7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 1/26

The Fallacies of Argumentation

Jonas Raynal L. Gianan

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 2/26

The Rhetorical Fallacy(Error of Interpretation)

• Rhetorical fallacy is a fault of understanding, not of

reasoning. IT is a mistake in interpreting the proposition,

not error in any process or act of the mind by which it

advances to another from knowing one thing.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 3/26

Incorrect Observation

• bservation of proportion means changing it from the

affirmative to the negative or from negative to the

affirmative without changing its meaning. !"ample# $%ll

citi&ens will be admitted,' logically obverted, will result

in $(o citi&ens will be refused admittance.' Illogicalobverted, it changes to $(o aliens will be admitted.'

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 4/26

Incorrect conversion

•)onversion of a proposition means transposing its sub*ectand its predicate without changing its meaning. +rom the

 proposition, $%ll brave men are generous,' the speaker

cannot immediately infer that $%ll generous men are

 brave,' though he can infer that $ome generous men are

 brave.' +rom $%ll horses are animals,' it does not follow

that $%ll animals are horses.'

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 5/26

 Ambiguity

• The $fallacy of amphibology' consists in an ambiguous

grammatical structure of a sentence which produces amisconception. !"ample# The -uks the ) will con/uer.

$0ert told his father that he had to pay his fees at once.'

)orrect it to# $0ert told his father 1I have to pay my fees at

once.2 12 or to# $0ert told his father, 13ou have to pay myfees at once. 1 12 or to# $0ert told his father# 1lease pay

your fees at once.2 12

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 6/26

Fallacy of Accent

• This consists of any ambiguity arising from a misplaced

accent or emphasis thrown upon some word in asentence. !"ample# The )ommandment, $Thou shalt not

 bear false witness against thy neighbor,' may be

delivered with a slight emphasis of the voice on the last

word, to imply that people are at liberty to bear false

witness against other persons444although to one who

knows that neighbor refers to any body outside of

himself, this fallacy may not have a misleading influence.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 7/26

The Logical Fallacy

• This is an error in reasoning or inference. It is of two

kinds444The +ormal and the 5aterial.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 8/26

 A. The Formal Fallacy

• %rises from the violation of the rules of the syllogism.

• In a categorical syllogism 6 where the proposition are

absolute, declarative, and positive and admit noconditions or e"ceptions7, fallacies result#

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 9/26

• 8. 9hen a fourth term is used. +or e"ample# 5ouse is

monosyllable. % mouse eats cheese. Therefore, a

monosyllable eats cheese.

• :. 9hen the syllogism does not contain three and only

three distinct correlative propositions. +or e"ample#

%ll men are rational.

-e is a man.

Therefore, he is noble.

• ;. 9hen the middle term is not distributed at least once in

the premise. !"#

The paniards con/uered the hilippines.

Juan is a paniard.

Therefore, Juan con/uered the hilippines.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 10/26

• <. 9hen term distributed in the conclusion is not distributed in one of the

 premises. !"#

-orses are animals.

)ows are not horses.

Therefore, cows are not animals.

=. 9hen a conclusion is drawn from two particular premises. !"#

 (o chicken has four feet.

% cow is not a chicken.

Therefore, a cow does not have four feet.

>. 9hen the syllogism has one negative premise and no negative conclusion

!"#

%ll students are not veterans.

-e is a student,Therefore, he is a veteran.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 11/26

•

?. 9hen a conclusion is drawn from two negative premises. !"#

ome propositions are not universal.

ome propositions are not particular.

Therefore, some particulars are universals.@. 9hen one premise is particular and the conclusion

is not particular. !"#

%ll students are diligent.

ome girls are students.

Therefore, all girls are diligent.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 12/26

• In a conditional syllogism, fallacies result#

• 8. 9henever the minor premise denies the antecedent. !"#If he passes the e"amination, he will graduate.

0ut he does not pass the e"amination.

Therefore, he will not graduate.

• :.9henever the minor premise affirms the conse/uent. !"#

If man is rational, he is a free being.

0ut he is a free being.

Therefore, he is rational.

