Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW

SUMMARY OF REPORTS
IN
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
(CHAPTER 5: FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING)

Submitted by:
Ms. MENNE TESALONA
Mr. JOHN KENNIE ANTRAJENDA
Ms. MARIAN C. RAPADAS
STUDENTS, BACHELOR OF LAWS

Submitted to:
JUDGE MAXIMO M. DE LEON
PROFESSOR

APRIL 07, 2016

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 1

FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING


Fallacy comes from the Latin word FALLACIA meaning deceit. In laymans term it is a
misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood which is commonly accepted and believed.
Example: Sleeping while your hair is wet will lead you to blindness.
In logic, fallacy is not a false belief but a mistake or error in thinking and reasoning. A passage
maybe composed of entirely true statements or beliefs but it is a fallacy if the kind of thinking or
reasoning used in that kind of passage is illogical or erroneous. A fallacious argument is one that
may appear correct, but on examination proves not to be so. Even if the premise and conclusion
are all correct, an argument may still be fallacious if the reasoning used to reach that conclusion
is not logically valid.
For would be lawyers, we have to be aware of the different kinds of fallacies, not only in
strengthening our legal writing skills and styles but to win our cases and our advocacies. Spotting
or knowing these fallacies, we will avoid being fooled or mislead.
TWO (2) KINDS OF FALLACIES:
1. Formal
2. Informal
FORMAL FALLACIES in deductive arguments are identifiable through mere inspection of the
form. We can see that the argument is not logical because of its content.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
2. Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence
3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY are committed because of a misuse of language. The


meaning of a keyword or phrase shifts and changes, so that the terms do not really match up
within the argument.
KINDS OF FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
1. Equivocation
2. Amphiboly
3. Improper Accent
Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 2

4. Vicious Abstraction
5. Composition
6. Division
1. EQUIVOCATION
Example: Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can avoid. It is an
integral part of human experience. People gamble every time they get in their
cars or decide to get married.
No man will take counsel, but every man will take money.
The equivocation here was shown if we replace- No man will heed advice but every man will
heed money. The unclear language between two meanings is fallacious.
Applied to law, because language can be interpreted in multiple ways, it is important for the
court to always go back to the context in which the language in the law has been formulated.
2. AMPHIBOLY - Presenting a claim or argument where meaning can be interpreted in two or
more ways due to grammatical construction.
Examples:
1. CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice
2. I give and bequeath the sum of Php500,000 to my nieces Angel Ramos and Rosie Quintos.
This is subject to different interpretation as the nieces would be asking for Php500,000 each
while the lawyer would interpret it as the Php500,000 would be divided between Angel and
Rosie.
3. IMPROPER ACCENT - can also be found in headlines and any form of discourse. This
fallacy consist in misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase, or
particular aspect of an issue or claim.
Examples:
1. President to declare Martial Law.
2. Art. 14 (1936 Hague Convention on questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws)
A CHILD WHOSE PARENTS ARE BOTH UNKNOWN SHALL HAVE THE
NATIONALITY OF BIRTH.
Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 3

Petition claims that this convention is evidence of generally accepted principles of


international law which allegedly created the presumption that a foundling is a citizen at
birth of the state in which foundling is found.
Art. 14 merely lays down the presumption that a foundling is born in the territory of the
state in which the foundling is found.
4. VICIOUS ABSTRACTION misleads people by using vague or abstract terms. Fallacy
occurs when vague words are misused.
Example: If we wished to argue an employees claim that she is overworked, we must know
precisely what it means to be overlooked before we can know whether the counter evidence
we might have weakens or refutes the claim.
5. COMPOSITION fallacy inferring that what holds the true of the individual automatically
holds true of the group. Or when we mistakenly impute attribute a part of whole to the whole
itself.
Examples:
1. A lawyer earns money than a secretary. Therefore all lawyers earn more than all
secretaries.
2. The prosecution has offered nothing but circumstantial evidence. As we have seen, not
one of these pieces of evidence conclusively proved that my client committed the robbery.
Therefore, the prosecution has not carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fallacy here is imputing an attribute of each individual piece of evidence (insufficiency
to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt) to the totality of the evidence. However, the sum of
the evidence, considered together, may well prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
6. DIVISION this is merely the reverse of composition. This fallacy consists in wrongly
assuming that what is true is general is true in particular.
Examples:
1. To argue that since PNP is one of the corrupt agencies of the government, therefore those
three (3) policemen cannot be trusted.
Although PNP is an agency who has high ranking in surveys in terms of incidence of
corruption, it does not mean that the individual members are corrupt.

