Mcd Persuasiveness

LEGAL WRITINGATTY. MARILYN P. CACHO-DOMINGO

LPU-College of LawSchool Year 2015 - 2016

PERSUASIVENESS

“If you wish to win a man over to your ideas, first make him your friend.”

-Abraham Lincoln

Purpose:

To be able to write persuasively by using any of the four modes of legal reasoning: a) rule-based reasoning; b) analogical (and the counter-analogical reasoning); c) policy-based reasoning; and d) the narrative reasoning.

I. PERSUASION

Persuasion is a process where people are guided towards the adoption of an idea or course of action. In legal writing a persuasive document attempts to influence the deciding authority to favorably decide the case in favor of one’s client. The deciding authority is usually the Judge. However, he may also be the arbiter (in an arbitration dispute), commissioner, hearing officer, mediator or the other party to the dispute.

II. MODES OF LEGAL REASONING

Reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from facts or evidence. To reach the desired conclusion, arguments and proofs may be used.

There are four modes of legal reasoning: a) rule-based reasoning; b) analogical (and the counter-analogical reasoning); c) policy-based reasoning; and d) the narrative reasoning.

Persuasiveness and Fallacy SY 2015-2016 Atty. Marilyn P. Cacho-Domingo | 1

A. Rule-based reasoning

In rule-based reasoning, the conclusion is reached by analyzing and applying the law, rule or legal principle.

Examples:

The law says: a contract is annullable where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to consent to a contract. 1 Albert was seventeen when he signed the contract. Therefore, Albert should not be bound by the contract because he signed it when he was a minor.

B. Analogical (and, by extension, the “counter-analogical”) reasoning

There are three possible types of analogical argument:

1. Arguing from precedent. This type of analogical argument happens when the conclusion is reached by showing similarities between the case decided by the Supreme Court and the case of the client. This is usually achieved by invoking the doctrine of stare decisis.2

The lawyer reasons by showing that there is a direct factual similarity between the case decided upon by the high court and his client’s case. If the Supreme Court decided the case this way, then the client’s case must be decided this way due to the similarities of facts. To put it conversely, my client’s case should be decided in “this manner” because after all, the Supreme Court in a case of similar facts also decided in “this manner”

1 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1390 states: “The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to ac contract….”Art. 1327: “The following cannot give consent to a contract; (1) Unemancipated minors…”

2 Stare decisis et non quieta movere” (Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled). Stare Decisis is the doctrine that, when the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable in a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same. Government v. Jalandoni, 44 O.G. 1840.


Examples:

In the case in question, Mario was sixteen when he signed the contract in 2009. However he lied about his age by misrepresenting himself to be 20. In a case of similar facts, Mercado v. Espiritu,3 the Supreme Court declared the deed of sale valid, and cannot annulled in spite the fact that two of the four parties were minors. The reason is, their misrepresentation about their age amounted to estoppel.4

2. Argument of same legal application. Analogical reasoning may also be used to show similarities that if the law applies to one area, it may be understood to apply to other similar areas. In a case that attempts to impose damages on the seller of immoveable or real property for failing to disclose a major defect of the property, the lawyer might argue that the law has imposed such duty on sellers of personal property as well. He might argue that rule for real and personal properties are the same.

a. Mutatis Mutandis

Mutatis mutandis5 is an example of argument using the same legal application. This happens when one compares multiple situations having multiple variables where some variables remain constant, while others are allowed to be changed. For example, the injunction in the ten commandments “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife” will apply mutatis mutandis to “thy neighbor’s husband” as well.

Article 111 of “The Law of the Sea” states: “The right of hot pursuit shall apply “mutatis mutandis” to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable

3 Mercado v. Espiritu, 37 Phil. 215.4 Estoppel is a rule of equity which renders an admission or representation conclusive upon the person making it and prevents him from denying the same in an action against a party who relied thereon. Singson v. Veloso, 52 O.G. 873.5 Latin: “The necessary changes having been made.”


in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zones.6

3. Argument using common sense analogy. Analogical arguments may be used by starting with something that everyone accepts.

