FALLACIES

We study logic with the aim of learning to think correctly, to prove and to establish truth.
The need to study Logic implies our human tendency to fall to error in our reasoning
process. To master the principles and laws of correct thinking without studying errors
therein is but inadequate. These errors in argumentations are called in one word
FALLACIES.

FALLACY – from the Latin term ‘fallere’ which means to deceive or to lead astray.
- an argumentation is meant to decieve an opponent and lead him astray from
the point at issue.
- it is a problem
- we live in this world full of fallacies, that is why logic came as solution.
- fallacy, therefore, is an argument that is in reality “illogical, misleading and
deceptive.”
- This appears to be correct, but in reality it is not.
- Fallacious arguments appears under the guise of validity, but in reality they
are violations of the principles and laws of argumentation.
 FALLACIES
These are two error that often observed in
argumentation:

1. Material Error – an error in reasoning due to

ignorance of facts, or misconception.
- resulting to a false conclusion

2. Error of Argumentation – error done due to misuse of

terms or ideas having deceptive resemblance of truth
leading to invalid conclusions.
 FALLACIES
Importance of Knowing the Fallacies

To understand an object fully, one must discover the bright and dark sides of it. To study
the correct forms of thinking, one must also include the incorrect process of the same.
Otherwise your knowledge is only one-sided. Ignorance of the incorrect forms of
reasoning would allow the thinker to fall into fallacies.

1. Recognizing fallacies will help us avoid thinking incorrectly and avoid being deceived
by others (Reyes, 1988).
2. Knowledge of the principles and laws of argumentation is clarified and strengthen by
the awareness of the various fallacies.
3. The ability to argue correctly is developed by the knowledge of incorrect ways of
thinking.
4. The study of the fallacies enables the student of logic to master the rules of
categorical syllogism.
5. The ability to identify fallacies helps prevent one from confusion and ensures him to
correct decision-making (Agapay, 1991).
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

We follow the classification by Aristotle, a Greek philosopher; whose patterns

was retained by recent Logic authors like Andrew H. Bachubber and some Filipino
writers.
Aristotle divides the fallacies into the following categories:

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

a. Fallacy of Equivocation – this fallacy is committed when one and the same term is
used in the premises under different meanings. For instance, the term “bishop”

Example: A bishop moves diagonally.

Fr. Gustav is a bishop.
Therefore, Fr. Gustav moves diagonally.

Note: The conclusion is invalid. A bishop is a person, not a chess piece.

 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

b. Fallacy of Amphiboly – this fallacy happens because of the arrangement of words or

terms in the proposition. Such ambiguous arrangement is open to various
interpretations.

Example: This woman her cousin loves.

Note: The fallacy here is that, due to the arrangement of order of the words in the
sentence, one cannot definitely discern which is the subject of the sentence, and which
is the object. Is the woman the subject? Or the object of the verb? Or is it the cousin? It
is the authors who knows.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

c. Fallacy of Composition – this fallacy lies on the fact that a group of words or phrase is
taken singly or as unit when they are supposed to be taken separately. When taken singly,
the concepts or meanings of the different words or phrase are confused in the mind of
the individual, resulting to a deception.

Example: DMC students are from different places.

But Julie Pacatang is a DMC student.
Therefore, Julie Pacatang is from different places.

Note: The conclusion appears to be valid. But if you go over the premises from which it is
concluded, it is invalid.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

d. Fallacy of Division – the fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition.
For this fallacy is committed when words or phrase are taken separately instead of taking
them jointly.

Example: All men are creatures.

But all dogs are not men.
Therefore, all dogs are not creatures.

All things in the house are not alive.

But that man is in the house.
Therefore, that man is not alive.

Note: The conclusions are both invalid. The syllogisms appears to be correct but the
conclusions tells us that they are not. The arguments are misleading.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

e. Fallacy of Accent – where terms or words that have the same spelling but differ,
however, in meaning. The difference in meaning lies on the accent and pronouncation.

Example: Every bachelor is unmarried man.

But nursing is a bachelor.
Therefore, nursing is unmarried man.

Note: The middle term “bachelor” has different meanings as they are used in the
premise. The M in the major premise has an entirely different meaning from that of the
one in the minor premise. This led to the false conclusion.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

1. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. Under this category are six fallacies.

f. Fallacy of Figure of Speech – the fallacy of figure of speech happens when the
syllogism makes use of sentence structure having the same or similar form, from which a
conclusion is derived hastily. The person is misled from the similarity of structure or form
to conclude a similar structure or form.

