For each fallacy listed below, be able to:

● Explain the meaning of the fallacy

● Illustrate it by citing two concrete examples
● Suggest way(s) on how to avoid it

GROUP 8
Fallacy of division (oki na to)
Repeated assertion
Tu quoque

https://www.canva.com/design/DAFSBsP3ICI/4FLZn6Yzz-t6TrQPchb9pQ/edit oks lang ba to?

FALLACY OF DIVISION
- also known as “false division” and “faulty deduction”.
- occurs when someone argues that something which is true of the whole, must also
necessarily be true of each or some parts of the whole.
- It is based on the fallacious assumption that the attributes of the larger group and its
members are transferable from one to the other.
- As such, its logical form is:
● X is part of Y.
● Y has property A.
● Therefore, X has property A.

Example:
1. “The United States is one the richest countries in the world: Therefore, everyone living in
the United States must be rich”.
2. “Trees are visible, and trees are made of atoms. Therefore, atoms are also visible.”

One of the causes of poverty is laziness. Since 80 percent of the Filipino people are
poor, then it can be logically argued that the Filipino people are lazy.

Ways to avoid pa

WAYS TO AVOID

● The easiest way to avoid this fallacy is never to assume that the
characteristics, attributes, or features of the group as a whole will also be
found in the individuals comprising the group.
● One must inspect and evaluate the characteristics, attributes, or features of the
whole separately from the parts of which the whole is comprised.
 ● Inferences from a whole to a part can be made, however, if additional
assumptions are added to the argument that link together the property had by the
whole with the property had by the part.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch56#:~:text=The%20ea
siest%20way%20to%20avoid,the%20individuals%20comprising%20the%20group.

REPEATED ASSERTION
- The Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion or sometimes referred to as argument by
repetition / argumentum ad nauseum / nagging occurs when a proposition is repeatedly
restated regardless of contradiction

- This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as

a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing

This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how
many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first
place. This almost always occurs through bombardment of the same claims. Sometimes
the wording is changed with each new repetition, but that is not equivalent to making a
new claim or providing new evidence. It is the same claim with only superficial
variations.

As such, its logical form is:

X is true. X is true. X is true. . Etc
Example of this

#1:

That movie, “Kill, Blood, Gore” deserves the Oscar for best picture. There are other good
movies, but not like that one. Others may deserve an honorable mention, but not the Oscar,
because “Kill, Blood, Gore” deserves the Oscar.

Explanation: In this statement, There are no reasons given for why, Kill, Blood, Gore deserves
the Oscar, not even any opinion shared. All we have is a repeated claim stated slightly
differently each time.

Here in example number 2 Roxanne argues

Roxanne: "There is only One Who determines what is right and what is wrong, God. And God
has revealed through the Bible that murder is wrong. In addition, God has revealed through
science that the moment of fertilization, a new separate human being exists in the womb. Killing
that human being would be murder.

Explanation: So, Roxanne is certainly proclaiming her message, but she gives no premise, no
reason to believe her. Besides, Restating the same claim in different words is not helpful at all; it
is not the same as making new claims, and certainly does not make the claims any
more true.

WAYS TO AVOID

Repeating facts is a completely different matter. It's far more deleterious to your
argument than monotonous phrasing, because by bringing up the same fact twice or
more you leave the impression that, as far as you know, there are no other facts
supporting the case. With so few data underlying it, how strong is your argument then?
So, The listener or reader will conclude that either your case or your preparation is
shaky, which doesn't help advance an argument.

So, The easiest way to avoid this fallacy is construct a better case and include more
data, or re-modulate the argument so you can include more corroborating evidence.
REFERENCE
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam
https://academy4sc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2020/08/Argument-from-repetition-lesson.p
df
https://academy4sc.org/video/argument-from-repetition-it-works-again-and-again/

