What is a Fallacy?

A fallacy is an argument type that may seem to be correct but contains a mistake in
reasoning.
A fallacy is a type of incorrect argument that is known to be deceptive.
Fallacies can be found in formal and informal logic but this paper will only tackle
informal fallacies.
What are the Types of Fallacy?
Formal Fallacies, fallacies found in formal logic such as: the fallacy of four terms, the
fallacy of the undistributed middle, the fallacy of illicit major/minor terms, fallacy of
exclusive premises, the fallacy of generating an affirmative conclusion from a
negative premise, and existential fallacy.
Informal Fallacies, fallacies commonly found in everyday use. They are mistakes in
reasoning arising from the mishandling of the content of the propositions
constituting the argument.
Classification of Fallacies:
Fallacies of Relevance are the most numerous and most frequently encountered
fallacies. The premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion
drawn. They may appear relevant and that is why they can be deceiving. They are
listed as: appeal to emotion, appeal to pity, appeal to force, arguments against the
person, and irrelevant conclusion.

 Fallacies of Defective Induction are also very common fallacies the mistake arises
from the fact that the premises of the argument, although relevant to the conclusion,
are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is a blunder. They are listed as:
argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, false cause, and hasty
generalization.
Fallacies of Presumption are mistakes that arise because too much has been
assumed in the premises, the inference to the conclusion depending on the
unwarranted assumption. They are listed as: accident, complex question, and
begging the question.
Fallacies of Ambiguity arise from the equivocal use of words and phrases in the
premises or in the conclusion of an argument. It also happens because a critical term
is used in different senses in different parts of the argument. They are listed as:
equivocation, amphiboly, accent, composition, and division.

I.

Fallacies of Relevance

These are bald mistakes that might be better called fallacies of irrelevance they are
the consequence of the absence of any real connection between premises and
conclusion. The premises offered cannot possibly establish the truth of the
conclusion drawn. Even so, the premises may still be psychologically relevant to the
conclusion and thus having some emotional impact upon the readers or hearers.

Appeal to Emotion (Argument Ad Populum)

Ad Populum is translated to to the populace. In place of evidence and rational
argument, it relies on expressive language and other devices calculated to excite
enthusiasm for or against some cause. It can be better called an appeal to desire so
that emotion is confined to those that appeal to the interests or passions of the
people to get the conclusion accepted. Another reason for this is because an appeal
to pity is also an appeal to a set of emotions.
A type of ad populum is a bandwagon appeal just because many people support
something does not mean that it is correct.

Example:
I will buy Colgate toothpaste because most of my friends use it. This is a
bandwagon appeal you are boarding the colgate wagon that your friends are
riding on with the desire to be closer to them.

Ad populum is often found in advertisements equating a product to good conditions

or to the number of people who use the product. The ads use successful and
usually good looking people to further entice viewers desires.
Example: Axe getting chased down by hot/beautiful/pretty women; and Creamsilk
shiny, attractive hair attracting rich/handsome men.
Case Example:
Source: G.R. No. L-21049 People v. Perez
"The Filipinos, like myself, should get a bolo and cut off the head of GovernorGeneral Wood, because he has recommended a bad administration in these Islands
and has not made a good recommendation; on the contrary, he has assassinated the
independence of the Philippines and for this reason, we have not obtained
independence and the head of that Governor-General must be cut off." (Isaac Perez)
Explanation:
This is an appeal to emotion simply because instead of relying on evidence and
rational arguments, Perez relied on expressive language in order to excite the

Filipino people into joining him against the rule of Governor-General Wood. His
words rely on triggering the nationalistic emotions of his audience.

Appeal to Pity (Argument Ad Misericordiam)

Ad Misericordiam is translated to a pitying heart. It can be considered as a type of
appeal to emotion but it deserves its own separate category because it focuses on a
specific type of emotion. It appeals to generosity, altruism, and mercy rather than
reason where appeal to emotion primarily appeals to personal desires. However, the
underlying principle remains the same that instead of using reason, the person
makes a conclusion based on emotion.
Example:
Is your project ready?
Sir, Im very close, if you could just give me an extension
Why? Why should I give you an extension?
Sir please, dad had a stroke and I couldnt focus
I think we should hire Sarah for the vacant position. She is a widow with
three teenage children living in a one bedroom apartment.

