To help us identify a premise and a conclusion, there are so

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC called the premise indicators and conclusion indicators that
precedes a statement.
& CRITICAL THINKING
BRYAN DEO A. TATARO PREMISE INDICATORS CONCLUSION INDICATORS
- Since - therefore
- as indicated by - wherefore
- because - thus
- for in that may be inferred - consequently
from - we may infer
- as - accordingly
- given that - we may conclude
- seeing that - it must be that
- for the reason that - for this reason
- in as much as - so
- owing to - entails that
- hence
o The Philosophical background focuses on the
- it follows that
influence of PLATO and ARISTOTLE - implies that
o Aristotle was a SYSTEMATIC THINKER, and shared - as a result
Plato’s vision of a unified theory of science.
o While Aristotle indisputably turned LOGIC into a RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS:
SCIENCE and invented the discipline of FORMAL There are passages or group of statements that are not
LOGIC, Plato had initiated enquiry into the considered having arguments. Recognizing these passage
FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC and expected his pupils to will help us easily identify whether a passage is has an
train themselves in argumentation. argument or not.
o Aristotle did not accept Plato’s theory of FORMS,
but it influenced his own numerous efforts to NON ARGUMENT PASSAGE:
develop an alternative ontology. 1. Simple Non-inferential Passages
a. Report
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC: b. opinion
• ARGUMENTS – are made up of STATEMENTS c. warning
• A STATEMENT is a sentence that could be TRUE or d. piece of advice
FALSE e. loosely associated opinions
• An ARGUMENT is a GROUP OF STATEMENTS in which 2. Expository Passages
the CONCLUSION is said to follow from the 3. Conditional Passages
PREMISES. (in order for a passage to be considered 4. Illustrations
an argument it must contain at least one premise 5. Explanations
and a conclusion)
Warning no reasons given
A PREMISE is the information intended to PROVIDE SUPPORT
Piece of advice no reasons given
for the CONCLUSION. These are STATEMENTS THAT SET
FORTH A REASON OR EVIDENCE for the conclusion. Statement of belief/opinion no real support given

Loosely associated statements no inferential relationship

CONCLUSION is the MAIN POINT of the ARGUMENT. This is
the STATEMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE IS CLAIMED TO Report simply states facts (e.g. newspaper articles)
SUPPORT OR IMPLY.
Expository not trying to prove anything, just expanding on a
passage topic

Illustration gives examples only

If . . . then statement (an if . . . then statement is not

an argument in itself, but arguments are often
composed of several if . . . then statements) What
Conditional
follows the "if" is called the antecedent (this is the
statement
condition) and what follows the "then" is called
the consequent (this is what will result if the
condition is fulfilled).
 Explains why something is the case. An DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION
explanation is sometimes difficult to distinguish
from an argument because it also involves reasons DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
(and even "premise" indicator words) But, unlike If the arguer believes that
an argument, where the conclusion is the "new" If the arguer believes that
the TRUTH of the premises
Explanation
information, in an explanation, the statement being the TRUTH of the premises
explained--the explanandum, the part of the provides ONLY GOOD
DEFINITELY establishes the
passage that looks like a conclusion--is usually a REASONS to believe the
TRUTH of the
commonly accepted fact. The explanans, which conclusion is PROBABLY
can look like premises, are the "new" information CONCLUSION.
True
in an explanation, whereas the premises are the
accepted fact in an argument. Arguments with Arguments with
CERTAINTY PROBABILITY