Examples:

A person might argue that death penalty must be restored because the body of society is just like the body of a person. If a man has severe tooth ache, the logical way is to extract the tooth. A heinous criminal is just like the bad tooth.

b. Counter-analogical reasoning

Counter-analogical reasoning is the opposite of analogical reasoning. While the latter concludes by pointing out the similarities, counter-analogical reasoning concludes by pointing put relevant differences between the case and the client’s facts. Counter –analogical reasoning is usually used to debunk or destroy the other party’s prior use of analogical reasoning, by stating that the case cited and the client’s situation are actually different, thus no common conclusion can be inferred from both situations.

Example:

The opponent might use counter-analogical reasoning by saying that in the Mercado vs. Espiritu case, the minor’s representation misled the other party for after all, the minors had passed the age of puberty and truly looked like adults. While in the other case, even if Mario, the seller, lied about his age, there is no way the buyer should be misled because the Mario is a baby-faced sixteen year old. That the seller has not passed the age of puberty, and neither does he look like an adult. Thus, there are no factual similarities in both cases.

In the tooth-extraction case as an analogy why death sentence should be imposed, the opposing

6 1982 Convention in Jamiaca (The Law of the Sea), Article 111: Section 2.


party who is against death penalty might reason using counter analogy by saying satirically that id “my tooth aches, I may have it pulled, such that if my head aches, I may have it cut.” This is another way of telling that there are not enough similarities between tooth extraction and death penalty to warrant a conclusion.

C. Policy-based reasoning

Policy-based reasoning reaches a conclusion by connecting the facts of the case to the state’s existing policy, i.e., what would be “best” for the society at large. Public policy is “recognized or established by the State in determining what acts are unlawful as [they are] deemed injurious to the public or contrary to the public good.”7 Thus, an agreement is against public policy if it is “injurious to the interests of the public, contravenes some established interest of society, violates some public statute, is against good morals, tends to interfere with the public welfare or safety, or if it is at war with the interests of society and is in conflict with the morals of the time.8

Example:

Mario should not be bound by the contract. Young people whose minds and morals are not yet fully formed should not suffer from the harmful consequences of those acts which they themselves could not fully consent to. He is not yet mature enough to consider the full consequences of his decisions. He deserves to be protected, not punishable.

D. Narrative reasoning

Narrative reasoning the conclusion by telling a story that shows the context, description and perspective that appeals to commonly-held ideas of justice, mercy or fairness.

Examples:

7 Sorogon v. City of Davao, 17098-R, June 17, 1957

8 Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 56


Narrative where there is possibility of undue influence:

Mario should not be bound by the contract he signed because Joey, the car-dealer for 25 years, pressured Mario, discouraged him from calling his parents to ask for advice and telling him that another buyer was looking at the car at that very moment. Joey lowered his voice said: “I’ll tell you what I’ll do.” “I’ll give you a bonus of P5,000 on top of your selling price, if you will allow me to facilitate the sale of your car to the buyer. This bonus is a secret between us.”

FALLACY

Purposes:

To recognize the different classes of formal and informal fallacies. To avoid using fallacies in one’s documents and pleadings

I. CONCEPT

Fallacy is an error in reasoning. A lawyer spends a lot of time arguing and reasoning for his client. Thus, it is vital that he knows the principles of sound reasoning to avoid fallacies. He must also be able to spot fallacy in others. Errors in reasoning keeps us from arriving at the truth. One’s thinking is slanted and displaced. Worse, he would not know it. It takes skill to wade through layers of arguments and pinpoint fallacies. An analytical mind is one of truth’s allies, and falsehood’s foes.

II. MAIN TYPES

Fallacy may be:

A. Formal fallacy is an error in deductive reasoning where the conclusion dos not necessarily follow from the premises.

B. Informal fallacy or inductive fallacy is an error to reasoning in a form which does not follow the traditional structures of logic.


III. DEDUCTION

Deduction is to reason from general principles (or truth) to particular instances of that truth.

Example:

All cats are mortal. (major premise)Simila is a cat. (minor premise)Therefore, Simila is mortal. (conclusion)

For a deductive argument to be valid, it must be absolutely established that both minor and major premises are true. If the premises are true, the conclusion is valid. If Simila is a cat, then it is mortal. But is Simila is not a cat, but a cell phone brand (making the statement “Simila is a cat” false), then the conclusion is invalid.

If “all members of the gang participated in mauling” and “Pino is a member of the gang,” are true, then the conclusion “Pino is guilty of mauling” is true.

