Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Types of Fallacies

Here are a few well-known kinds of fallacies you might experience


when making an argument:
1. Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to ignorance happens when one individual utilizes another
individuals lack of information on a specific subject as proof that his or
her own particular argument is right.
2. Appeal to Authority
This sort of error is also known as Argumentum Verecundia
(argument from modesty). Instead of concentrating on the benefits of
an argument, the arguer will attempt to append their argument to an
individual of power or authority in an effort to give trustworthiness to
their argument.
3. Appeal to Popular Opinion
This sort of appeal is when somebody asserts that a thought or
conviction is correct since it is the thing that the general population
accept.
4. Association Fallacy
Sometimes called guilt by affiliation, this happens when somebody
connects a particular thought or drill to something or somebody
negative so as to infer blame on another individual.
5. Attacking the Person
Also regarded as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the
man), this is a common fallacy used during debates where an
individual substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.
6. Begging the Question
The conclusion of a contention is accepted in the statement of the
inquiry itself.
7. Circular Argument
This fallacy is also known as Circulus in Probando. This error is
committed when an argument takes its evidence from an element
inside the argument itself instead of from an outside one.
8. Relationship Implies Causation Fallacy
Also called Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this fallacy is a deception in
which the individual making the contention joins two occasions that
happen consecutively and accepts that one made the other.
9. False Dilemma/Dichotomy
Sometimes called Bifurcation, this sort of error happens when
somebody presents their argument in such a way that there are just
two conceivable alternatives left.

10. Illogical conclusion


This is a fallacy wherein somebody attests a conclusion that does not
follow from the suggestions.
11. Slippery Slope
The error happens when one contends that an exceptionally minor
movement will unavoidably prompt great and frequently ludicrous
conclusions.
12. Syllogism Fallacy
This fallacy may also be used to form incorrect conclusions that are
odd. Syllogism fallacy is a false argument as it implies an incorrect
conclusion.

Fallacy Examples
To understand the different types of fallacies better, check out the
following examies of fallacy:
Example #1
Appeal to Ignorance
You cant demonstrate that there arent Martians living in caves on
the surface of Mars, so it is sensible for me to accept there are.
Example #2
Appeal to Authority
Well, Isaac Newton trusted in Alchemy, do you suppose you know
more than Isaac Newton?
Example #3
Appeal Popular Opinion
Lots of individuals purchased this collection, so it must be great.
literarydevices net example link
Example #4
Association Fallacy
Hitler was a veggie lover, in this way, I dont trust vegans.
Example #5
Attacking the Person
Dont listen to Eddies contentions on instruction, hes a simpleton.
Example #6
Begging the Question
If outsiders didnt take my daily paper, who did? (accept that the
daily paper was really stolen).
Example #7
Circular Argument

I accept that Frosted Flakes are incredible since it says as much on the
Frosted Flakes bundling.
Example #8
Relationship Implies Causation Fallacy
I saw a jaybird and ten minutes after the fact, I crashed my auto, in
this manner, jaybirds are terrible fortunes.
Example #9
False Dilemma/dichotomy
If you dont vote for this applicant, you must be a Communist.
Example #10
Illogical Conclusion
All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, in this manner,
he is not Irish.
Example #11
Slippery Slope
If we permit gay individuals to get hitched, whats afterward?
Permitting individuals to wed their pooches?
Example #12
Syllogism Fallacy
All crows are black and the bird in my cage is black. So, the bird in my
cage is a crow.

The unitary system


The unitary system, which revolves around a central
authority, is the system used in most presidential
and parliamentary countries today. Some refer to
this type as a top-to-bottom government since the
power comes from the top and trickles down to the
bottom.
This central government is in fact in charge of policy
making and is the ultimate law making body in the
land. In many cases like the Philippines, it delegates
these tasks to subsequent provincial and local
government units. These units implement enact laws
as mandated by the central agency.
The main advantage of the unitary system is
uniformity among the different local and provincial