* TAKE NOTE THAT NOT ALL STATEMENTS in the PASSAGE EXAMPLES

are part of an argument. There are statements in the In order to buy a delicious 80% of children in Nabua
passage that are merely to introduce the topic in general or cake, a person should have were fully immunized at
a statement that merely makes a passing comment (these at least 300 pesos. Anna the age of one. Ton-ton is
has more than 500 pesos. a child who lives in Nabua.
statements are neither a PREMISE or a CONCLUSION.
Therefore, anna can buy a Therefore, Ton-ton is Fully
Therefore, they should not be included in an argument.)
delicious cake. Immunized
EXPLANATION of deductive and inductive
Example No. 1:
If the arguer believes that
The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up
the premises are true (in The premises “80% of
the cost of health care. But if such suits were outlawed or order to buy a delicious children in Nabua were
severely restricted, then patients would have no means of cake, a person should have fully immunized”, “Ton-ton
recovery for injuries caused by negligent doctors. Hence, the at least 300 pesos. And is a child from Nabua”
availability of malpractice litigation should be maintained Anna has more than 500 doesn’t guarantee the
intact. pesos) then it follows the conclusion that “Ton-ton is
certainty of the truth of its fully immunized”.
The first statement highlighted in GREY is merely just conclusion (Anna can buy a
introducing the topic and does not provide evidence to delicious cake since she has There could be a
support the conclusion (The availability of malpractice more than the required PROBABILITY that ton-ton
litigation should be maintained). amount to buy a delicious is part of that 80% but we
cake – given if the premises are not certain.
are true)
Example No. 2:
Massive federal deficits push up interest rates for everyone.
FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Servicing the debt gobbles up a huge portion of the federal
1. Argument based on mathematics
budget, which lowers our standard of living. And big deficits
- An argument in which the conclusion depends
also weaken the value of the dollar. For these reasons,
on some purely arithmetic or geometric
Congress must make a determined effort to cut overall
computation or measurement – CERTAIN
spending and raise taxes. Politicians who ignore this reality
information.
imperil the future of the nation.
2. Argument from definition
The last statement highlighted in GREY is merely makes a
- An argument in which the conclusion is claimed
passing comment that does not support or provide evidence
to depend merely on the definition of some
for the conclusion (Congress must make a determined effort
word or phrase used in the premise or
to cut overall spending and raise taxes).
conclusion – Words or Phrases have CERTAIN
meaning depending on its definition.

3. Syllogisms
a. Categorical syllogism – “all”,”no”,”some”
b. Hypothetical syllogism – “If… then”
c. Disjunctive syllogism – “either… or”
 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS EXAMPLES OF BAD ARGUMENTS:
(VALIDITY, TRUTH, SOUNDNESS, STREGNTH, COGENCY)
P1: All actors are robots (Not TRUE / has False Premise)
P2: Tom Cruise is an actor
C: Therefore, Tom Cruise is a Robot

- although it follows a good logic (where the conclusion

follows from its premises). The argument does not satisfy the
first condition that “ALL PREMISES must be TRUE”

P1: All tigers are mammals (TRUE premise)

P2: Tony is a mammal (TRUE premise)
C: Therefore, Tony is a tiger

- although it does satisfy the first condition (having all true

TRUTH CONDITION premises) but the LOGIC IS BAD (as the conclusion is not
supported by the premises)
The TRUTH of the premise depends whether the premise is
conceived to be TRUE or FALSE in reality. The TRUTH is the
Mammals
property of being accord with FACT or REALITY.
Tony
*** STATEMENTS can be True or False
Tigers