IV. DEDUCTIVE FALLACY

Otherwise called “formal” or “logical” fallacy, deductive fallacy presents an error in deductive reasoning, in that the conclusion arrived at is logical flawed or absurd. There are several types of deductive fallacy. The three main types are discussed below. 1) the fallacy of the illicit major, 2) the fallacy of the illicit minor, and 3) the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

A. Fallacy of the illicit major

This fallacy happens when the major term (predicate of the major premise) is “particular” (or ”not distributed”) in the major term, but is “universal” (“distributed”) in the conclusion. A


simple way to understand this fallacy is “Some students of that school drink alcohol; therefore, all students in that school drink alcohol (“some students” is particular in the premise but universal in the conclusion). This is fallacious because no universal conclusion can be inferred from a particular premise. Otherwise, one becomes guilty of hasty generalization.

Examples:

All Bicolanos are Filipinos. (True. Here, “Bicolanos” is universal but “Filipinos” are particular. The reason is while “all” Bicolanos are Filipinos only some Filipinos are Bicolanos. Thus “Filipino,” which is the “major term” is used in a “particular” mode.) Bicolanos are not Cebuanos. (true. Both “Bicolano” and “Cebuano” are universals. This premise may be restated as “No Bicolano is Cebuano” or, “No Cebuano is Bicolano”)

Therefore, Cebuanos are not Filipinos. (The conclusion is false. The reason is the Fallacy of the Illicit Major, which made the major term (which was “particular” in the major premise, e.g., Filipinos) as “universal” in the conclusion. “Not Filipinos” are universal because it may be restated as “No Cebuano is Filipino” or conversely: NoFilipino is Cebuano.” The conclusion making the major term universal (e.g., Filipino)is fallacious.

All Catholics are Christians.

Catholics are not Protestants.

Therefore, Protestants are not Christians. (The Fallacy is self-explanatory, since Protestants are like-wise Christians. “Christians” is particular (undistributed) in the major premise but universal (distributed) in the conclusion. Thus, the fallacy.)

UP la students are excellent students.

San Beda students are not UP students.

Therefore, San Beda students are not excellent students.


(Obviously a fallacy. Many times, San Beda students had excelled.)

B. Fallacy of the Illicit Minor

Fallacy of the illicit minor happens when the minor term (the predicate in the minor premise) is particular (or undistributed) in the minor premise but becomes universal (or distributed) in the conclusion. The basis (minor term) being particular, cannot sustain a universal conclusion, hence the fallacy.

Examples:

All lawyers are bar passers.

All lawyers are professionals. (Here, “professional”, the minor term is particular or undistributed.

Therefore, all professionals are bar passers. (In the conclusion, “professional” is universal.

A universal conclusion was arrived at from a particular premise. This a fallacy since not all professionals are bar passers.)

The fallacy is more egregious in the following:

All criminals deserve to be punished.

All criminals deserve another chance.

Therefore, all of those deserving another chance, deserve to be punished.

C. Fallacy of the undistributed middle


Fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs when the middle term (the term that appears in both major and minor premise) remains particular (undistributed) in both premises.

Examples:

All criminals have tattoos.

Jonlino has a tattoo.

Therefore, Jonlino is a criminal. (This is a fallacy since not all persons with tattoos are criminals. Tattoo in both major in minor premise is particular, thus it cannot be universalized in the conclusion that just because Jonlino has a tattoo he is necessarily a criminal.)

All communists are atheists.

Lusino is an atheist.

Therefore, Lusino is a communist.

V. INFORMAL FALLACY

Informal fallacy is an error in reasoning occurring within non-traditional forms of inference. Informal fallacies are also known as semiformal, quasi-formal or inductive fallacies.

VI. TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACY

The following is a list of common informal fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem – from Latin “argument to the man,” is an argument rejecting a person’s views by attacking or abusing his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc., as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect.

Example:


What Lolino testified in court should not be believed. After all, he is a known communist sympathizer.

The form followed by argumentum ad hominem is usually:

Mr. A makes a claim or assertion.

Mr. B attacks on the person of Mr. A.

Therefore, Mr. A’s claim or assertion is false.