#3 TU QUOQUE SCRIPT:
● Explain the meaning of the fallacy
● Illustrate it by citing two concrete examples
○ Example I
"It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the
accusation. Consider the following:
Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong
Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or
have you forgotten about that?
Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show
that Wilma's accusation is false."
—From "Critical Thinking" by William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery
○
● Suggest way(s) on how to avoid it
○ ​The best way to avoid this fallacy is to address arguments rather than
opting to point out someone else’s mistakes. If a person calls you out on
something or demonstrates how you are wrong, own it. Pointing out their
mistakes will deflect blame and error from you or allow the other person to
share blame and shame, but it will not make you right.
○ Furthermore, if the other person is simply making a claim or idea, then
address the claim or idea; stay on topic. Do not irrelevantly attack them by
pointing out something else they have done wrong.
For example, if a person wants to start a divorce ministry, pointing out that
the person is not perfect is irrelevant to starting a divorce ministry.
However, if the person has been divorced multiple times, the person may
not be qualified or this may be relevant to the success of the ministry.
So, make sure that any references to the person’s character or activities
are actually relevant to the context. Otherwise you are arguing using a tu
quoque fallacy to deflect the issues or to avoid addressing the main
arguments against you.
TU QUOQUE
(tu-KWO-kway)

"Tu quoque" means "you too," and consists of responding to allegations of wrongdoing
by saying, in essence, "you do the same thing." That response may be true, but it doesn't deny
or explain away the alleged wrongdoing. Tu quoque is also known as the "you too" fallacy, and
the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

Derivation: From the Latin for "you too" or "you're another"

Also Referred to As:

The "you too" fallacy

The "two wrongs" fallacy
The "pot calling the kettle black" fallacy
The "look who's talking" fallacy

Another variation of tu quoque is the "common practice" fallacy, that consists of answer
allegations of wrong doing by saying "other people do the same thing," or "everybody does it."

An example of tu quoque would happen in an argument between a husband and wife or

another intimate couple. One member of the couple says the other has been behaving badly
and the response in that he or she has behaved just as badly.
^(Note: in this example the response isn't that the first person's behavior prompted the second
person's actions, but only that the first person is just as bad.)

An example of the common practice variation would be someone accused of cheating on taxes
defending himself by saying, "Everybody cheats."
http://www2.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests/fallacy6/6.1a.html#:~:text=%22Tu%20quoque%22%2
0means%20%22you,wrongs%20make%20a%20right%22%20fallacy.

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation

back on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy. In the English language, the phrase
generally functions as a noun, however, it's also used attributively to modify other nouns, as in
"a tu quoque argument." kahit lagay nalang sa script (?)
Example I
"It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation.
Consider the following:
Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong
Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten
about that?
Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show that Wilma's accusation
is false."
—From "Critical Thinking" by William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery

Example II

"Recently, we highlighted a British journalist’s story about the underside of Dubai’s startling
ascent. Some in Dubai called foul, including one writer who wants to remind Britons that their
own country has a dark side. After all, what to think of a country in which one-fifth of the
population lives in poverty?"
—From "Dubai’s Rebuttal," The New York Times, April 15, 2009

Example III

"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in
order to avoid taking the other's position seriously. For example:
Mother: You should stop smoking. It's harmful to your health.
Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking when you were 16!
[Here], the daughter commits the tu quoque fallacy. She dismisses her mother's argument
because she believes her mother is speaking in a hypocritical manner. While the mother may
indeed be inconsistent, this does not invalidate her argument."
—From "Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide" by Jacob E. Van Vleet
A Broader Definition of Tu Quoque

"The tu quoque argument or 'you too' argument, according to the broader account, can be
described as the use of any type of argument to reply in like kind to a speaker's argument. In
other words, if a speaker uses a particular type of argument, say an argument from analogy,
then the respondent can turn around and use that same kind of argument against the speaker,
and this would be called a tu quoque argument . . .. So conceived, the tu quoque argument is
quite a broad category that would include other types of argument as well as ad hominem
arguments."
—From "Ad Hominem Arguments" by Douglas N. Walton

The Childish Response

"Of all human instincts, not even the urge to say 'I told you so' is stronger than the response
called tu quoque: 'Look who's talking.' To judge from children, it is innate ('Cathy says you took
her chocolate,' 'Yes but she stole my doll'), and we don't grow out of it . . .
"France has led calls for pressure to be put on the Burmese junta at the security council and
through the EU, where foreign ministers discussed the issue yesterday. As part of the push, it
has tried to enlist a recalcitrant Russia which, conscious perhaps of Chechnya, has no great
wish to be seen criticizing anyone else's internal affairs. Hence a Russian minister's response
that the next time there were riots in France he would refer the matter to the UN.
"This reply was at once childish, irrelevant, and probably very gratifying."
—Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian, October 16, 2007

Sources

Hughes, William; Lavery, Jonathan. "Critical Thinking," Fifth Edition. Broadview. 2008
Van Vleet, Jacob E. "Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide." University Press of America.
2011
Walton, Douglas N. "Ad Hominem Arguments." University of Alabama Press. 1998
https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-quoque-logical-fallacy-1692568

Tu quoque (Latin for “you too”) is a common type of logical fallacy, meaning a flaw in reasoning
that weakens an argument or a trick of thought used as a debate tactic. It occurs when
someone’s argument is discredited solely based on the allegation that their past actions or
words are not consistent with their views.

