Informal Fallacies Quiz 3-28-19

INFORMAL FALLACIES
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
-misuse of language
2. Fallacies of Irrelevant evidence

-problem with the connection of the premise and the conclusion
3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

-the premises fail to provide evidence strong enough to support the conclusion.
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
A. Fallacy of Equivocation
-using a term in its different senses and making it appear to have only one meaning.
Congressman can create and abolish laws.

The law of supply and demand is law.
Therefore, congressman can abolish the law of supply and demand.
B. Fallacy of Amphiboly
-presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammatical construction. The double meaning lies not in the word but in the syntax or grammatical
construction.
The loot and the car were listed as stolen by the Manila Police District.
CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice.
Mayors can’t stop gambling.
C. Improper Accent
-misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or
claim.
-also includes the distortion produced by pulling a quoted passage out of context, putting it in another
context, and then drawing conclusion that is not drawn in the original context.
The politician is really bent on amending the Constitution in order to extend his term of office. Om one
occasion he said: “There is a need to revise some provisions in the Constitution.”
D. Vicious Abstraction
-misleading the people by using vague or abstract terms.
-a premise that is not understood cannot be accepted as providing support for a conclusion.
E. Composition
-wrongly inferring that what holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of the group made up
of those individuals.
Roger Federer and Martin Hingis are two of the best tennis players in the world, so if these two Swiss
players team up, they’d make one of the best mixed double teams.
F. Division
-it makes the unwarranted assumption that a characteristic of the whole is therefore a characteristic of
each of the parts.
The PNP is one of the most corrupt agencies of the government, therefore these three policemen cannot
be trusted.
FALLACIES OR IRRELEVANCE
A. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

-instead of addressing the issue presented by an opponent, this argument makes the opponent the issue.
1
a.1 Abusive Argumentum ad Hominem
-attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality, or some personal shortcoming.
According to this action star, he supports the death penalty because it is an effective deterrence against
murder. This is nonsense. He is just an actor and knows nothing about death penalty. Besides, he likes
violence as shown by his many movies which depict a lot of killings.
Note: In the law, arguing against the character or background of the person can be valid in situations when
the credibility of the witness is at issue.
a.2 Circumstantial Argumentum ad Hominem (Tu Quoque)

-defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or other people of doing the same thing.
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 like NAPOCOR and MWSS to the private sector.
Note: Tu Quoque is a valid defense in matters of provocation.
B. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

-convincing the people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy when such feelings, however
understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion.
I appeal to you not for Thomas Kidd, but I appeal to you for the long line− the long, long line reaching
back through the ages and forward to the years to come− the long line of despoiled and downtrodden
people of the earth. I appeal to you for those men who rise in the morning before daylight comes and go
home at night when the light has faded from the sky and give their life, their strength, their toil to make
others rich and great. I appeal to you in the name of those women who are offering up their lives to this
modern god of gold, and I appeal to you in the name of those children, the living and the unborn.
C. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

-persuading others to accept a position by using threat or pressure instead of presenting evidence for one’s
view. The strength of this fallacy lies on the fear that it creates to people which leads them to agree with
the argument.
The President wants the Congress to pass the bill. I think you have to support it. Of course, you don’t
want Malacañan to reduce you Priority Development Assistance Fund which will finance your
infrastructure projects in your town.
D. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
d.1 Arguing in Circle

-assumes as a premise the very thing that should be proven in the conclusion. The argument presupposes
the truth of its conclusion.
Gina: This person has committed bribery.

Jeff: What reasons do you have that will convince me that your claim is true?
Gina: Because he tried to influence a public official by giving money.
“A is true, because A is true”
d.2 Question-Begging Language

-discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a position of the very question at issue, in such a
way as to direct the listener to that same conclusion.
Would you tell us, Ms. Diaz about the nature of your relationship with the rapist, Mr. Sanchez?
E. Complex Question
-asking a question in which some presuppositions are buried in that question. The questioner has assumed
a positive answer to an implicit question.
Note: a question does not commit this fallacy if the questioner has good reason to believe that the
respondent would be quite willing to grant those assumptions.
2
1st kind: When did your grudge on the accused start?
2nd kind: Where you and you brother went to the mall with the victim and gave him the drug?
F. Leading Question
-this question contains an unsupported claim, in that it unjustifiably assumes a position on what is
probably a debatable, or at least an open issue.
You were outside the country when the crime was committed, weren’t you?
FALLACIES OF ISNUFFECIENT EVIDENCE
A. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to Ages)

-persuade others of a certain belief by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for some tradition,
instead of giving rational basis for such belief. What was true before may not be true at present.
There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have practiced it since time immemorial. Do you
mean to tell me they were wrong all the while?
B. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)

Persuading others by appealing to people who command respect or authority but do not have legitimate
authority in the matter at hand.
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.
C. Accident (Dicto Simpliciter)

-applying a general rule to a particular case when circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule
should apply.
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, Leo Beltran should not be arrested
for his speech that incited the riot last week.
D. Hasty Generalization
-drawing a general or universal conclusion from insufficient particular case. We take a particular case
(which may be and exception) and make a general rule or truth out of that.
A survey of the members of the MILF and their families showed that more than 85 % of them favor the
proposal to have a separate independent government in Mindanao, 10% disapprove of it while 5% are
undecided. These survey results clearly show that Majority of Filipino Muslims supports the said
proposal.
E. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)

-using the absence of evidence against a claim as justification that it is true or using the absence of evidence
for a claim as evidence that it is false.
Since science cannot prove that breathing the same air as and IADS victim will not result in the spread
of the virus, children with IADS should not be allowed to attend public schools.
Note: However, this way of arguing seems to be logical when we apply it in the case of the defendant
claiming one’s innocence due to lack of evidence that can prove it.
F. False Dilemma
-arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice between two alternatives and assumes
that they are exhaustive when in fact they are not.
-to assume too few alternatives and to assume that one of the alternatives must be true.
-failure to distinguish contradictories from contraries.
 Contradictories – no middle ground between a term and its negative (black & non-black)
 Contraries – there is middle ground (hot & cold; black & white)
Many people are protesting the implementation of warrant-less arrest. I think it is just right for that can
facilitate the military’s crackdown on terrorist groups. You surely don’t want terrorism to prevail in the
country.
There can be other ways of dealing with terrorism.

Informal Fallacies Quiz 3-28-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informal Fallacies Quiz 3-28-19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informal Fallacies Quiz 3-28-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMAL FALLACIES

2. Fallacies of Irrelevant evidence

3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Congressman can create and abolish laws.

CHR lawyers give poor free legal advice.

Mayors can’t stop gambling.

A. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

a.2 Circumstantial Argumentum ad Hominem (Tu Quoque)

Note: Tu Quoque is a valid defense in matters of provocation.

B. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

C. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

D. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

d.1 Arguing in Circle

Gina: This person has committed bribery.

“A is true, because A is true”

d.2 Question-Begging Language

FALLACIES OF ISNUFFECIENT EVIDENCE

A. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to Ages)

B. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)

C. Accident (Dicto Simpliciter)

E. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)

There can be other ways of dealing with terrorism.

You might also like