This is fallacious because the person may (or may not) have a bearing on the truth of his assertions. The truth of Mr. A’s assertion should be subjected to tests other than a mere attack on the personality, character or motivation of Mr. A, the claimant.

2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque – from Latin “you too”, argues that a person’s claim is false because it is inconsistent with what that person’s earlier statement or action.

Example:

Antonina teaches the message of love and peace. Yet she does not practice it. I have seen her berate her students.

Evonne’s pro-divorce stance should be rejected. After all, she was an anti-divorce activist just a year ago.

This is a fallacious because Evonne may have changed in the meantime. The validity of the claim should be tested by a criteria other than the claimant’s view or character.


3. Appeal to Authority – happens in any of the two instances:

a. when one appeal to authority (or custom, tradition, institution or book) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue; or

b. when one appeals to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority or those who are famous.

Appeal to authority is known by other names: fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, argument authority, argument to veneration, fallacious appeal to authority, misuse of authority, irrelevant authority, questionable authority, inappropriate authority.

Examples:

“I believe that the statement you cannot legislate morality’ is true, because President Eishenhower said it.

I use Maskinol astringent because Ms. V, my favorite movie star, uses it.

Jose: I believe, just like there in the U.S., that abortion is legal and moral within the first six months. A person must have the right to decide what to do with her body.

Zeny: I beg to disagree. Our university’s top lady science professor holds that abortion is immoral.


Jose: Why? Is she an expert on morality or law?

Zeny:She’s an expert on marine worms.

4. Appeal to Belief – also known as appeal to popularity, is the argument that because many people believe in a claim, that claim must be true. It is fallacious in that just because many (or most) people hold a belied to be true, such believers are not an evidence that the claim put forward indeed true.

Example:

During Galileo’s time, most believed the sun revolved around the earth. And just because the majority believed in it, does not mean it is true.

5. Appeal to Common Practice – argues that id most people do an act, it must be morally correct. This is fallacious in that just because something is commonly practiced, this does not necessarily make an act moral.

The belief is fallacious in that numerical majority alone cannot be a gauge for an act’s morality. For instance: if an island has 10 people, of which 6 are non-thieves while 4 thieves. In this set-up, to be a non-thief is “moral” because they are the majority. In case an epidemic hits the island and kills 3 of the non-thieves, the 4 thieves would now become the majority. Clearly their number alone would not make thievery moral.

Examples:

I paid the official because anyway most people do it nowadays.

Since everybody else accepts money from politicians in elections, I have no choice but to accept.

6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief – argues that a belief is true if it leads to desirable consequences. Conversely,


a belief is false if it leads to undesirable consequences. This fallacy is otherwise known as the argumentuam ad consequentiam or argument to the consequences.

The argument is fallacious in that the consequences of a belief could not be determinant as to the truth or falsity of the belief.

Example:

If my belief that Jose Rizal “is alive” makes me happy, this belief in no way makes it true that Jose Rizal is alive.

My belief that every time I wear a red shirt I will pass an examination, has no bearing on my actually passing the examination. It may be that I prepared for the exam.

7. Appeal to Emotion – deliberately generates feelings in people so that they will act in a certain way. Appeal to emotion assumes that the truth comes with good feelings, and falsehood with bad feeling, e.g., if it feels bad it must be wrong. This becomes fallacious when a person bases his conclusions on emotion rather than logic. Commonly used by politicians, cult leaders and advertisers, the fallacy had become a tool for manipulation to control behavior.

Example:

Our sofa with electronic massager will soothe your stress everytime you watch TV. Thus, “Sofa Cum Massage” is what you and busy family needs these days.

The Ponton people in the mountains of are raiding our warehouses. They are training children to become armies. How bad can you feel reading the news each day. If you vote for me, I will make reading the news a pleasure. You will read how I would eradicate these people.


8. Appeal to Fear – also called argumentum ad baculum, argues that a belief is true, or at least acted on, not because there is a “rational reason” to believe (evidence) it is true, but because of external factors such as fear, harm or threat. Here, a conclusion is formed on the basis of fear adur fater not evidence.

Example:

If you do not pass on this letter to six of your friends, an unforeseen calamity will befall upon you.

I need to have my application acted upon by Wednesday. After that, I will have to consult my uncle who works in Malacañang.

Talking back against your father might diminish your allowance!