Examples of Statements/ TRUTH CONDITION of a

PREMISES premise
The premise has a FALSE P1: All tigers are mammals (TRUE premise)
premise because its truth
All DOGS have WINGS. - means that all of the tigers are inside the class member
is NOT harmonious of
mammals
what is observed in reality.
P2: Tony is a mammal (TRUE premise)
The premise has a TRUE
premise because its truth - means that TONY (whatever “Tony” is) belongs to the class
ALL DOGS have TEETH member mammals
is harmonious of what is
observed in reality.
THE QUESTION!
The question now lies whether the conclusion
WHAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT? ( C: Therefore, Tony is a tiger ) is supported by those
GOOD ARGUMENT BAD ARGUMENT Premises (All tigers are mammals, and Tony is a mammal)
an argument is considered an argument that does not
good if it gives us good give us good reason to THE ARGUMENT IS DEFINITELY INVALID… because we
reason to believe the believe the conclusion. concluded that “Tony is a tiger” despite the lack of
conclusion given that the evidence. The conclusion was not supported by the
premises were true. premises. We cannot see “Tony” inside the class “Tiger” to
NECESSARY CONDITIONS If the 2 conditions were not conclude that tony is infact a “Tiger”.
for an argument to be met, the argument is a bad
GOOD: argument. ON THE OTHER HAND, If the argument looks like this…
1. all premises must be true P1: All tigers are mammals (TRUE premise)
(TRUTH CONDITION) P2: Tony is a TIGER (TRUE premise)
2. The conclusion must C: Therefore, Tony is a MAMMAL
FOLLOW FROM the
The Conclusion definitely follows what the premises imply
premises (LOGIC
that TONY includes inside the class member “Mammals”.
CONDITION)

Mammals

Tigers

Tony
 VALIDITY
SOUNDNESS

VALIDITY is used to test DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS only

VALIDITY has nothing to do with the TRUTH of the CONDITIONS FOR A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT TO BE
CONCLUSION or how GOOD the argument is in general. CLASSIFIED AS A “SOUND ARGUMENT”

(The PREMISES could be entirely FALSE but as long as the 1. the argument must be valid (ALL INVALID ARGUMENTS
argument follows a GOOD LOGIC CONDITION then the ARE AUTOMATICALLY UNSOUND)
argument is VALID) 2. The premises of the argument must all be true (any
argument that has even a single false premise is considered
The question in VALIDITY is not whether the premises and unsound)
conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises
support the conclusion. To be sound… an argument must meet these 2
requirements…
Example No. 1:
Example 1.
P1: All humans are mortal (TRUE)
P2: Jose Rizal is a human (TRUE) P1: all cats are purple (FALSE PREMISE)
C: therefore, Jose Rizal is mortal (TRUE) P2: everything that is purple is a person (FALSE PREMISE)
C: therefore, all cats are people
Example No. 2:
- the First condition was satisfied since the argument is
P1: ALL HUMANS ARE IMMORTALS (FALSE) VALID.
P2: A DOG IS A HUMAN (FALSE) - however, the second condition was not met because the
C: THEREFORE, A DOG IS IMMORTAL (FALSE) premises were known to be FALSE (False in a sense that we
know in reality that not all cats are purple).
*** All examples are considered “VALID ARGUMENT” Therefore, the argument is UNSOUND.
despite the second example having a FALSE PREMISE and
FALSE CONCLUSION.

*** In Example number 2, we will ask ourselves “IF

HYPOTHETICALLY, The premise is TRUE (even in reality it is
false) then does the FALSE PREMISE supports the
conclusion?

As long as the conclusion is supported by its premises even

though the premises are known to be false. The argument
is still valid.

INVALID ARGUMENTS – are arguments having conclusion

that is not supported by its premises.
 TEST FOR VALIDITY FOR COGENCY
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

- Since inductive argument is a PROBABILITY, we can not

entirely conclude that an argument would be valid. Rather,
we test its validity depending on the argument’s STRENGHT.

- was the inductive argument STRONG or WEAK?

STREGNTH:

Cogency only applies to inductive arguments

CONDITIONS FOR AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT TO BE

CLASSIFIED AS A “COGENT”.

1. An argument is cogent if it is STRONG. and

2. The PREMISES ARE TRUE.

- An argument should satisfy both conditions to

Example 1:
be considered cogent. If only one is satisfied
then the argument is uncogent.
P1: 50% OF HUMANS ARE FEMALE
P2: PATRICK IS HUMAN
-All weak arguments is automatically classified as uncogent.
C: THEREFORE, PATRICK IS FEMALE
Example:
- it has a WEAK argument for us to believe that the
conclusion would be TRUE.
Most ravens observed so far are black. Therefore, the next
raven to be observed will also be black
Example 2:
- The argument is strong because of the word “most”. The
P1: 90% OF HUMANS ARE RIGHT-HANDED
premise is true because we know that most ravens are black
P2: ROSCHELLE IS HUMAN
(only few are not black given the condition of albinism). THE
C: THEREFORE, ROSCHELLE IS RIGHT HANDED
ARGUMENT IS COGENT.
- it has a STRONG argument for us to believe that the
PROBABILITY of the conclusion would be TRUE is high.
Sample argument analysis on the following passages.