Example: Insincerity is the antonym of sincerity.

Dishonesty is the antonym of honesty.
Therefore, invaluable is the antonym of valuable.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE. These fallacies occur not due to the use of language.
They arise from some kind of confusion about the things spoken about. The argument
confuses what is essential of a thing with what is merely accidental to it, or what is true
absolutely and without qualification is confused with what is true only with a
qualification or limitation.

a. Fallacy of Accident – when what is essential or necessary to an object is confused with

what is merely accidental to it.

Example: This watch is made in USE. (stateside)

Therefore, this watch is excellent.

Note: Is it because it is made in the USA that the watch is excellent? The place of make
or source is accidental to the excellent (essence) of the watch. Some other countries like
Japan can manufacture watches of the best quality.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

b. Fallacy of False Cause – is an argument that attributes an effect or result to an

inadequate or false cause. Oftentimes, this fallacy is accompanied by superstitious and
presumptions.

Example: The candidate for mayor is the son of the governors.

He will surely win.
Therefore, I will vote for him.

Note: Being “the son of the governor” is not a guarantee that the candidate is ensure
victory. Such is a false cause. Or that victory is ensure the canddate that you are going to
vote for him. In this case, you do not follow correct reasoning in voting. You are using
circumstantial and unreal cause for your decision to vote for the candidate. Another false
cause.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

c. Fallacy of Consequent – this fallacy takes the truth of the antecedent from the truth or
fact of the consequent, or the falsity of the antecedent from the falsity of the
consequent. In a conditional syllogism, the truth of effect is argued from the truth of the
cause; or the falsity of the effect is argued from the falsity of the cause.

Example: If the student is not intelligent, he will not succeed.

But he did not succeed.
Therefore, he is not intelligent.

Note: The conclusion is invalid, or the whole syllogism is fallacious. Non-diligence of the
student is not only the cause for his non-success. There are other factors as well, like
sickness, problems.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

d. Fallacy of Multiple Questions – when a single question contains various matters

requiring different specific answers, making it difficult for one to provide a single answer,
the argument falls to the multiple questions fallacy.

Example: Are not all past president rich? (Yes or No)

Are all priests righteous or sinners? (Yes or No)

Note: A single question requiring multiple answers cannot be answered with a response.
For a single answer may satisfy one question, while at the same time dissatisfying the
others. You cannot answer “yes” to the entire question when the rest requires a “no”
response.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

e. Fallacy of Begging the Questions – the fallacy consist in assuming as true what is still
to be proven. It assumes as unproven statement which is the same as the conclusion.

Example: Aliens are real since they are mysterious.

To be mysterious is to be an aliens.

Note: To two parts of the proposition are not proven, yet each one tries to prove the
other. To be mysterious is not yet proven to prove that automatically it is an alien.
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

f. Fallacy of Confusion of Absolute Statement – this fallacy committed when one argues
from the truth of a general principles to the truth of a specific case. The specific case
may even be an exception to the general principles.

Example: To kill is morally immoral. (universal law)

But in self-defense, one may kill. (specific case)
Therefore, self-defense is morally criminal.

Note: The result is an invalid conclusion, rendering the argument fallacious.

 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

g. Fallacy of Confusion of Qualified Statement – this fallacy consists in concluding from

the truth of a proposition which is good only under certain circumstances of time, place,
or condition to the truth of the same thing under all circumstances, i.e., regardless of
whatever the circumstances are.

Example: Some Christians are bad.

But Mary and Joy are Christians.
Therefore, Mary and Joy are bad.

Note: It is true that “some Christians are bad.” But from this premise, one cannot
conclude rashly that Mary and Joy are bad just because they are Christians. They are not
necessarily included in the “some Christians.”
 FALLACIES
Classification of Fallacies

2. FALLACIES NOT OF LANGUAGE.

h. Fallacy of Arguing Beside the Point – this fallacy is an argumentation that escapes the
point at issue, and instead, resorts to some kind of alibi to prove or disprove something.

Example: The Igorots are not real Filipinos because they live in the mountains.

Note: This argument is false because living in the mountain is taken as a reason to
conclude that “Igorots are not real Filipinos.” Regardless of the place of residence, as
long as it is part of the Philippine territory, and that resident was born here, the Igorots
remains as true Filipinos.