9. Appeal to Flattery – argues that there are persons who arrive at conclusions, or act in a certain way, when flattered. The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s conclusion is nor “rational reason” or evidence but flattery.

Example:

You look younger today, and your face is smoother. By the way, did you receive our letter of solicitation?

Your mind does not deserve to be in this small town, but in the Hague. How far are you now in editing my thesis?

10. Appeal to Novelty – argues that a thing or idea is necessarily better simply because it is new. One is novel, therefore good. The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s conclusion is the thing’s newness, not its merit.

Example:

This book is the latest, therefore you must buy it. It is useful for your teaching as it is the latest


edition whereas the former edition was written three years ago.

11. Appeal to Pity – also called argumentum ad misericordiam, argues that some persons conclude or make decisions solely on pity, and not on evidence. The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s decision is pity and not reason or evidence.

Example:

Sir, I received a grade of 5. Is there something we can do? I am graduating and my ailing mother is earning a living as a laundrywoman. My father has asthma and cannot do his usual chores.

12. Appeal to Popularity – argues that a claim or idea is true simply because more people are inclined to accept such similar claim or idea. The argument is fallacious in that the basis of one’s conclusion or decision is not evidence but an external factor which is widespread acceptance of a belief.

Example:

To my beloved Filipinos: I’m running. After all, I received a million signatures that urged me to run for office. It is the will of the province.

When the law on violence against women and children was passed, I questioned what about the rights of battered husbands? But then I realized most lawyers and professionals did not object to the law. I’m thinking maybe I was wrong.

13. Appeal to Ridicule – argues that ridicule, or the idea of being laughed at, may serve as basis for one’s decisions. The argument is fallacious in that ridicule and not reason or evidence become the support why one thinks or acts in a certain way.

Example:

You should not wear those pants. Only people plucked from the ‘50’s wear them.


Your argument, just like your shirt, reminds me of a restaurant table cover.

14. Appeal to Spite – argues that spite, or hate, may substitute reason in coming up to a conclusion. It is fallacious in that a purely subjective emotion – spite – takes precedence over objective evidence in coming up with a decision.

Example:

A: “It is my cousin Reggie’s wedding tomorrow. I’m planning to attend”

B: “Remember when we were kids how Reggie accused you of stealing his cards?”

A: “As a matter of fact, I do. I will not attend his wedding then.”

15. Appeal to Tradition – is the opposite of appeal to novelty. Appeal to tradition argues that the idea is necessarily better simply because it is older, more “tested” and “tried” because it had been used years over. It is fallacious because age per se does not necessarily qualify an idea to be better. Older is not better.

Example:

We have to go to the cemetery on November 2, not 1. After all, people in this town had been doing that since as long as I can remember.

Of course, an adversarial court system is better than some inquisitorial system9 they have in France. We have always used the adversarial system since the Spanish era and nobody questioned its efficacy.

91 In an inquisitorial legal system, the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, through questioning or otherwise. This is opposed to the adversarial system where the role of the court is that an imperial reference between parties.


16. Bandwagon – argues that rejection (or a threat of rejection) may influence one’s decisions or conclusions. It is fallacious in that solid or objective evidence takes a backseat over peer-pressure.

The bandwagon fallacy, also called argumentum ad numerum, believes in: “if many believe so, it is so.”

Example:

A: “If I can help it I go for fish and vegetables.”

B: “Why that’s food for oldies!”

“You better shape up, or else people will think that you are undisciplined.”

17. Begging the Question – is a fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premises. Also called petition principii (“assuming the initial point”), is fallacious in that the conclusion to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises.

According to Paul Herrick “seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises…Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is the placed in the premises.”10

Example:

She’s a lover of music. After all, she plays the piano everyday.

You better follow what I say because I told you so. I’m your father and you better follow me.

10 Herrick Paul. The Many Worlds of Logic. Oxford University Press, 200.Persuasiveness and Fallacy SY 2015-2016 Atty. Marilyn P. Cacho-Domingo |

18

He is mad right now, because I could see that he is really angry.

I know your decision is not illegal or immoral. My proof is, it is not prohibited by the law.

