Different Examples of Informal Fallacies

Republic of the Philippines

RAMON MAGSAYSAY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY San Marcelino Campus San Marcelino, Zambales

DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES

Submitted to:

Mr. MARLON N. FULGENCIO Subject Instructor

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Philo 1 (Philosophy and Logic).

First Semester, Academic Year 2010 –  2010  – 2011 2011

Submitted by:

DANILO V. ROGAYAN JR. BSEd III Student

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE. In these the mistaken arguments rely on premises that may seem to be relevant to the conclusion but in fact are not.

R1. Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam). When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been proved false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true.  Examples:

1. Nobody has been able to refute the existence of God; therefore, God exists. 2. I maintain my conviction that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, because no one has proven that there is such. R2. Appeal to inappropriate authority (ad verecundiam). When the premises of an argument appeal to the judgment of some party or parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.  Examples:

1. Andrew was advised to go to the doctor when the symptoms of his illness persist. Mr. Anastacio C. Farin is a Doctor of Education. Therefore, Andrew went to Dr. Farin. 2. Ailyn wants to foresee her future. April Joy is a bank teller. Therefore, Ailyn needs April Joy. R3. Argument against the person (ad hominem). When an attack is leveled not at the claims being made or the merits of the argument, but at the person of the opponent. Arguments ad hominem take two forms. When the attack is directly against persons, seeking to defame or discredit them, it is called an “abusive ad hominem.” When the attack is indirectly against persons, suggesting that they hold their views chiefly because of their special circumstances or interests, it is called a “circular ad hominem.”  Examples:

1. “As I see it” says Congw. Mitos Magsaysay, “PNoy is an incompetent leader, with the first 100 days in office, his administration put the nation in a shame as the Quirino grandstand fiasco left nine tourists dead including the Filipino hostage-taker.” hostage- taker.” 2. Edcel Lagman is anti-life individual, being the major proponent of the Reproductive Health Bill which legalizes the use of contraceptives, a bill which receives a strong opposition from the Church.

R4. Appeal to emotion (ad populum). When careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculated to elicit enthusiasm and emotional support for the conclusion advanced.  Examples:

1. Everyone has a Facebook  account now that’s why I made my account yesterday. 2. The Philippine Star reported: Almost 140, 000 participants joined “Kabit Bisig para sa Ilog Pasig: Run for Pasig River” which is set to break a world record and revive the Metro Manila basin. R5. Appeal to pity (ad misericordiam). When careful reasoning is replaced by devices calculated to elicit sympathy on the part of the heater of o f the objects of the speaker’s concern.  Examples:

1. I am the eldest in the family, the breadwinner, solely responsible for making a living in order for us to survive. 2. I am confident that I have all the qualifications required for the job, I really need a work since my father is sick. R6. Appeal to force (ad baculum). When careful reasoning is replaced with direct or insinuated threats to bring about the acceptance of some conclusion.  Examples:

1. If the demands of the hostage taker will not be given, he will kill the innocent hostages. “I do not think it is fair that the deadline for our Logic 2. Edjohn says, “I project is so soon.” soon. ” Sir Marlon replies, “Do “Do not argue with me or I else I’ll drop you in my subject.” R7. Irrelevant Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi). When the premises miss the point, purporting to support one conclusion while in fact supporting or establishing another.  Examples:

1. The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) should not be abolished by the Congress. The legislators, who filed the bill, only hinder the youth in government participation; therefore, legislators should not file a bill. 2. Lala is a great painter. She loves to paint the nature. Therefore, Lala is a nature.

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION. In these the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition that is assumed to be true, but is in fact false, or dubious, or without warrant. P1. Complex question. When a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some assumption buried in that question.  Examples:

1. Have you stopped copying your classmate’s homework ? 2. Are you still a drug user? P2. False cause. When one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of that thing, or more generally, when one blunders in reasoning that is based upon causal relations.  Examples:

1. Chewing guava leaves would relieve Mercie’s toothache. 2. I won the quiz bowl while wearing my white shirt, therefore my white shirt is lucky and I should wear it when I compete for the quiz bowl again. P3. Begging the question (petition principia). When one assumes in the premises of an argument the truth of what one seeks to establish in the conclusion of that argument.  Examples:

1. In a music class, “Who wants to perform first?,” Ma’am Annalene asked the class. “Ma’am, Karl will,” Hazel said. “Why me?” asked Karl to Hazel. “Because nobody wants to perform.” “Why is it nobody wants to  perform?” Hazel said, “Because you’re the first one to perform.” 2. Frenzy and Jessa are arguing. Frenzy said, “There must be life at Mars.” “How do you know?” “Because there is water in there.” “Why should I  believe on that?” “Because water gives us life.” P4. Accident. When one applies a generalization to an individual case that it does not properly govern.  Examples:

1. The Philippines is a democratic nation; therefore, children and criminals should be allowed to vote.

2. The law says that you should not travel faster than 50 kph, thus even though your sister could not breathe; you should not have travelled faster than 50 kph.

P5. Converse Accident. When one moves carelessly or too quickly from a single case to an indefensibly broad generalization.  Examples:

1. As I travel to school this morning, no tricycle which was turning had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in Castillejos are not not trained to drive very well. 2. All students enrolled to Ramon Magsaysay Technological University must abide by its policies; therefore you must abide by the wearing of the proper uniform rules.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY. In these, the mistaken arguments are formulated in such a way as to rely on shifts in the meaning of words or phrases, from their use in the premises to their use in the conclusion. A1. Equivocation. When the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings, deliberately or accidentally, in the formulation of an argument.  Examples:

1. Every patient in the hospital receives proper care from a nurse. Grace Ann is patient. Therefore, she receives proper care from a nurse. 2. My Science teacher told us, “draw your conclusion in the experiment  performed,” therefore; I brought my coloring materials and pencil to draw mine. A2. Amphiboly When one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible meaning, because of the loose or awkward way in which the words in that statement have been combined.  Examples:

1. I went to Vigan City and took photographs of the city’s cobblestone streets, but they weren’t developed.

2. I saw Monina talking to Werlyn who was wearing a glamorous Filipiniana. A3. Accent. When a shift of meaning arises within an argument as a consequence of charges in the emphasis given to its words or parts.  Examples:

1. Free umbrella with every purchase. 2. We should not copy on our seatmate’s quiz. A4. Composition. This fallacy is committed (a) when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a part to the attributes of the whole, and (b) when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the totality of that collection.  Examples:

1. A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a group, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth. 2. The brain is composed of unconscious neurons. Therefore, the brain itself  is not conscious. A5. Division. This fallacy is committed (a) when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of one of its parts, and (b) when one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a totality of some collection of entities to the attributes of  the individual entities within that collection.  Examples:

1. Men receive more higher education than women. Therefore, Sarah Jean Bueno has less higher education than Mr. Arthur Ararro. 2. Philippines is a Catholic country; therefore, every Filipino is a Catholic.