Case Example:
Source: Buenaventura v. New Bilibid Prison Officials, G.R. No. 114829 (March 1,
1995)
This Hon. Chairman and its Hon. Members are further assured that from here on, I
am more careful and circumspect in the exercise of this noble and grand profession
and that no amount or consideration will sway or change this conviction. This is my
life. This is the life of my family.
Explanation:
This is the statement of Atty. Dela Rea. It is an apology to the Court for making it
appear in the jurat of the petition, in this case, that the petitioner subscribed the
verification and swore to before him, as notary public, when in truth and in fact the
petitioner did not. The last two sentences of his statement is an appeal to the
sympathy of the Court so that his admission may be considered in mitigating his
liability.

Appeal to Force (Argument Ad Baculum)

Ad Baculum is the threat of being hit with a stick. It is the fallacy of the use of strong
arm methods to coerce opponents into accepting some conclusion. The argument
relies on the threat of force that may be physical or not. The threat of force may be
obvious and it may be veiled. The threat of force can also be a combination of the
different kinds.
Examples:
Either you are with me, or I smash your face with my fists. (physical)
Go ahead! Do it! But if you do, I will see you it court! (not physical)
Try voting a contrary opinion during the next meeting and I will make sure
you never get a decent job in town again. (obvious)
Nice job! You actually got elected instead of me. You be careful going home
okay, we dont want anything to happen to you. (veiled)
The President wants the Congress to pass this bill. I think you have to
support it. Of course, you dont want Malacaang to reduce your countrywide development fund which will finance the infrastructure projects in your
town. (obvious, not physical)

Case Example:
Source: G.R. No. L-3820 July 18, 1950 JEAN L. ARNAULT, petitioner, vs. LEON
NAZARENO, Sergeant-at-arms, Philippine Senate, and EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS,
Director of Prisons, respondents.
The PRESIDENT. Now I am convinced that you have a good memory. Answer: Did
you deliver the P440, 000 as a gift, or of any consideration?
Mr. ARNAULT. I have said that I had instructions to deliver it to that person, that is
all.
The PRESIDENT. Was it the first time you saw that person?
Mr. ARNAULT. I saw him various times, I have already said.
The PRESIDENT. In spite of that, you do not have the least remembrance of the
name of that person?
Mr. ARNAULT. I cannot remember.
The PRESIDENT. How is it that you do not remember events that happened a short
time ago and, on the other hand, you remember events that occurred during your
childhood?
Mr. ARNAULT. I cannot explain.

The Senate then deliberated and adopted the resolution of May 15 hereinabove
quoted whereby the petitioner was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-atArms and imprisoned until "he shall have purged the contempt by revealing to the
Senate or to the aforesaid Special Committee the name of the person to whom he
gave the P440,000, as well as answer other pertinent questions in connection
therewith."
Explanation:
This court statement amounts to the fallacy of appeal to force wherein they affirmed
the act of senate wherein they charged Arnault with contempt because he refused to
answer the questions being asked of him. He was given the choice to answer the
question or be imprisoned for his refusal to do so.

Argument Against the Person (Argument Ad Hominem)

Ad Hominem means against the person. It is a very common fallacy. It is unfair to
the adversary and it inflicts personal damage. It has two major types: Abusive and
Circumstantial Abusive ad hominem arguments attack the character of the
opponent. It puts into question the persons characteristics. It is abusive because it
directly attacks the person.
Circumstantial ad hominem arguments ignore the issue or makes or convinces
another to not agree with someone by citing the circumstances of another person. It
9

suggests that the opponents conclusion should be rejected because their argument
or judgment is warped, dictated by their special situation rather than by reasoning
or evidence.
Poisoning the Well is a variety of ad hominem argument where the attack used
essentially makes further arguments impossible because the cited characteristic
cannot be easily escaped from.