18. Biased Sample – is committed when a conclusion is taken from a sample, which in turn was taken from a clearly biased source.11

Example:

If one wants to find out whether Filipinos are fond of eating vegetables would have a biased conclusion if the sample was taken during a meeting of vegetarians and animal rights activists.

19. Burden of Proof – also called argumentum ad ignorantiam, it argues that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. The argument is fallacious in that the lack of evidence on, say, side “A” is taken as proof for evidence that side “B” is true.

11 Three types of samples are used to avoid bias: 1. Random Sample: this is a sample that is taken in such a way that nothing by chance determines which members of the population are selected for the sample. Ideally, any individual member of the population has the same chance as being selected as any other. This type of sample avoids being biased because a biased sample is one that is taken in such a way that some members of the population has a significantly greater chance of being selected for the sample than other members. 2. Stratified Sample: This is a sample that is taken by using the following steps: a) The relevant strata (population subgroups) are identified, b) The number of members in each stratum is determined and c) A random sample is taken from each stratum in exact proportion to its size. This method is obviously most useful when dealing with stratified populations. For example, a person’s income often influences how she votes, so when conducting a presidential poll it would be a good idea to take a stratified sample using economic classes as the basis for determining the strata. This method avoids loaded samples by (ideally) ensuring that each stratum of the population is adequately represented. 3. The Lapse Sample: This type of sample is taken by taking a stratified or random sample and then taking at least one more sample with a significant lapse of time between them. After the two samples are taken, they can be compared for changes. This method of sample taking is very important when making predictions. A prediction based only on one sample is likely to be a Hasty Generalization (because the sample is likely to be too small to cover past, present, and future populations) or a Biased Sample (because the sample will only include instances from one time period). Quoted from http://www.nizcor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html. Last viewed November 24, 2009.


http://www.nizcor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Example:

Heaven exists. After all, no one has proved it does not exist.

Heaven does not exists. After all, no one has proved it exists.

I’m innocent, not a robber or thief. No one has presented evidence that I stole or robbed.

20. Circumstantial ad Hominem – attacks any person’s claim by saying it is done out of self-interest. The argument is fallacious in that instead of hearing reason and objective evidence, the arguer assumes that the other party is motivated by his personal interests, such as promoting his business, religion, honor, or political affiliation. A person’s background may not have a bearin in the truth value of what he is saying.

Example:

Of course Martina is against cruelty to animals. After all she is a vegetarian, and maintains a lucrative pet shop business.

The judge is dead-set against granting annulments or imposing death. He is a lay minister, and is expected to hold such views.

21. Composition – the fallacy of composition argues that what is true of the part is likewise true of the whole itself. The argument is fallacious because it cannot be inferred simply that just because a part (or parts) has a distinct characteristic, the whole will have the same characteristics.

Example:

“Sal” is Spanish for salt. “Pan de sal” has salt. Therefore, pan de sal is salty.


Pure oxygen damages the kidneys. Water has oxygen. Therefore water is bad for the kidneys.

This “dream team” consists of the country’s top debaters.

There is no way it can be beaten.

22. Confusing Cause and Effect – also called the fallacy of questionable cause, argues that just because the events occur together, one must be the cause of the other. The argument is fallacious in that there is not necessarily any causal link between two things just because they occur together. See Ignoring a Common Cause

Example:

Alcoholics are often very shy people. Shyness is therefore the cause of alcoholism.

At about the time Rodante divorced his wife, he kept seeing a psychiatrist. I’m sure the psychiatrist influenced Rodante’s decision to separate.

23. Division – The fallacy of division argues that what is true of the whole is necessarily true of its parts. The argument of fallacious in that what is true generally is not always true particularly.

Example:

Forbes subdivision is peopled by extremely wealthy people. If Marito lives there, he must therefore be extremely wealthy.

“Boy Scouts” is a movement composed of young men and boys. X being a member must also be a young man or boy. (This is fallacious as facts show that girls may be members of the Boy Scouts.)


24. False Dilemma – also called black and white fallacy, happens when one argues that there could only be two choices for the problem, or when one attempts to make the middle point between two extremes as one of the extremes. The argument is fallacious in that there may be more than two choices involved in the problem, or the middle point may not be the other extreme of the continuum.

Example:

Either he is a communist or secretly religious.

I am sorry you are homosexual. You would have been a decent person.

You are no longer visiting me. It seems you do not love me.