1. Anyone who travelled in Toronto also travelled in

Canada. Sierra went to Canada. Therefore, Sierra Travelled
in Toronto.

- The argument is a DEDUCTIVE argument (because the

premises were stated in certainty)
- The Argument is also INVALID (the conclusion is not
supported by its premise), making the argument also
UNSOUND.

The first premise doesn’t support the conclusion that “Sierra

travelled in Toronto”. It doesn’t mean also that if Sierra
travelled to Canada, she has also travelled in Toronto

Answer: The argument is a deductive argument that is

invalid and is unsound.
LANGUAGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
The CONVENTIONAL CONNOTATION of a term
LINGUISTIC FUNCTIONS: includes the attributes that the term commonly calls forth
1. Cognitive meaning – to convey information in the minds of competent speakers of the language.
2. Emotive meaning – to express or evoke feelings
Using the CONVENTIONAL CONNOTATION of the term
some of the ways that language having cognitive meaning ensures that the meaning remains the same from person to
can be defective. person.
1. Vagueness
2. Ambiguity Example:

VAGUENESS - This expression is one that allows for A person who loves cat would have an intensional meaning
borderline cases in which it is impossible to tell if the of the word “cat” as “loving, adorable, cuddly, etc.)
expression applies or does not apply. this defect in
expressions often allow for a continuous range of
interpretations. While a person who hates cats would have an intensional
meaning of the word “cat” as “abnoxious, disgusting, ugly,
AMBIGUITY - This expression is one that can be interpreted etc.)
as having more than one clearly distinct meaning in a given
context. Such expressions often result from the way in The conventional connotation prevents this as it only
which certain words are combined.
includes connotation of a term that is common to all.
Example: A “cat” has a intensional meaning of “being furry,
having four legs, creates the sound meow, etc” – which is
THE INTENSION AND EXTENSION OF TERMS
generally attributes that is acceptable to all for the term
“cats”
A TERM is any word or arrangement of words that may
serve as the subject of a statement. Terms consist of:
1. Proper names (Hannah, Bicol, Philippines)
2. Common names (animal, person, house)
INCREASING INTENSION VS INCREASING EXTENSION
3. Descriptive phrases (The first lady of America,
Author of Harry Potter book, Books in the library)
Increasing INTENSION
WORDS THAT ARE NOT TERMS INCLUDE: - a series of terms wherein the sequence is from a term with
less attributes to a term that connotes more attributes.
1. Verbs
2. nonsubstantive adjectives
3. adverbs Example:
4. prepositions
5. conjunctions Animal – mammal – feline – tiger
6. all nonsyntactic arrangements of words.
animal mammal feline tiger
- Living - living - living - living
THE COGNITIVE MEANING OF TERMS COMPRISES TWO
organism organism organism organism
KINDS:
- warm - warm - warm
1. INTENSIONAL MEANING
blooded blooded blooded
2. EXTENSIONAL MEANING animal animal animal
- has 4 legs - has 4 legs
- furry - furry
- has claws - has claws
- has orange
fur with
black stripe
patterns

Intensional Meaning / Intension * The sequence or arrangement of terms based on the