It is also known as “ad hominem tu quoque” since it’s considered to be one of the different types
of ad hominem arguments.

In this article, we’ll explain in detail how this erroneous line of reasoning works, as well as
examine a variety of examples.

Tu quoque is a fallacy in which someone asserts that their opponent’s argument must be invalid
because it is inconsistent with their past words and actions. In other words, one points out that
the opponent has acted in the same manner themselves, and fallaciously uses the (alleged)
hypocrisy as evidence to refute their argument.

This reasoning is fallacious because it dismisses the argument solely on grounds of personal
shortcomings; it doesn’t disprove the logic of an argument, even though it may show the
arguer’s hypocrisy. In fact, such arguments often don’t address the substance of the opposing
claim at all, even though they appear as relevant counter-arguments.

As such, its logical form is as follows:

Person 1 makes argument X.

Person 2 points out that X is also true about 1.
Therefore, X is false.
An example would be:
Kate: “ Smoking is unhealthy for you, you really should quit.” Maria: “You have been smoking for
10 years yourself, so there goes your argument.”
Here, Maria commits the fallacy since she uses hypocrisy to refute Kate’s claim, but in reality,
however, it doesn’t disprove or even address the actual claim Kate was making. It is irrelevant to
the truth value of her point if she has smoked herself or not.

As Scott F. Aikin explained in his paper Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of
Hypocrisy:

The hypocrisy of the arguer is not necessarily evidence of the falsity of what she argues.
However, one may feel a gut feeling there is something right about tu quoque arguments in that
the acceptability of the view proposed is challenged.

This fallacy is also known as “appeal to hypocrisy”, the “you too” fallacy, and “pot calling the
kettle black” fallacy. Also, it’s an informal fallacy and, more specifically, falls into their
subcategory of relevance fallacies.

Use of Tu Quoque Fallacy

tu quoque fallacy - the definition and examples

Similarly to red herring arguments, appeals to hypocrisy are used as a distraction so that one
may avoid having to deal with a certain issue or question. It’s quite common to hear “but what
about X, look at what they did”- type of allegations in various discussions, with both adults and
children.

Furthermore, it tends to include a strong emotional appeal, and thus can be effective in
influencing people’s opinions and judgments. Such strategy is often employed in the political
arena: During debate, a candidate shifts the focus to their opponent’s “poor” character, while
seemingly refuting their argument, by pointing out that they are being a hypocrite.

Examples
To help you better understand this fallacy, here are a few examples from various situations.

Example in Politics
Politician 1: “My opponent has almost always failed to deliver his election promises, and
everyone should remember that.” Politician 2: “You didn’t deliver your promise to increase the
tax rate for rich people, which was at the center of your election campaign.”
Answering criticism with criticism, like in this example, doesn’t directly address the issue at
hand, even though it may seem to do so. It simply shifts the focus to the opponent’s character or
actions, which are generally irrelevant to the logic of their argument.
Answering criticism with criticism, like in this example, doesn’t directly address the issue at
hand, even though it may seem to do so. It simply shifts the focus to the opponent’s character or
actions, which are generally irrelevant to the logic of their argument.

Example at Home
Parent: “You have to clean your room, it’s too messy.” Child: “But your room is messy too, so
why should I listen to you?”
This is a textbook example. In discussions between a parent and a child there are different
factors that affect the relevance of a claim, such as a parent’s authority and dissimilar needs
due to the age difference.

Example in School
Hannah: “I think that global warming is the most important issue of our time and everyone
should acknowledge that.” Mark: “But you drive an SUV, therefore you can’t actually believe
that.”
The fact that Hannah drives an SUV doesn’t invalidate her argument or necessarily mean that
she doesn’t believe in what she says.

However, note that if Hannah’s claim was that driving an SUV is harmful to the climate and
therefore unethical, it would be a very unthoughtful argument from her – even if a tu quoque
wouldn’t disprove it.

