Fallacies Handlist. n.p., 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 04 Dec. 2012. <http://
web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html>.