– consists of attributes that the term connotes attributes increases.
Extensional Meaning / Extension
- consists of the members of the class that the term
denotes.
Increasing EXTENSION There are DIFFIRENT KINDS OF DEFINITION:
- a series of terms wherein the sequence is from a term with
less class members to a term that denotes more members in 1. STIPULATIVE DEFINITION
a specific class. 2. LEXICAL DEFINITION
3. PRECISING DEFINITION
Example: 4. THEORETICAL DEFINITION
5. PERSUASIVE DEFINITION
tiger – feline – mammal - animal

tiger feline mammal animals 1. STIPULATIVE DEFINITION

- tiger - tiger - tiger - tiger - assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may
- lion - lion - lion involve either coining a new word or giving a new
- puma - puma - puma
meaning to an old word. The purpose of a stipulative
- cheetah - cheetah - cheetah
definition is usually to replace a more complex expression
- cats - cats - cats
- other with a simpler one.
Plus: other mammals
mammals Ex. Discovery of new species. The term to describe the new
(monkeys, Plus: all the coined word would have a stipulative meaning.
donkeys, animals in
horses, the world 2. LEXICAL DEFINITION
dogs, pigs, (all the - is used to report the meaning that a word already has in a
etc.) fishes, language. Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical
amphibians, definitions. Thus, in contrast with a stipulative definition,
reptiles, which assigns a meaning to a word for the first time, a lexical
etc.) definition may be true or false depending on whether it does
or does not report the way a word is actually used.
* The sequence or arrangement of terms based on the
Example:
class members that it denotes increases.
Bank: (1) The slope bordering a stream or river; (2) The
inclination of an aircraft during a turn; (3) An institution for
Note that:
receiving, lending, and safeguarding money.
Increasing Intension = Decreasing Extension
Increasing Extension = Decreasing Intension
3. PRECISING DEFINITION
- The purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the
DEFINITION AND THEIR PURPOSE
vagueness of a word. Words such as “fresh,” “rich,” and
“poor” are vague. Once the vagueness of such words is
What is a DEFINITION?
reduced by a precising definition, one can reach a decision as
- a definition is a group of words that assigns meaning to
to the applicability of the word to a specific situation.
some word or group of words.
Example: Not precising the word “Poor” in providing
The definition has 2 parts:
assistance to the “poor” could create chaos since “everyone
1. The DEFINIENDUM – the word or group of words
could classify themselves as “poor” to claim the relief.
that is SUPPOSED TO BE DEFINED.
2. The DEFINIENS – the word or group of word that
For example, precising the word “Poor” as those households
DOES THE DEFINING.
with less than 10,000 pesos income per month.

Whenever words are taken from ordinary usage and used

in a highly systematic context, such as science,
mathematics, medicine, or law, they must always be
clarified by means of PRECISING DEFINITION.

- The terms “force,” “energy,” “acid,” “element,”

“number,” “equality,” “contract,” and “agent” have all
been given precising definitions by specific disciplines.
4. THEORETICAL DEFINITION
- A theoretical definition assigns a meaning to a word by FALLACIES
suggesting a theory that gives a certain characterization to
the entities that the term denotes. Such a definition What is a Fallacy?
provides a way of viewing or conceiving these entities that - A fallacy is a defect in an argument that arises from either
suggests deductive consequences, further investigation a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that
(experimental or otherwise), and whatever else would be makes a bad argument appear good.
entailed by the acceptance of a theory governing these
entities. TWO GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES
1. FORMAL FALLACY
Example: the definition of “force,” “mass,” and 2. INFORMAL FALLACY
“acceleration” in Newton’s second law of motion as
expressed in the equation “F= MA.”
FORMAL FALLACY
5. PERSUASIVE DEFINITION - A fallacy that may be identified by merely
- The purpose of a persuasive definition is to engender a examining the LOGICAL FORM or STRUCTURE of
favorable or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted an argument.
by the definiendum. This purpose is accomplished by - Fallacies of this kind is found only in DEDUCTIVE
assigning an emotionally charged or value-laden meaning to ARGUMENTS that have identifiable forms.
a word while making it appear that the word really has (or
ought to have) that meaning in the language in which it is Example:
used. If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Example: Therefore, apes are intelligent.
“Abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent
children. * The argument is not logical since the conclusion is not
supported by its premises. The argument commits a Formal
“Abortion” means a safe and established surgical Fallacy.
procedure whereby a woman is relieved of an unwanted
burden.
INFORMAL FALLACY
*The definition depends on how you persuade a specific - Informal fallacies are those that CAN BE
reader or listener. DETECTED ONLY BY EXAMINING THE CONTENT
OF AN ARGUMENT.
- Informal fallacy is ERROR in REASONING itself.