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 4

2. A rope is strong and can easily support the weight of a full-grown person. A rope is
nothing but a collection of individual strands. Therefore, a strand of rope is strong and
can easily support the weight of a full-grown person.
A strand is being attributed to the whole strength of rope.
3. SG insisted that the Petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen based on 99.93%
statistical probability that any child born in the Philippines for 2010-2014 would be a
natural-born Filipino citizen. From 1965 to 1975, there is 99.83% statistical probability
that a child born in the Philippines would be a natural-boar Filipino citizens.
If there is 99.83% probability that a child born in the Philippines is a natural-born
Filipino citizen, it does not automatically follow that there is 99.83% probability that a
foundling born in the Philippines is a natural born Filipino citizen. The data, if any, in
the universe of foundlings may show a different statistical probability. Since the figures
were collected from a universe of children with known parents, either Filipino or
foreigners, and not from the universe of foundlings, the SG proposition is fallacious in
concluding that foundlings in the Philippines are natural born Filipino citizens.

FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
KINDS OF FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
1. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Personal Attack)
-

This fallacy ignores the issue by focusing on certain characteristics of an opponent.


Instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponent, this argument makes the
opponent the issue.

TWO (2) KINDS OF ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM


1. Abusive
2. Circumstantial

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 5

ABUSIVE ARGUMENTIUM AD HOMINEM


-

This fallacy attacks the argument based on the arguers reputation, personality or some
personal shortcoming.
Xs statement must be wrong because X is a socialist

Example: (abusive ad hominem)


According to this action star, he supports the death penalty because it is an effective
deterrence against murder. He is just an actor and knows nothing about penalty. Besides, he
likes violence as shown by his many movies which depict a lot of killings.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM
-

This fallacy consists in defending ones proposition by accusing his or her critic or other
people of doing the same thing. This is called tu quoque which means youre another
or you yourself do it.
Jenny, dont have any romantic relationship while youre still in college, But
Mom, you and dad were already in a relationship when you were college students.
Let us examine the following argument:
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 like
NAPOCOR and MWSS to the private sector.
Atty. Mane vs. Judge Belen (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119)
Santos vs. Aranzanso (GR. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982)

2. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM (Appeal to Pity)


-

This fallacy convinces the people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when
such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguers
conclusion.
A classic example of this fallacy is the closing speech of Clarence Darrow when he
defended Thomas Kidd, a union official on trial for criminal conspiracy.

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 6

I appeal to you not for Thomas Kidd, but I appeal to you for the long line the
long, long line reaching back through the ages and forward to the years to come
the long line of despoiled and downtrodden people of the earth. I appeal to you
for those men who rise in the morning before daylight comes and who go home at
night when light has faded from the sky and give their life, their strength, their toil
to make others rich and great. I appeal to you in the name of those women who
are offering up their lives to this modern god of gold, and I appeal to you in the
name of those children, the living and the unborn.
3. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (Appeal to Force)
-

This fallacy consists in persuading others to accept a position by using threat or pressure
instead of presenting evidence for ones view.
Example:
Cabinet secretary to a congressman: The President wants the Congress to pass this
bill. I think you have to support it. Of course, you dont want Malacaan to reduce
your Priority Development Assistance Fund which will finance your infrastructure
projects in your town.

4. PETITIO PRINCIPII (Begging the Question)


-

The fallacy of assuming as a premise a statement which has the same meaning as the
conclusion.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PETITIO PRINCIPII
1. Arguing in Circle
2. Question-begging Language
3. Complex Question
ARGUING IN CIRCLE
-

This type of begging-the-question fallacy states or assumes as a premise the very


thing that should be proven in the conclusion.
Illustration:
Gina: This person has committed bribery.
Jeff: What reasons do you have that will convince me that your claim is true?
Gina: Because he tried to influence a public official by giving money.

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 7

QUESTION-BEGGING LANGUAGE
-

The fallacy consists in discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a


position of the very question at issue, in such a way as to direct the listener to that
same conclusion.
Example:
Prosecutor to witness:
Would you tell us, Ms. Diaz, about the nature of your relationship with the
rapist, Mr. Sanchez?

LEADING QUESTION
-

Directing the respondent to give a particular answer to a question at issue by the


manner in which the question is asked.

Usually involves asking only one question

The question is simply begging the respondent to come to the same conclusion.
Illustrations:
Do you want that the enduring partnership between these two great companies will
end over something as trivial as this?
You were outside the country when the crime was committed, werent you?

FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE


When does it happen?
-

It happens when the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support his
or her claim.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF FALLACIES that relates to INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE


1. Argumentum and Antiquum (Appeal to the Ages)
2. Argumentum and Verecundiam (Appeal to the Inappropriate Authority)
3. Accident
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Arguing from Ignorance)
6. False Dilemma

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 8

1. ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUUM (Appeal to the Ages)


-

This fallacy attempts to persuade others of a certain belief by appealing to their


feelings or reverence or respect for some tradition, instead of giving rational basis for
such belief.