Example:
You should not listen to her opinion. She has been a drug addict and has been
arrested due to theft. (abusive)
Who would vote for a high-school dropout and an actor who knows nothing
of politics? (abusive)
Why were you late again in our meeting? Look whos talking. Last week
you were late twice remember? (circumstantial)
I dont think the opposition party has a valid reason for criticizing the move
of the present administration to privatize government run industries. When
the opposition party was in power in the previous regime, it sold several
government companies to the private sector. (circumstantial)
We cannot let members of the Jehovas Witnesses enter our armed forces
because they are not loyal to our cause. They do not even put their hands on
their hearts when we attend flag ceremonies. (poisoning the well, a member

10

of the religion cannot argue without being seen as disloyal or rejecting his
beliefs)
Case Example:
Source: Ford Motor Co. vs EEOC
Dissent's claim that the majority had 'misread' the Court of Appeals' decision,
'transforming a narrow Court of Appeals ruling into a broad one, just so we could
reverse and install a broad new rule of our own choosing,' rather than attempt, as
best we are able, to decide the particular case actually before us.
Explanation:
The dissent's argument is an ad hominem, at least in part. Admittedly, a simple
claim that the majority misread the lower court's opinion would not be directed at
the character or circumstances of the majority and hence would not be an ad
hominem; however, the claim that the misreading was the result of an improper (or
even legitimate) motive-the desire to establish a broad new rule-is an ad hominem.
Rather than merely arguing that the majority's view is incorrect, the dissent
strongly suggested that the majority had a motive to transform the lower court
ruling. Even if the majority did have such a motive, the dissent's ad hominem does
not establish that the majority acted solely on that motive or that the majority's
argument is flawed.

11

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)

This is the argument of mistaken proof.
The premises of the argument support a different conclusion and thus, the argument
misses the point.
Example:
We will allocate 10 Billion pesos for our policemen in metro manila. Public
safety and order demands for nothing less.
Why will we be spending 10B exactly? Public safety and order yes but this is too
broad a scope to be a good enough explanation.
There are some other forms of Ignoratio Elenchi:
Straw man fallacy is misrepresenting the opponents conclusion.
Example:
What I object the most about people who oppose the death penalty is that they believe
that the lives of the convicted murderers are more important than the lives of their
innocent victims.
Red Herring fallacy is adding a distracting element in the argument to obscure the
important position being talked about.

12

Example:
Dad, you are looking at the national laser tag champion and my sperm dont
work (Character Barney Stinsons example of demonstrating how to tell your father
you cant give him grandchildren in How I Met Your Mother)
Why were you cheating? I know I made a mistake but think of my parents, they
will kill me if I lose my scholarship.
So why were you cheating in the first place? The student ignores the original
question.
Non-sequitor is when the statements or conclusions included do not follow the
fundamental principles of logic and reason.
Example:
Marie drives a car. She must be rich.
He/She is the valedictorian of their class. He/She will be very successful.
Case Examples:
Source: G.R. No 204819 Imbong v. Ochoa
As healthful as the intention of the RH Law may be, the idea does not escape the Court
that what it seeks to address is the problem of rising poverty and unemployment in the
country. Let it be said that the cause of these perennial issues is not the large population
but the unequal distribution of wealth. Even if population growth is controlled, poverty
will remain as long as the country's wealth remains in the hands of the very few.
13

Explanation
The Supreme Court has included the above statements in its decision with respect to
the constitutionality of the RH law where in fact it is unnecessary to discuss the said
issue about rising poverty since this will not affect the constitutionality of RH law.