Example:
A chess player is a person.
Therefore, a bad chess player is a bad person

* there is error in reasoning. “it doesn’t mean that a bad

chess player is a bad person”

INFORMAL FALLACIES

Informal fallacies include:

1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
2. FALLACY OF WEAK INDUCTION
3. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION, AMBIGUITY and
ILLICIT TRANSFERENCE
 that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely,
1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE I am not guilty.

- Arguments that have premises that are C. APPEAL TO PEOPLE (Argumentum ad Populum)
LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT to the conclusion.
- Although premises may appear “psychologically
relevant” that could blind a reader/listener into
accepting the conclusion.

The fallacies of relevance include the following:

A. APPEAL TO FORCE Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired,

B. APPEAL TO PITY valued, recognized, and accepted by others. The appeal to
C. APPEAL TO PEOPLE the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to
D. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON accept a conclusion based on these personal needs.
E. ACCIDENT
F. STRAWMAN Two approaches are involved in APPEAL TO PEOPLE: one of
G. MISSING THE POINT them DIRECT, the other INDIRECT.
H. REDHERRING
DIRECT APPROACH INDIRECT APPROACH
A. APPEAL TO FORCE (Argumentum ad Baculum) 1. Appeal to FEAR 1. Appeal to VANITY
2. Appeal to SNOBBERY
3. Appeal to TRADITION

APPEAL TO FEAR
- Conclusion imposed fear but that fear is not
supported by evidences.
Example:
- This happens if an arguer forces a conclusion to
Senator Dela Cruz loves watching war related action films, he
be accepted by means of some harm or
has also a huge fascination of the history of wars in the world.
consequence.
If you vote for him as your next president, it would result to
- Example: Sesame street is the best show on TV;
a reignition of wars and conflict in our nation.
and if you don’t believe it, I’m going to call my
big brother over here to beat you up!
APPEAL TO VANITY
- Example: “Senator, of course you will support
- involves linking the love, admiration, or approval
our bill to reduce inheritance taxes. After all,
of the crowd with some famous figure who is
you wouldn’t want the public to know your
loved, admired, or approved of to persuade the
dirty secrets”
readers or listeners to believe the argument.
Example:
B. APPEAL TO PITY (Argumentum ad Misecordiam)
“Of course, you want to look as fresh and beautiful as Gigi
Hadid. That means you will want to buy and use Cover Girl
cosmetics.”

APPEAL TO SNOBBERY
- the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is
supposed to be superior in some way—more
wealthy, more powerful, more culturally refined,
- when an arguer attempts to support a
more intelligent, and so on.
conclusion by merely evoking pity from the
- As the argument goes, if the listener wants to be
reader or listener.
part of this group, then he or she will do a
Example
certain thing, think in a certain way, or buy a
Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared
certain product.
thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even
though I have only two. But if you find me guilty of tax
evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I’ll probably lose my
job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation
Example of APPEAL TO SNOBBERY: AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTATNTIAL
- The second arguer in response to the first arguer
“The Lexus 400 series is not for everyone. Only those with (instead of personally attacking with verbal
considerable means and accomplishment will acquire one” abuse), attempts to discredit the opponent’s
argument by alluding to certain circumstances
* A person who wanted to prove that he is part of that group that affect the opponent.
(Those with considerable means and accomplishment) will - By doing so the second arguer hopes to show
be deceived to automatically without hesitation purchase that the first arguer is predisposed to argue the
the item. way he or she does and should therefore NOT BE
TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
APPEAL TO TRADITION
- It occurs when an arguer cites the fact that Example:
something has become a tradition as grounds for Second arguer: “The Dalai Lama argues that China has no
some conclusion. business in Tibet and that the West should do something
- This fallacy imposes that just because it has been about it. But the Dalai Lama just wants the Chinese to leave
done that way based on tradition that it will be so he can return as leader. Naturally he argues this way.
done the same thing in the future. Therefore, we should reject his arguments.”