governments. All major laws and policies are then


implemented the same regardless of the level of
government.
Local and national disputes are also less frequent.
Since the national government is the ultimate
governing body, local government units cannot enact
their own laws that could duplicate services or
undermine laws in effect. Much like a father with his
family, it is the central governments house, so its
rules must be followed.
The unitary system is not without skeletons in its
closet. One huge problem with this structure is that
the central agency cannot tackle local problems head
on. This is a problem since upon being carried out by
the local governments, specific needs are easily
overlooked in the smaller case analysis. Like a
stressed, overloaded brain of the human body, the
higher government is not able to specifically address
many local issues as it tries to balance its many
other responsibilities.
Local government units up to the provincial
government may also be ill-equipped to tackle local
concerns. Since the national government deals with
national problems and is responsible for budgeting of
sectors, it may allocate funds for bigger projects and
programs, leaving the local governments to fend for
themselves.
The federal
Running a country is obviously not an easy thing to
do.
There is an economy to be managed,
international relations to be mended, projects to be
implemented, and problems to be solved. There is

only so much a single governing body can handle,


and when macromanagement becomes too much for
a single body to handle, its time to divide and
conquer. This is the essence of a federation.
Unlike a nation under a unitary form of government,
a federal state is divided into several smaller, selfgoverned states or regions. These states function
almost like independent countries, and may even
have their own set of state-specific laws same-sex
marriage may be allowed in some but not in others,
for example but are directly concerned with
nationwide issues such as national defense or foreign
policy. Those issues are handled by a central
government, which acts like a governing body of the
smaller, state-governing bodies. The states and the
central government follow a set of rules and policies
that define their relationship and what can and
cannot be done by both.
The federal type of governance has many
advantages. Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Emeritus
Professor of Law at the University of Queensland,
explains some of these advantages. One of these is
the right of choice and exit by the citizens. A
federation citizen has greater freedom of choosing
and moving to a state that he or she considers
satisfactory. In a sense, movement by citizens inbetween states is an act of voting with their feet,
allowing people to compare different political
systems in the same country.
Another
advantage
is
the
possibility
of
experimentation.
Though
experimentation
is
definitely not a pleasant word to hear for a
leadership role where lives and resources are at
stake, the fact that states have some degree of

autonomy allows the central government to


determine which political system, laws, and policies
in effect work positively and maximize welfare.
The third advantage according to Walker, and
arguably also one of the most important, is the
accommodation
of
regional
preferences
and
diversity.
This advantage holds much more
significance in larger countries where culture and
lifestyles can differ across regions. By these means,
overall satisfaction can be maximized and the
winner-take-all problem alleviated, particularly in
policies wherein the populaces opinions are divided.
By not forcing culturally and ethnically different
people to make decisions that would go against their
beliefs and opinion, solidarity as a whole federation
may be achieved.
However, a federation is not without its blemishes.
Because each state government has its own style of
governance, citizens all over the federation will be
experiencing different levels of welfare.
The
competencies and efficiency of each state
government will also not be the same, potentially
creating further disunity. A policy exercised across
different states may differ in magnitude, like
penalties for criminal offenses. Finally, there is
always the possibility of disagreement and conflict
between state and central governments over
authority and power.
The idea of a United States of the Philippines has
fascinated several political minds enough for them to
fight for a conversion to the federal system. Back in
2008, the Senate proposed the Senate Joint
Resolution 10, which called for a convention for talks
about the shifting of the Philippine government from

a unitary body to a federal one.


Final verdict
Though the federal system offers many attractive
and highly applicable advantages, its benefits are
only realizable when properly implemented. The
unitary form of government still prevails because of
several reasons. Everyone is treated equally, and
alienation brought on by decentralization is avoided.
Rebellions and insurgency cases may be reduced in a
unitary system, as compared to a federal system.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the countrys
current level of alleged corruption and the existing
inefficiencies in the whole system render a
conversion to federal system infeasible.
As appealing as the United States of the Philippines
would sound, a conversion is not applicable just yet,
not until the people and the government itself are
prepared for the drastic change and the
responsibilities brought on by doing so.
A unitary form of government is a country that is ran
by a single unit of power, known as the central
government. This central government makes all of
the decisions, laws, and policies for the entire
country. This is a very commonly used form of
governance in the world, mainly due to its extreme
advantages that it offers. While it may seem all good,
there are some significant downfalls that should
definitely be taken into account when looking at
unitary government as a whole.