II. Fallacies of Defective Induction

The premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion. They might be
related to the conclusion but they cannot be enough proof to support it.
Argument from Ignorance (Argument Ad Ignorantiam)
It is a fallacy in which the proposition or conclusion is held to be true just because it
has not been proven to be false or it is held to be false just because it has not been
proven to be true.
Essentially, the argument is formed by agreeing with one conclusion while ignoring
its opposite but both exist at the same time.
This is a fallacy because your argument can easily be countered by your opponent
by asserting the conclusion that was ignored.
Example:
I believe that we are completely alone in this vast universe. We have seen many
planets with our studies of space but we have never found other living things.
14

 I believe that aliens visiting the earth during calamities are real. Nobody has proven
that it is false, so it must be true.
Case Example:
Source: Valino vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894(April 22, 2014)
Since no other evidence was presented to corroborate Valinos claim that Atty.
Adrianos wish is to be buried at the Manila Memorial Park, the right and duty to
make funeral arrangements is given to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife of
Atty. Adriano.
In this case, Rosario, the legitimate but estranged wife, prayed that Atty. Adrianos
remains be transferred from the Valino familys mausoleum to Rosarios family
burial plot. The argument from ignorance was committed when the legitimate wife
was granted the right over the corpse of the husband only because it has not been
proven that Valino, the common-law wife, knows the wishes of the deceased. The
petitioners ignorance of how to prove his claim established the right of the
defendant. It is also an appeal to ignorance because it ignored the facts that Valino is
in the better position to know the wishes of the deceased even if she was merely the
common-law wife as she was the actual person to take care of their husband before
his death.

15

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argument Ad Verecundiam)

The appeal is made to be true by consulting parties that have no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter. Here we appeal to the truth of our claims as they are backed
by experts. The fallacy occurs when we use the support of an expert who cannot
legitimately be an expert on the thing being supported. This may happen in different
ways: you might try to use the support of a person who is not an expert or you might
try to use the support of an expert but in the wrong field or expertise needed.
Example:
The doctrine of biological evolution cannot be true, for it contradicts the
biblical account of creation; the church fathers never accepted it and the
fundamentalists explicitly condemn it.
This is fallacious because the church fathers and the fundamentalists are not experts
of biology or experts in evolution.
Case Example:
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Limaco

G.R. No. L-3090 January 9,

1951
The case is about a triple murder of three young girls committed by Limaco using a
bolo at their dwelling place. This case quotes the trial judges decision:
But a quick death would seem to be too sweet a medicine for him. He does not
deserve it. He should be put to death slowly but surely, and in the opinion of the

16

court, life imprisonment and hard labor, without hope whatsoever of any pardon or
reprieve, is just the right punishment for him.
This is an appeal to Inappropriate Authority.
Explanation:
The original trial court judge committed the fallacy of inappropriate authority by
basing his final judgment on his own opinion. He may be a judge and therefore he
can be considered an expert on the laws of the land, but he cannot justify a court
decision or make one contrary to the letter of the law.
False Cause (Argument Non Causa Pro Causa)
Something that is not really a cause is treated as a cause.
Example:
He was singing the song my way at the karaoke last night and now he is
dead. We should avoid singing that song if we fear for our lives.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a false cause where an event is presumed to have been
caused by the event that came before it. In this case there is a temporal connection
between the events being linked together. It is translated as after the thing
therefore because of the thing.

17

Example:
Every time the cheerleaders wore blue ribbons, our basketball team lost the
game. The cheerleaders should be forbidden from wearing blue ribbons when
the basketball team has a game.
Slippery Slope is the argument that asserts that a change in a particular direction is
assumed to lead inevitably to further disastrous changes in the same direction.
Essentially it goes like this: I kick a small rock on top of a mountain, the small rock
falls and hits a bigger rock which falls too, and the bigger rock hits an even bigger
rock, and that rock falls and so on and so forth until a gigantic rock demolishes the
houses below.
Case Example:
Source: Goldman v. Weinberger

475 U.S. 503 (1986)

Dissent of Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall joins:

The Government maintains in its brief that discipline is so jeopardized whenever
exceptions to military regulations are granted. Service personnel must be trained to
obey even the most arbitrary command reflexively. Non-Jewish personnel will
perceive the wearing of a yarmulke by an Orthodox Jew as an unauthorized
departure from the rules and will begin to question the principle of unswerving
obedience. Thus all our fighting forces slip down the treacherous slope toward
unkempt appearance, anarchy, and, ultimately, defeat at the hands of our enemies.