REFERENCE:
● https://fallacyinlogic.com/fallacy-of-division/

How to counter logical fallacies

To counter the use of a logical fallacy, you should first identify the flaw in reasoning that it
contains, and then point it out and explain why it’s a problem, or provide a strong opposing
argument that counters it implicitly.

For example, consider a situation where someone uses the appeal to nature, which is an
informal logical fallacy that involving claiming that something is either good because it’s
considered ‘natural’, or bad because it’s considered ‘unnatural’.

Once you’ve identified the use of the fallacy, you can counter it by explaining why its premises
are flawed. To achieve this, you can provide examples that demonstrate that things that are
“natural” can be bad and that things that are “unnatural” can be good, or you can provide
examples that demonstrate the issues with trying to define what “natural” and “unnatural” mean
in the first place.

The steps in this approach, where you first identify the use of the fallacy and then either explain
why it’s a problem or provide strong counterarguments, are generally the main ones to follow
regardless of which fallacy is being used. However, there is some variability in terms of how you
implement these steps when it comes to different fallacies and different circumstances, and an
approach that will work well in one situation may fail in another.

For example, while a certain approach might work well when it comes to resolving a formal
fallacy that you’ve used unintentionally in your own reasoning process, the same approach
might be ineffective when it comes to countering an informal fallacy that was used intentionally
by someone else for rhetorical purposes.

Finally, it’s also important to keep in mind that sometimes, when responding to the use of
fallacious reasoning, dismantling the logic behind your opponent’s reasoning and highlighting its
flaws might not work. This is because, in practice, human interactions and debates are highly
complex, and involve more than just exchanging logically sound arguments with one another.

Accordingly, you should accept the fact that in some cases, the best way to respond to a logical
fallacy in practice isn’t necessarily to properly address it from a logical perspective. For
example, your best option might be to modify your original argument in order to counter the
fallacious reasoning without explicitly addressing the fact that it’s fallacious, or your best option
might be to refuse to engage with the fallacious argument entirely.

Account for unintentional use of fallacies

When you counter fallacies that other people use, it’s important to remember that not every use
of a logical fallacy is intentional, and to act accordingly, since accounting for this fact can help
you formulate a more effective response.

A useful concept to keep in mind in this regard is Hanlon’s razor, which is a philosophical
principle that suggests that when someone does something that leads to a negative outcome,
you should avoid assuming that they acted out of an intentional desire to cause harm, as long
as there is a different plausible explanation for their behavior. In this context, Hanlon’s razor
means that, if you notice that someone is using a logical fallacy, you should avoid assuming that
they’re doing so intentionally, as long as it’s reasonable to do so.

In addition, it’s important to remember that you too might be using logical fallacies
unintentionally in your thinking and in your communication with others. To identify cases where
you are doing this, try to examine your reasoning, and see if you can identify any flaws, either in
the way that your arguments are structured, or in the premises that you rely on in order to make
those arguments. Then, adjust your reasoning accordingly, in order to fix these flaws.

Make sure arguments are fallacious before countering

Before you counter an argument that you think is fallacious, you should make sure that it is
indeed fallacious, to the best of your ability.
There are various ways to do this, including slowing down your own reasoning process so you
can properly think through the argument, or asking the person who proposed the argument to
clarify their position.

The approach of asking the other person to clarify their position is highly beneficial in general,
because it helps demonstrate that you’re truly interested in what the other person has to say.
Furthermore, in cases where the argument in question does turn out to be fallacious, this
approach can often help expose the issues with it, and can also help the other person
internalize these issues, in a way that you won’t always be able to achieve by pointing them out
yourself.

Finally, note that a useful tool to remember in this regard is the principle of charity, which is a
philosophical principle that denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you should
assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant
to convey. In this context, the principle of charity means that you should not attribute falsehoods,
logical fallacies, or irrationality to people’s argument, when there is a plausible, rational
alternative available.

Remember fallacious arguments can have true conclusions

It’s important to keep in mind that even if an argument is fallacious, it can still have a true
conclusion. Assuming that just because an argument is fallacious then its conclusion must
necessarily be false is a logical fallacy in itself, which is known as the fallacy fallacy.

