1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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 Governor-

General 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

5

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, I’m 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 couldn’t 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.”

6

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.

7

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 don’t 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 don’t want Malacaňang to reduce your country-

wide development fund which will finance the infrastructure projects in your

town.” (obvious, not physical)

8

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.

9

The Senate then deliberated and adopted the resolution of May 15 hereinabove

quoted whereby the petitioner was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-

Arms 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 person’s 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

10

suggests that the opponent’s 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 who’s talking. Last week

you were late twice remember?” (circumstantial)

“I don’t 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 Jehova’s 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

11

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.

12

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 opponent’s 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.

13

Example:

“Dad, you are looking at the national laser tag champion… and my sperm don’t

work” (Character Barney Stinson’s example of demonstrating how to tell your father

you can’t 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.

14

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.”

15

“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 Valino’s claim that Atty.

Adriano’s 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. Adriano’s

remains be transferred from the Valino family’s mausoleum to Rosario’s 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

petitioner’s 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.

16

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 judge’s 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

17

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.”

18

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.”

19

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.”

20

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.”

21

Explanation:

This part of the decision of the court generalized two things from the particular

situation of children belonging to the religious sect of Jehovah’s 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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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 guard’s 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 Marra’s residence to get the same. After receiving said firearm, De Vera

asked appellant why he killed Tandoc but Marra initially denied any participation in

25

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 court’s 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 Marra’s own

home.

26

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 wouldn’t 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.”

27

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.”

28

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

29

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.”

30

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)

31

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 didn’t take the test yesterday. (Somebody else did)

I didn’t take the test yesterday. (I did not take it)

I didn’t take the test yesterday. (I did something else with it)

I didn’t take the test yesterday. (I took a different one)

I didn’t take the test yesterday. (I took something else)

I didn’t 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.’”

32

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.

33

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 don’t 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.”

34

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.

35

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 ½ 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.”

36

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.