18

Explanation:
This is a fallacy of false cause because it attributes the simple wearing of a yarmulke
by an Orthodox Jew to be the cause of a deterioration of the obedience of the armed
forces. It further transforms into a fallacy of false cause of the slippery slope form by
adding more and more worse consequences that originate from allowing the
wearing of the yarmulke.
Hasty Generalization
This is a relatively simple fallacy where we take individual examples and generate a
generalization. It is making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the
variables.
This is also known as the converse accident. It flows from the particular example to
the generalization statement.

Example:
Nine out of Ten dentists recommend using brand xyz for cavity prevention.
My father had all sons, my grandfather had all sons, my great grandfather
had all sons, and therefore I will have all sons.

19

Case Example:
Source: Gerona, et al. v. Secretary of Education, et al.

106 Phil. 2 (1959)/G.R. No.

L-13954
The trouble with exempting petitioners from participation in the flag ceremony
aside from the fact that they have no valid right to such exemption is that the latter
would disrupt school discipline and demoralize the rest of the school population
which by far constitutes the great majority. If the children of Jehovah Witnesses are
exempted, then the other pupils, especially the young ones seeing no reason for such
exemption, would naturally ask for the same privilege because they might want to
do something else such as play or study, instead of standing at attention saluting the
flag and singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, all of which
consume considerable time; and if to avoid odious discrimination this exemption is
extended to others, then the flag ceremony would soon be a thing of the past or
perhaps conducted with very few participants, and the time will come when we
would have citizens untaught and un-inculcated in and not imbued with reverence
for the flag and love of country, admiration for national heroes, and patriotism a
pathetic, even tragic situation, and all because a small portion of the school
population imposed its will, demanded and was granted an exemption. In a way that
might be regarded as tyranny of the minority, and a small minority at that.

20

Explanation:
This part of the decision of the court generalized two things from the particular
situation of children belonging to the religious sect of Jehovahs Witnesses, in line
with their religion, not saluting the flag and reciting the patriotic pledge during the
flag ceremony. The court made its decision not to give them an exception using two
hasty generalizations. The first is generalizing that there would be a disappearance
of significant flag ceremonies in the future if the exemption is granted. The second is
by saying that granting an exception will be a tyranny of the minority.
III.

Fallacies of Presumption
It is an unjustified assumption, often suggested by the way in which the argument is
formulated. The reader, listener, or sometimes the author, may be caused to assume
the truth of some unproven and unwarranted position. Essentially, there is an
unwarranted or unjustified leap from one proposition to another.
Accident
This is the opposite of the hasty generalization fallacy. Here, a generalization is
wrongly applied to a particular case. Usually, the generalization does not apply to
the case because of special circumstances or accidental circumstances. In short,
ignoring the special/accidental circumstance in applying the generalization leads to
this fallacy.
The movement here is from general to specific as opposed to hasty generalization
which moves from specific to general.
21

Example:
The constitution affords all citizens the right to information on matters of
public concern and allows them access to all government records. The
records of the judiciary cover all documents submitted to the courts and in
the interest of the public for making sure that our judges are doing their duty
they can be viewed by the citizens.
This is fallacious because of two generalizations that became accidents. First, the
right to information is subject to limits provided by law and is not enforceable for
national security matters, banking and business strategies, criminal cases, and limits
provided by law. Second, judicial records/court records are open to the public as far
as decisions are concerned; there is a need for actual interest to view documents
such as pleadings by the parties as they may violate privacy rights if left for public
view.

Example:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, he
should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.
Fallacious because freedom of speech is subject to some limitations such as
those included in the Revised Penal Code.