Advantages of Unitary
Government

1. A Uniformed Nation
One of the most advantageous points of a unitary

government is that everyone feels a sense of


belonging. It inspires uniformity among the states of
the nation, as well as patriotism because everyone
has a major thing in common. All of the laws and
policies span for the entire nation, so there is no
disdain over one state having more freedom or
liberties than others.
2. Quick Change is Good Change
Things can happen very quickly, and on a large scale,
within a unitary government. Since there is only one
branch of power, things do not have lengthy
processes to get through before being approved or
put into effect. This is extremely beneficial for the
entire nation.
3. Management Made Simple
Managing the economy of a country underneath a
unitary government is as easy as could be. Since all
of the laws pertaining to things like taxes span the
entire nation, it is simple to manage the fluctuations
of the economy.
4. Taxes Go To Better Use
In this form of government, there are no duplication
of any types of services. Often times there are
federal services available, as well as local
government efforts for the same services. This
wastes the tax payers money. Since there are no
local forms of government in a unitary government,
there is no duplication and thus less tax payer money
being spent on the same services.
5. Local Branches Are Possible
Many people argue that a unitary government is
ineffective because it overlooks local issues. The
government can still choose to allow local branches
of the government to be set up to deal with these

types of issues. This flexibility makes a unitary


government a wonderful option.

CONS

Possibly divisive. Healthy competition among states


can become alienating creating rivalries and promoting
the regionalism that some say already challenges the
sense of unity in the country. It could enflame hostilities
between ethnic groups in the country like Tagalogs,
Cebuanos, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tausugs, and
Zamboangueos.

Uneven development among states. Some states

may not be as ready for autonomy as others. Some


states may not be as rich in natural resources or skilled
labor as others. States with good leaders will progress
faster while states with ineffective ones will degrade more
than ever because national government will not be there
to balance them out.
But in some federal countries, the national government
doles out funds to help poorer states. A proposed
Equalization Fund will use a portion of tax from rich
states to be given to poorer states.

Confusing overlaps in jurisdiction. Where does the

responsibility of state governments end and where does


the responsibility of the national government begin?
Unless these are very clearly stated in the amended
Constitution, ambiguities may arise, leading to conflict
and confusion. For instance, in times of disaster, what is
the division of responsibilities between state and national
governments?

May not satisfy separatists in Mindanao.


Separatists are calling for their own country, not just a

state that still belongs to a larger federal Philippines.


Federalism may not be enough for them. After all, the
conflict continues despite the creation of the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao.
Conflict of Authority
Sharing of power between the center and the states
includes both advantages and disadvantages of a federal
organization. Sometimes there can be overlapping of
work and subsequent confusion regarding who is
responsible for what. For example, when Hurricane
Katrina hit Greater New Orleans, USA, in 2005, there was
delay in the rescue work, as there was confusion between
the state governments and the federal government on
who is responsible for which disaster management work.
This resulted in the loss of many lives.
Can Lead to Corruption
Federal system of government is very expensive as more
people are elected to office, both at the state and the
center, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that only rich
countries can afford it. Too many elected representatives
with overlapping roles may also lead to corruption.
Pitches State vs State
Federalism leads to unnecessary competition between
different regions. There can be a rebellion by a regional
government against the national government too. Both
scenarios pose a threat to the country's integrity.

Uneven Distribution of Wealth


It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources,
industries, employment opportunities differ from region
to region. Hence, earnings and wealth are unevenly
distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and
benefits to its citizens than poor states. Thus, the gap
between rich and poor states widens.
Promotes Regionalism
It can make state governments selfish and concerned
only about their own region's progress. They can
formulate policies which might be detrimental to other
regions. For example, pollution from a province which is
promoting industrialization in a big way can affect
another region which depends solely on agriculture and
cause crop damage.
Framing of Incorrect Policies
Federalism does not eliminate poverty. Even in New York,
there are poor neighborhoods like Inwood. The reason
for this may be that intellectuals and not the masses are
invited by the local government during policy framing.
These intellectuals may not understand the local needs
properly and thus, policies might not yield good results.