In a dis*unctive syllogism, the fallacy of the imperfect

dis*unction is committed whenever the dis*unction e"pressed

is not both e"haustive and mutually e"clusive.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 13/26

• !".

-e is either in school or at home.

0ut he is not in school.

Therefore, he is at home.The conclusion does not necessarily follow because he may

 be in some other place aside from his home, such as the

theater.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 14/26

. The !aterial Fallacies

•

+allacies of resumption• The first material fallacy is begging the /uestion 6peivio

 principili7. This fallacy consists of assuming the truth of

some proposition which is the same as, or e/uivalent to,

the conclusion to be proved, and thence inferring the

truth of the conclusion. It takes the following forms#

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 15/26

 Assumption of an unprove" premise

(assumptio non probata)

• In a murder case, the prosecution may erroneously

assume that every man who kills another ought to die,

especially when it is admitted that the accused is the one

who killed the victim. uch sloppy reasoning can be

refuted by pointing out that the general assumption is

false because a man who kills another in self4defence be pardoned.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 16/26

 Arguing in a circle(circulus in proban"o)

•

)onsists in taking two propositions and using each in turnto prove the other. ne man argued in circle when he

tried to prove that a train was on time because its arrival

agreed with his watch, and then said that his watch was

correct because it agreed with the train2s arrival. )ircular

argument is a common trick to confuse a slow thinker 

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 17/26

• The second material fallacy is making an irrelevant

conclusion444ignoring the /uestion 6ignoratio elenchi7

This fallacy consists in mistaking the conclusion to be proved, or in endeavouring to prove something which has

no important bearing on the point at issue. It takes the

following forms#

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 18/26

 Argumentum a" hominen

• This is an appeal or attack directed at the character,

 principles, belief, or statements of some person, rather

than at the sub*ect matter being debated. It consists in

talking about the character of a man when his character

has nothing to do with the case. The debater who said that

the argument of his opponent was as dark as the latter2s

comple"ion or as full of holes as his face was committingthis fallacy. uch argument should be avoided in a debate

 Aor for that matter, in any occasion whatsoever 

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 19/26

 Argument a" populum

• This is an appeal to the passions or pre*udices of a

 people, thus obscuring or avoiding the real /uestion.

9hen the debater stirs up national pre*udice instead of

 bringing up facts in debating whether we should restore

international relations with Japan or Red )hina, he iscommitting the fallacy of argument ad populum.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 20/26

 Argumentum a"ignorantiam

• This is a fallacy which attempts to shift the burden of

 proof. !"# $9hat I say is true because you can2t prove

that it is not true.'

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 21/26

 Argument a" verecun"iam

• This is an appeal to the reverence which most people feel

for a great name. This fallacy has the same nature as that

of citing the name of a general to speak with authority on

an authority on a religious /uestion.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 22/26

 Argument a" #u"icium

• This is a fallacy in which the /uestion in not proved but

the speaker says that men generally believe it to be true.

The fallacy consists in assuming that a general belief

cannot be wrong as, for e"ample, the former belief,

generally held, that the earth was flat.

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 23/26

• The third material fallacy is a the comple" /uestion. This

is a /uestion founded on an assumption. It cannot be

answered by $yes' or $no' without granting the truth ofan assumption. !"# $-ave you stopped beating your

wifeB' or $-ave you /uit drinking to e"cessB'

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 24/26

• The fourth material fallacy is what is termed as false

conse/uent 6non se/uitur7. This fallacy asserts a

conclusion that does not follow from the premises because the conclusion has in it a new matter that is not

covered by the premises. It may take the following forms#

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 25/26

$imple non se%uitur

• %rises when the conclusion covers new matter with no

attempt made to show a cause4and4effect connection. !"#

$-e is a good husband and father. Therefore, he ought to be

elected mayor.'

7/21/2019 The Fallacies of Argumentation[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fallacies-of-argumentation1 26/26

False &ause (post hocergo propter hoc)

•

This consists in assuming that because one occurrence precedes another in time, one cause of the other. -ere the

time order is mistaken for cause and effect. !"# Thirteen

sit at a table together. %fter a few months, one of the

number is accidentally drowned. ne argues that death is

the effect of thirteen sitting at meal together.