22

Case Example:
Source: G.R. No. 70789

October 19, 1992

RUSTAN PULP & PAPER MILLS, INC., BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, SR., and ROMEO S.
VERGARA, petitioners, vs THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ILIGAN
DIVERSIFIED PROJECTS, INC., ROMEO A. LLUCH and ROBERTO G. BORROMEO,
respondents.
Petitioners can stop delivery of pulp wood from private respondents if the supply
at the plant is sufficient as ascertained by petitioners, subject to re-delivery when
the need arises as determined likewise by petitioners. This is Our simple
understanding of the literal import of paragraph 7 of the obligation in question. A
purely potestative imposition of this character must be obliterated from the face of
the contract without affecting the rest of the stipulations considering that the
condition relates to the fulfillment of an already existing obligation and not to its
inception (Civil Code Annotated, by Padilla, 1987 Edition, Volume 4, Page 160)
Explanation:
Generally, a purely potestative suspensive condition in the sole will of the debtor is
void. In this case, the court treated the condition as void because they classified it
immediately as a purely potestative suspensive condition in the sole will of the
debtor while forgetting to consider that the contract is also subject to standards of
the creditor. The delivery would stop or continue not just on the discretion of the
debtor but also regarding the supply of pulp needed in the factory.
23

Complex Question
It is one of the most common fallacies of presumption and is often considered as a
deceitful device. It is a fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that presupposes
the truth of some proposition hidden within the question. Usually it is used so that
any answer made by the target affirms the hidden question and thus makes him
susceptible to attack via the hidden question.
Example:
Have you already stopped gambling? (Assumes that you are a gambler, and by
saying yes or no, you affirm that you are a gambler.)
Where did you hide the book you stole from the library?
Who is the King of the Philippines? (Assumes that there is a place called the
Philippines and that there is a current King of that place.)
Case Example:
Source: People v. Marra

G.R. No. 108494 September 20,1994

Having received information that a man in a security guards uniform was involved
in the incident, they sought information from a security guard of a nearby bus
terminal. Said security guard pointed them to Marra, who at that time was eating in
a carinderia nearby. Informed by Marra that his gun was at his residence, they all
went to Marras residence to get the same. After receiving said firearm, De Vera
asked appellant why he killed Tandoc but Marra initially denied any participation in

24

the killing. Nevertheless, when confronted with the fact that somebody saw him do
it, Marra admitted the act although he alleged it was done in self-defense.
Explanation:
De Vera asked Marra a complex question by asking why he killed Tandoc? The
question was complex because it immediately concludes a fact of the case however
Marra answers. If he answers the question whether affirmatively or negatively, it
either concludes that he is the one to kill Tandoc, or he has knowledge of the killing,
or that he knows a person called Tandoc.
Furthermore, the courts decision says that only questions of general inquiry are
acceptable as evidence or as confession because they are spontaneous statements
and not elicited through questioning or through custodial investigation. The court
accepted this statement as a confession. However, the question is obviously not a
general inquiry by its specific wording alone. De Vera got around the constitutional
rights of Marra by hiding the direct inquiry in a non-custodial setting in Marras own
home.

25

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

Also sometimes called a circular argument or circular reasoning. This fallacy is to
assume the truth of what one seeks to prove and in the effort to do so the conclusion
is stated or assumed within one of the premises. It is any form of argument where
the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Petition principia has premises
not irrelevant to the conclusion but are completely worthless.
Example:
Fred is an honest man. I know this is true since Fred told me so himself, and an
honest man like Fred surely wouldnt lie about something like that.
If an action is not illegal, then it would not be prohibited by law.
God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is written by God.
Case Example:
Source: People v. Parojinog

G.R. No. L-95850 November 18, 1991

In the instant case, the records show that no objection was voiced by the accused
throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and afterwards when he
subscribed to its veracity before City Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus he
apparently acquiesced to the choice of the investigators.