Either you go to church, or I will think you are an atheist.

25. Gambler’s Fallacy – also called Monte Carlo fallacy, argues that since, for example, a penny has fallen tails ten times in a row then it will fall heads the eleventh time, or if an airline has not had an accident for the past ten years, it is soon due for an accident. The argument is fallacious in that it rejects the assumption in probability theory that each event is independent of its previous happening.

Example:

(Medical joke) I’m sure you will survive. Medical literature says that 10 survive in this illness. So far I have 9 patients and they did not survive. You are my 10th, so you will survive.

26. Genetic Fallacy – also called reductive or nothing but fallacy, argues that the origin of a thing is identical with that form which it originates. The argument is fallacious in that the


product or consequence of a thing is not necessarily the same as that from which it came from.

Example:

He is a criminal’s son. He must have criminal genes, or worse, is nothing but a criminal himself.

People from that section of the city are notorious pick-pockets and drug addicts. Thus, beware of him.

Her mother won Miss Philippines. She will, too, someday.

27. Guilt by Association – also called the bad company fallacy or company that you keep fallacy, argues that an idea should not be accepted simply because among those who accept the idea are people one does not like. The argument is fallacious in that the truth of an idea is not determined by the character of those who accept it.

Example:

I don’t like that movie. It is the favorite of my husband’s ex-girlfriend.

I feel uncomfortable explaining biblical verses to you in the park. When I was younger, religious debaters regularly quote Bible verses in this park and scram to one another.

28. Hasty Generalization – also called fallacy of hasty induction, occurs when a general statement is asserted which is based on limited information, inadequate evidence or unrepresentative sampling.12 The argument is fallacious because not enough support is given to base the conclusion on. In a court setting, not enough evidence is offered to support a decision.

12 The other names of this fallacy are: a) Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics; b) Fallacy of Insufficient Sample; c) Leaping to a Conclusion; and d) Hasty Induction.


Example:

A foreign actress checked in a hotel in Manila found cockroaches. In the press interview, she concluded that the Philippines is full of cockroaches.

A State vice president was in an elementary school and wanted to help a 12 year-old boy spell “potato.” When the vice president wrote “potatoe,” he got a rounding from the media who thereafter concluded, based on a single boo-boo, that the vice-president is a dummy in spelling.

29. Ignoring a Common Cause – also called the fallacy of questionable cause, happens when a conclusion is made that A causes B simply because A and B are regularly associated or connected. The argument is fallacious in that it ignores the possibility that there might be a third factor that caused both A and B. that A need not be the cause of B.

Example:

Jerry noticed that everytime his best friend Marvin goes with him to the golf course, he wins. Jerry attributed his luck to Marvin.

(Joke) Julia’s husband loves to drink coffee with her. After his death, Julia would suffer headaches everytime she drinks coffee. She attributed this to her missing her husband, having associated coffee with him. In fact, it was the spoon which Julia regularly forgets to take out from the cup that causes her migraine.

30. Middle Ground – also called the fallacy of moderation or the golden mean fallacy, it happens when the arguer assumes that the mean (or middle position) between two extreme positions must be the correct position. The argument is fallacious because it does not follow that the mean is always the correct position.


Example:

Splitting the middle is a common strategy in mediation. Sometimes it helps to have the parties settle at the middle. However, this is not always true as the examples below will show:

You want to sell your new laptop for P40,500.00. joey, a graduate student, desperately wants to buy a laptop but only has P500.00 in his pocket. If you really want to help Joey, as you said, why are you unwilling to go half-half?

Between literacy and illiteracy, the best is to be somewhere in the middle. (A patent absurdity!)

31. Misleading Vividness – occurs when a person decided based on a few dramatic or emotional events rather than on the evidence presented. The argument is fallacious in that just because an event is vivid, does not always make it the basis for one’s decisions.

Example:

Her husband, when he was alive, used to say that small fish is especially rich in protein. Now that he’s gone, she buys nothing but small fish, I spite scientific evidence that fish, whether big or small, are equally rich sources of protein.

I know someone who does not eat eggs, despite the fact that eggs are among the most nutritious of foods. He said, when he was a child, he was punished while eating an egg that he fell to the floor. Now he will not have anything to do with eggs.