EXAMPLE:
There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have practiced it since time
immemorial. Do you mean to tell me that they were wrong all the while?
2. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM (Appealing to Inappropriate Authority)
-

This fallacy consists of persuading others by appealing to people who command


respect or authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at hand.
How to determine whether the fallacy of inappropriate authority is present?
- In determining whether the fallacy of inappropriate authority is present, one has to
pay attention on the background or circumstances of the supposed authority
being relied on with regard to a particular issue.

3. ACCIDENT (Exception)
-

This fallacy consists in applying a general rule to a particular case when


circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule should apply.
How to determine if we need to apply the exceptions rather than the general
rule?
-

In determining whether we need to apply the exceptions rather than the general
rule, we need to know the exceptional facts or special circumstances that are
present in the particular case. Examine very carefully the purpose of the
principle or rule and then discuss how the exceptions would be in order when
that purpose is not being violated or when it is superseded by more important
conflicting principle.

EXAMPLE:
In the law of Evidence, there are many exceptions to the HEARSAY RULE:
1. A dying declaration
2. A statement against interest or
3. A statement of a family history
In applying the general hearsay rule to these exceptions is to commit the fallacy of
accident or dicto simpliciter
Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 9

4. HASTY GENERALIZATION (Converse Accident)


-

This fallacy consists in drawing a general or universal conclusion from insufficient


particular case.
Hasty Generalization - the premises used to support its conclusion may be
acceptable and relevant but they are not enough or adequate to establish it. It moves
carelessly or too quickly from the insufficient of evidence to the conclusion.

EXAMPLE:
Issue regarding the COC filed by Poe in 2012 that she stated was six (6) years and six
(6) months period of residence in the Philippines and while the period of her residency
in her 2015 COC is ten (10) years and eleven (11) months by May 9, 2016.
The SC ruled that it was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to treat the 2012
COC as a binding and conclusive admission against petitioner. IT could be given in
evidence against her, yes, but it was by no means conclusive. There is precedent after
all where a candidates mistake as to a period of residence made in a COC was overcome
by evidence. The SC cited the cased of Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
In ROMUALDEZ-COMELEC
- The candidate mistakenly put seven (7) months as per period of residence
where the required period was a minimum of one year. SC ruled that it is
the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which
ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has
satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement.
The COMELEC ought to have looked at the evidence presented and see if petitioner was
telling the truth that she was in the Philippines from May 24, 2005. Had the COMELEC
done its duty, it would have seen that the 2012 COC and the 2015 COC both correctly
stated the pertinent period of residency.

The COMELEC, by its own admission,

disregarded the evidence that petitioner actually and physically returned here on May 24,
2005 not because it was false, but only because COMELEC took the position that
domicile could be established only from petitioners repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 in
July 2006. However, it does not take away the fact that in reality, petitioner had returned
from the U.S. and was here to stay permanently, on May 24, 2005. When she claimed to
have been a resident for ten (10) years and eleven (11) months, she could do so in GOOD
FAITH.
Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 10

5. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIAM (Arguing from Ignorance)


-

This fallacy consists in assuming that a particular claim is true because its opposite
cannot be proven.
Arguing from ignorance means using the absence of evidence against a
claim as justification that it is true or using the absence of evidence for a
claim as evidence that it is false. In short, it is treating the absence of
evidence as if it were the presence of evidence

6. FALSE DILEMMA
-

This fallacy arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice
between two alternatives and assumes that they are exhaustive when in fact they are
not. Alternatives are exhaustive when they cover all the possibilities (meaning, these
are the only choice we have).

EXAMPLE: Argument in passing the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL)


The President stated his support without providing for alternatives:
Perhaps it is easy for you to push for all-out war because Luzon and Visayas are
far from the conflict. But if the conflict grows, the number of Filipinos shooting at
other Filipinos will grow, and it would not be out of the question that a friend or
loved one would be one of the people who will end up inside the body bag
-

The President prematurely and unilaterally closes out other options including revising
and improving the measure or negotiating a new peace agreement that will include all
stakeholders in Mindanao and Sulu. He seeks to scare the house of Congress into passing
the BBL, and the public into supporting the measure.

The proponent of the argument tries to justify a questionable action by creating a false
sense of necessity, to force a choice between two options, when there are other possible
options.
source: www.manilatimes.net/bbl-or-body-bags-is-a-false-choice/177770

Legal Technique and Logic

PCU College of Law

Page 11

Вам также может понравиться