26

Explanation:
The conclusion of the argument was that the accused acquiesced to the choice of
counsel for him that was chosen by the police investigators. The root word is
acquiesce. The definition of the word in the dictionary is to accept, agree, or allow
something to happen by staying silent and not arguing. In the first sentence the
accused essentially stayed silent and therefore he acquiesced. This is a petitio
precipii
IV.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
A fallacy caused by a shift or confusion of meanings within an argument. Also called
sophisms. This may happen as a result of inattention or by deliberate manipulation.
It can only happen when a conclusion is based on the changes.
Equivocation
A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different
parts of an argument. This happens because depending on the use of a word, it may
have completely different meanings.
Example:

Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all
murder trials are illegal.

The actions of the Nazis against the Jews during the Holocaust are inhuman,
therefore all Nazis are monsters.

27

Case Example:
Source: People v. Samuels
It is also the rule that the apparent consent of a person without legal capacity to
give consent, such as a child or insane person, is ineffective. It is a matter of common
knowledge that a normal person in full possession of his mental faculties does not
freely consent to the use, upon himself, of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
Even if it be assumed that the victim in the . . . film did in fact suffer from some form
of mental aberration which compelled him to submit to a beating which was so
severe as to constitute an aggravated assault, defendant's conduct in inflicting that
beating was no less violative of a penal statute obviously designed to prohibit one
human being from severely or mortally injuring another. It follows that the trial
court was correct in instructing the jury that consent was not a defense to the
aggravated assault charge.
Explanation:
This is a particularly subtle example of equivocation because the word whose
meaning shifts is not repeated in the argument. One premise of the argument is that
consenting to the use of force against oneself that is likely to produce injury is not
normal. That premise seems clearly acceptable, if "normal" means "conforming to
the norm"-certainly most persons do not so consent. The second premise is that a
person who is insane cannot give effective consent. To conclude from these
premises that the victim in Samuels could not consent, the second premise must be
28

rephrased as "a person who is not normal cannot give effective consent." That
premise is acceptable if "not normal" means "insane"; however, the premise is not
acceptable if "not normal" means "not conforming to the norm in some way"
because many people who do not conform to norms can give effective consent. Thus,
although a person who enjoys sexual deviance is not normal, i.e., does not conform
to the norm, such a person may not be insane and, hence, still may be able to give
effective consent.
Amphiboly
It is a fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words can be interpreted
more than one way; the argument contains a premise based on one interpretation
while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation. Amphiboly comes from the
Greek for two in a lump or doubleness of a lump Amphiboly is caused when its
meaning is indeterminate because of loose or awkward grammar.
Example:
To be repaired is the rocking chair of an old lady with two broken legs.
Going up the stage, the crowd applauded the newly elected President.

29

Case Example:
Source: G.R. No. 206666 Risos-vidal v. Estrada
IN VIEW HEREOF and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the
Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Plunder and imposed a penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights. (Excerpt from the
full text of the pardon of former Pres. Estrada)
Explanation:
There is a conflicting opinion between the majority of the SC justices and J. Leonen,
the lone dissenter, on whether the pardon extended by former Pres. Arroyo to
former Pres. Estrada is an absolute pardon or not.
The sentence that followed, which states that (h)e is hereby restored to his civil
and political rights, expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41
of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were
expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
(Majority opinion by J. Leonardo-De Castro)

30

There was no express remission and/or restoration of the rights of suffrage and/or
to hold public office in the pardon granted to former President Estrada, as required
by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. (Dissenting opinion of J. Leonen)
Accent
An argument may prove to be deceptive, and invalid, when the shift of meaning
within it arises from changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. When a
premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion
is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently.
(1)It can also happen when a phrase or passage is taken out of its original context
and then given a different meaning because of a different context. (2)
Examples of (1):
I didnt take the test yesterday. (Somebody else did)
I didnt take the test yesterday. (I did not take it)
I didnt take the test yesterday. (I did something else with it)
I didnt take the test yesterday. (I took a different one)
I didnt take the test yesterday. (I took something else)
I didnt take the test yesterday. (I took it some other day)
Examples of (2):
This politician is really bent on amending the Constitution in order to extend his
term of office. On one occasion he said: There is a need to revise some
provisions in the Constitution.