32. Personal Attack – also called ad hominem abusive, the fallacy of personal attack happens when abusive remarks against the speaker take the place of objective evidence.


Example:

I cannot believe what you have to say, young man. You are only a few months-old lawyer, and have to eat some more rice.

Look at the dermatologist’s face. It’s full of pimples. How can we believe what he has to say?

33. Poisoning the Well – happens when one discredits what a speaker will have to say in the future by giving in advance an unfavorable information about the speaker.

Example:

The girl is a pathological liar. Do not believe a single word from her.

He has had six failed relationship in the past. You may be the 7th. Avoid him.

34. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – literally: “after this, therefore because of this, “argues that just because event A occurred ahead of time, event A was the cause of event B.

Example:

Marin does not send here applications to courier A. Everytime she does, she gets rejected.

Everytime Jim wears red, he passes an exam. “Red” contributed to his passing the exam.

Generally, superstitious beliefs are examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

35. Questionable Cause – argues that because two things are associated on a regular basis, one is the cause of the other. While the two events in post hoc fallacy come one after the other, in questionable cause they go together.


Example:

A killed B. After all, they were seen together and arguing about shoes the night before.

36. Red Herring – happens when a topic foreign to the issue is suddenly introduced in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Example:

After a senator’s talk, a student asked: “Senator, don’t’ you think it is high time that we pass a law making education compulsory to all children below 18?’ The senator cuttingly replied, “You know, we already have too many laws regulating this and that. Besides , the parents are to blame for producing too many children they can ill afford to send to school.

A city kagawad pushed for the passage of a law regulating the dumping of waste on city rivers. Suddenly, his colleague cut him and said: “These multi-national corporations are really out to control the world.” Another said: “I remember who cleaned our rivers when I was a kid. We used to swim and catch fish there.”

37. Relativist Fallacy – occurs when a person dismisses a claim by saying that while the claim may be true for other people, it may not work for him. The argument is fallacious in that objective evidence may be by-passed in order to suit one’s whims.

Example:

A healthy non-smoking lifestyle may suit others, but it does not work for me.


Contrary to evidence, I still maintain that eating pork fat boiled in soy sauce and black beans is one of mankind’s great pleasures.

38. Slippery slope – argues that once a person allows an event to happen another event will inevitably follow. The argument is fallacious in that there is no objective evidence to suggest that the second evidence will necessarily follow.

Example:

You know young ladies. Once you allow your boyfriend to touch you beyond elbow, there is no stopping after that.

Do not give in. If you do, you will find squatters occupying each and every inch of your property.

39. Special Pleadings – argues that rule or principles only apply to others but not to oneself without giving relevant reason (or relevant difference) why he should be exempt. This fallacy is a plain case of imposing double standard.

Example:

Be careful young man. If you do something illegal, you will be arrested. In my case, I have my battery of lawyers to back me up.

You must not drink. It is not good for you health. Don’t mind us. We are used to this.

40. Spotlight – occurs when one assumes that those who receive the most media attention are representatives of the group to which they belong. The argument is fallacious in that those who receive the most media attention are not necessarily


representative of the whole. This fallacy is similar to hasty generalization.

Example:

It’s often in the news that this and that celebrity had divorces and married several times. I guess actors and actresses are naturally promiscuous.

Romblon people are often features winning in track and filed events. Indeed, Romblon people are great runners. Maybe it is in their genes.

41. Straw man – the straw man fallacy presents an opponent’s position in a weak or absurd way so that it can easily refuted. The argument is fallacious in that one deliberately misrepresents or does not include the strong points in the other’s position thereby giving the impression that the arguer’s points are strong.

Example:

Supporters of the new reproductive bill encourage contraceptives. Contraceptives cause abortion, and abortion is killing. Thus, we must oppose the bill. (This is fallacious in that not all contraceptives cause abortion).

42. Two Wrongs Make a Right – argues that if the other party did illegal things, then it is okay for one to make an illegal activity. The argument is fallacious in that an unlawful act done by another has no bearing on whatever act one chooses for oneself.

Example:

Bribing officials to win cases is okay. After all, Mr. A, a famous lawyer, does it.


I have no qualms receiving election money from candidates. Everone’s doing it; and it is not the candidates’ money to start with.


Documents

Mcd Persuasiveness