For instance, consider the following example of a formal logical fallacy (which we saw earlier,
and which is known as affirming the consequent):

Premise 1: If it’s raining, then the sky will be cloudy.

Premise 2: The sky is cloudy.

Conclusion: It’s raining.

This argument is logically invalid, since we can’t be sure that its conclusion is true based on the
premises that we have (because it’s possible that the sky is cloudy but that it’s not raining at the
same time). However, even though the argument itself is flawed, that doesn’t mean that its
conclusion is necessarily false. Rather, it’s possible that the conclusion is true and that it is
currently raining; we just can’t conclude this based on the premises

The same holds for informal fallacies. For example, consider the following argument:

Alex: It’s amazing how accurate this personality test I took is.
Bob: No it isn’t, it’s pure nonsense.

Here, Bob is using an appeal to the stone, which is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person
dismisses their opponent’s argument as absurd, without actually addressing it, or without
providing sufficient evidence in order to prove its absurdity. However, even though Bob’s
argument is fallacious, that doesn’t mean that its conclusion is wrong; it’s possible that the
personality test in question is indeed nonsense, we just can’t tell whether that’s the case based
on this argument alone.

Overall, the important thing to understand is that an argument can be fallacious and still have a
conclusion that is factually correct. To assume otherwise is fallacious, which is why you
shouldn’t discount people’s conclusions simply because the argument that they used to reach
those conclusions contains a logical fallacy.
https://effectiviology.com/guide-to-logical-fallacies/

https://ses.edu/logical-fallacies-101-genetic-fallacy-and-tu-quoque/
​The best way to avoid this fallacy is to address arguments rather than opting to point out
someone else’s mistakes. If a person calls you out on something or demonstrates how
you are wrong, own it. Pointing out their mistakes will deflect blame and error from you
or allow the other person to share blame and shame, but it will not make you right.
Furthermore, if the other person is simply making a claim or idea, then address the
claim or idea; stay on topic. Do not irrelevantly attack them by pointing out something
else they have done wrong.

For example, if a person wants to start a divorce ministry, pointing out that the person is
not perfect is irrelevant to starting a divorce ministry. However, if the person has been
divorced multiple times, the person may not be qualified or this may be relevant to the
success of the ministry.

So, make sure that any references to the person’s character or activities are actually
relevant to the context. Otherwise you are arguing using a tu quoque fallacy to deflect
the issues or to avoid addressing the main arguments against you.

The best way to avoid this fallacy is to address arguments rather than opting to point out
someone else’s mistakes. If a person calls you out on something or demonstrates how
you are wrong, own it. Pointing out their mistakes will deflect blame and error from you
or allow the other person to share blame and shame, but it will not make you right.
Furthermore, if the other person is simply making a claim or idea, then address the
claim or idea; stay on topic. Do not irrelevantly attack them by pointing out something
else they have done wrong.
 REAL SCRIPT

Example in Politics
Politician 1: “My opponent has almost always failed to deliver his election promises, and
everyone should remember that.” Politician 2: “You didn’t deliver your promise to increase the
tax rate for rich people, which was at the center of your election campaign.”
Answering criticism with criticism, like in this example, doesn’t directly address the issue at
hand, even though it may seem to do so. It simply shifts the focus to the opponent’s character or
actions, which are generally irrelevant to the logic of their argument.

Answering criticism with criticism, like in this example, doesn’t directly address the issue at
hand, even though it may seem to do so. It simply shifts the focus to the opponent’s character or
actions, which are generally irrelevant to the logic of their argument.

● Suggest way(s) on how to avoid it

○ ​The best way to avoid this fallacy is to address arguments rather than
opting to point out someone else’s mistakes. If a person calls you out on
something or demonstrates how you are wrong, own it. Pointing out their
mistakes will deflect blame and error from you or allow the other person to
share blame and shame, but it will not make you right.
○ Furthermore, if the other person is simply making a claim or idea, then
address the claim or idea; stay on topic. Do not irrelevantly attack them by
pointing out something else they have done wrong.
For example, if a person wants to start a divorce ministry, pointing out that
the person is not perfect is irrelevant to starting a divorce ministry.
However, if the person has been divorced multiple times, the person may
not be qualified or this may be relevant to the success of the ministry.
So, make sure that any references to the person’s character or activities
are actually relevant to the context. Otherwise you are arguing using a tu
quoque fallacy to deflect the issues or to avoid addressing the main
arguments against you.