31

 Here, the words of the politician were possibly taken out of context if the
provisions of the Constitution which he wanted to change do not have anything
to do with extending his term of office.
Case Example:
Source: J. People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786 (January 20, 2004)
I only asked him but it was not written down.
Explanation:
In this case, for the confession to be admissible, it must satisfy one of requisites that
the confession must be done in writing. The statement above is the response of
SPO1 Reyes during the cross-examination when he was asked if his investigation
was being recorded in the police station.
If the stress is on the word it, then the investigation was not written down thus the
requirement is not met because something else might have been written down.
If the stress is on the word written, then the police investigator did something else
with the investigation like recording it in tape which will still not satisfy the
requirement.

32

Composition
A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts
of a whole, to the attributes of the whole. Two types: reasoning fallaciously from the
attributes of the parts of a whole to the whole itself [or] reasoning from attributes of
the individual elements or members of a collection to attributes of the collection or
totality of those elements.

Example of 1:
An atom does not have a brain; you are made of atoms, so you dont have a
brain.
The parts of the show, from the special effects to the acting are masterpieces.
So, the whole show is a masterpiece.
Example of 2:

Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. are two of the best boxers in the
world, so they would also be two of the best boxers if they participated in other
combat sports.

Not necessarily true because boxing is only one skill set which differs in
different combat sports.

Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team is a
great team.

33

Case Example:
Source: 65 Wis. 2d 83 (1974) 221 N.W.2d 915 FALK, by Guardian ad litem, and
another, Respondents, v. CITY OF WHITEWATER, Defendant: PECK, Appellant No. 226.
The appellant argues that the making of a fist is an intentional act "and that any
further act resulting there from is likewise intentional." Even assuming that the
making of a fist is necessarily an intentional act, to reason that the striking of
someone with that fist is therefore necessarily likewise intentional is a non sequitur.
Almost all negligent conduct is composed of individual intentional components; to
constitute an intentional tort, however, the actor must intend the consequences of
his acts, or believe that they are substantially certain to follow. Restatement, 1 Torts
2d, p. 15, sec. 8 A. While a driver may intentionally step on the accelerator and
intentionally steer his car into the passing lane, a resulting collision with an
oncoming car is not ipso facto intentional on the driver's part.
Explanation:
The court treated the argument as an inference from each part of an event being
intentional to the whole act being intentional and, therefore, rejected the inference
made by the appellant. This is a fallacy of composition because it treats the attribute
of voluntariness of a part of an act as voluntariness to perform the entire act.

34

Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to
the attributes of parts of the whole. Reverse of fallacy of composition. Inference
proceeds from the whole to the parts. Two kinds: arguing fallaciously that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its parts [or] arguing from the attributes of a
collection of elements to the attributes of the elements themselves.
Example of 1:
His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood, therefore,
his doors must all be about 3 feet high.
The size of a whole house is not directly related to the size of every part of the
house.
Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely eaten. Therefore its constituent
elements, sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten.
Sodium and chlorine should not be eaten in their original forms.
Example of 2:
People in the cities use more electricity that people in the provinces. So Juan
who lives in a tent in Metro Manila uses more electricity than Raul who lives in a
mansion in the province.

35

Case Example:
Source: State Department of Environmental Protection v. Jersey Central Power & Light
CO.
A malfunction at the defendant's nuclear power plant caused a large quantity of
cold water to be discharged into an adjoining creek, killing a large number of fish.
The defendant argued that the cold water discharged from the plant was not a
hazardous substance under the statutory definition. According to the defendant, the
statute "must be construed to prohibit only those substances which by their
chemical composition are hazardous, deleterious, destructive or poisonous, no
matter how small the amount discharged."
Explanation:
In essence, the defendant committed the fallacy of division by arguing that
hazardous substances include only those substances such that if the whole is
hazardous, then any quantity of the substance must be hazardous. Using this
interpretation, the defendant then attacked the statutory definition with the fallacy
of composition: because a small amount of cold water is not hazardous, neither is a
large amount. 155 The court rejected the defendant's interpretation as fallacious.

36