Legal Technique and Logic December 6 – Tuesday

FALLACIES
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A fallacious argument is one that may appear correct, but on
examination proves not to be so. Even if the premises and conclusion are all correct, an
argument may still be fallacious if the reasoning used to reach that conclusion is not logically
valid.
They are not necessarily the opposite of the truth.

RHETORICAL FALACIES

1. The fallacy of accent

The failure on your part to properly pronounce the words therefor causing them to convey a
different meaning.
This fallacy is committed when by reason of your accent, the meaning of a proposition has been
misinterpreted.
Example:
Proceed or Proceeds
Proceed is a verb signifying to continue with a specific action.
Proceeds are money obtained from an event or activity.

2. Amphibology
Arises from faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to
miscomprehension. The use of ambiguous pronouns and dangling participle phrases often give
rise to this fallacy.
Example:
The notorious Chinese had been arrested by the policeman who robbed the bank.
- “who” is ambiguously used; policeman is the antecedent.
FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION

1. Petitio Principii
In this fallacy of presumption, the arguer assumes the truth of the proposition which is in
essence the same as the conclusion which he seeks to establish.

a. Assumption Non-probata
It is the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. It arises when the arguer uses the
conclusion to be proved as the means of proving.
Ex.
“All persons who have killed other persons must be electrocuted.”
“Mr. Chinese has killed a person.”
- either Mr. Chinese committed a crime or had killed only for self-defense
“Mr. Chinese must be electrocuted.”
- self-defense cannot be sentenced to death, therefore a Fallacy

b. Circulus In Probando
It is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
It is a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof
or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways
to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the
conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.
Ex.
Your answer is correct because it is the same as my answer.
- This failed to persuade why the answer is correct.
Whatever is less dense than the Chinese will float, because whatever is less dense than the
Chinese will float.
- It circled itself to answer it, again it failed to persuade why less dense objects will
float for it is lacking in more convincing evidence.
 2. Ignorantio Elenchi

It is the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was
intended or required.
when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a
different conclusion.

a. Argumentum Ad Hominem
This fallacy is committed when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or
other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,
rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ex.
A: “All Chinese are criminals, but a non-Chinese isn’t a Chinese, and so can’t be a criminal.”
B: “Well, you’re a criminal and a Chinese, so there goes your argument.”
This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his
argument.

b. Argumentum Ad Populum
This fallacy is committed when the disputant evades the real question and appeals to the passion
or prejudices of his hearers.
Ex.
On the question why the Chinese should not be able to do free business in the Philippines, the
arguer, ignoring the real question, contends by describing the Chinese as incompetent, and ugly.

3. Argumentum ad Envidiam
It is committed when an arguer ignores the real question, and instead wins favor for his
argument by inflaming his audience with hatred and rancor.
Ex.
“How can we say the trading alliance between China and the Philippines will prosper when the
Chinese have had a history of being untrustworthy thieves to the Filipinos, and they are currently
pumping our country with their lousy made goods?”
 - The arguer fails to assail the effectivity of the trading alliance proposition, rather he is
filling the audience with hatred. Although it may be true China is selling Chinese made
scam products, but the purpose of the trading alliance may be to answer that.

- We cannot prohibit absolutely harsh words, for they may be necessary in describing
actual events that require such magnitude in definition.

4. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam
Also known as “appeal to pity”. This is committed when the arguer ignores the controversy –
in fact; he may admit the contention of his opponent and he appeals to pity and
commiseration instead.
Ex.
“Oh, Officer, there’s no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast and almost hit
that Chinese man. It’s because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in
serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.”

- The man admitted he was going too fast whilst appealing to pity from the officer. It
still does not excuse him from getting the ticket for a speeding violation.

5. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
This fallacy is committed when the arguer ignores the question at issue, and asserts that a case
that he has not yet established is good because his opponent cannot disprove it. It is a case of
shifting the burden of proof.
Ex.
“I maintain that there are Chinese people because you cannot disprove there are no Chinese
people.”
- Lacking of evidence to disprove the existence of Chinese people cannot be used as an
argument to prove their existence. Such statement is a fallacy.

6. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
It is a fallacious argument that which inspires reverence. This is committed when the arguer
contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by a person who commands
respect and reverence.
In this fallacy, the error lies in the opinion of the person, not because he is a recognized authority
on the matter of dispute, but because he occupies an exalted position or because he is revered
by people in general.
It is an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise.
Ex.

“Chinese man is a winner of two unshared Nobel prizes, one for chemistry, another for peace,
stated his daily medication of Vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years.
Therefore, vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.”

- Winning Nobel Prizes in chemistry and for peace does not imply expertise in the
prevention of disease.

“My Chinese 5th grade teacher once told me that girls will go crazy for boys if they learn how to
dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies go crazy for you, learn to dance.”

- Even if the 5th grade teacher were an expert on relationships, her belief about what
makes girls “go crazy” for boys is speculative, or perhaps circumstantial, at best.

7. Argument from tradition and custom

(Relate to Art. 6,7,17 of the Civil Code)

Or known as appeal to tradition. Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in
general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the
historical preference is correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with
no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it
is an absence of a reason.

This fallacy is committed when the arguer ignores the real question and maintains that his
contention is valid because tradition and custom justify it.

Custom is still a question of fact. In the absence of codified laws; customs may suffice only if they
are established to be actual customs.

Ex.

“We have been doing X for generations. Therefore, we should keep doing X.”

“Our ancestors thought X was right. Therefore, X is right.”

 8. Argumentum Ad Judiciam

Also known as the Fallacy of the General rule. It is a fallacious argument where appeal is made to
common sense and the judgment of people as a validating point.

this fallacy assumes that something is true in general, it is also true in every possible case.
Ex.
The debater contends that theory of man’s evolution is the real means of man ‘s existence -
because the majority believe on that.

9. Argumentum Ad Baculum (Arguing with a stick)

Essentially it is: “Agree with me, or I hurt you.”

It is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the
acceptance of a conclusion.
It derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is
not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat
rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the
argument.
Ex.

“Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new
department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’”

“I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I
receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to
the janitorial division of this corporation.”

10. Argumentum Ex Concessio

It is an argument from a previous admission. This fallacy arises when the disputant ignores the
real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously
admitted it to be so.
 11. Fallacy of a Complex Question

A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one
asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is
a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question,
and accepts it as a fact.

Ex.

“How many times per day do you beat your wife?”

- Even if the response is an emphatic, “none!”, the damage has been done. If you are
hearing this question, you are more likely to accept the possibility that the person
who was asked this question is a wife-beater, which is fallacious reasoning on your
part.

12. Non-Sequitor

This fallacy arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise, without having a valid
connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the
conclusion.

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be
when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the
conclusion.
Ex.

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in
homes would be a great idea!

- As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from
the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that
they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they
shouldn’t flood their houses.