Example: * The second arguer discredits the Dalai Lama’s argument by

“Serving turkey on Thanksgiving Day is a long-standing calling attention to certain CIRCUMSTANCES that affect the
tradition. Therefore, we should serve turkey next Dalai Lama – which is the “But the Dalai Lama just wants the
Thanksgiving Day” Chinese to leave so he can return as leader”.

D. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (Argumentum We know that the Dalai Lama governs Tibet before the
ad Hominem) Chinese ruled over. But given circumstance of the second
arguer, it is still irrelevant to whether the premise supports
the conclusion that “we should reject the argument of the
Dalai Lama”

TU QUOQUE (“YOU TOO”) FALLACY

- the second arguer attempts to make the first
arguer appear to be hypocritical or arguing in
bad faith.
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them
- The second arguer usually accomplishes this by
advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument,
citing features in the life or behavior of the first
and the other then responds by directing his or her attention
arguer that conflict with the first arguer’s
not to the first person’s argument but to the first person
conclusion.
himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to
Example:
commit an argument against the person.
Kim Kardashian argues that women should not have children
out of wedlock. But who is she to talk? She gave birth to her
There are 3 sub-classification under ARGUMENT AGAINST
daughter North without being married. Clearly Kardashian’s
THE PERSON:
argument is not worth listening to.
1. Ad hominem abusive
2. Ad hominem circumstantial
* The second arguer makes it sound like Kim Kardashian is a
3. Tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy
hypocrite.
* the fact that Kim Kardashian gave birth to a daughter out
AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE
of wedlock is irrelevant to whether her premises support her
- The second arguer responds to the first arguer
conclusion.
not in response to the first arguer’s argument
but instead verbally attacks the first arguer
himself.
Example:
“Television entertainer Bill Maher argues that religion is just
a lot of foolish nonsense. But Maher is an ugly, arrogant,
shameless, self-righteous pig. Obviously, his arguments are
not worth listening to.”
 * Mr. Goldberg argues against prayer in public schools (The
E. ACCIDENT arguer DISTORTS this by saying that “Mr. Goldberg
advocates atheism”) even though it is not.

* The arguer attacks the DISTORTED statement “atheism”

(implying that Atheism could result to other problems)

* The arguer then concludes that Mr. Goldberg’s argument

is nonsense. (which is not entirely supported by we should
not believe Mr. Goldberg’s argument)

G. MISSING THE POINT

The fallacy of accident is committed when a general rule is
applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or
implicitly) in the premises and then wrongly applied to the
specific case mentioned in the conclusion.

Example:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, John Q. Radical should not be arrested for his
speech that incited the riot last week.
This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument
General rule: “FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A RIGHT OF support one particular conclusion, but then a different
EVERYBODY” – a statement that is correct. conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion,
is drawn.
It is wrongfully applied to a specific case which is since
“FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE RIGHT OF EVERYBODY” then Example:
John Q. Radical should not be arrested because he is just Abuse of the welfare system is rampant nowadays. Our
practicing his right to freedom of speech (even though his only alternative is to abolish the system altogether.
action resulted to a riot which would be grounds for him to
be legally arrested). So the argument commits a fallacy. * the premises logically suggest some systematic effort to
eliminate the cheaters rather than eliminating the system
F. STRAW MAN altogether. The conclusion totally missed the point of the
premise.

H. RED HERRING

1. The arguer DISTORTS the opponent’s argument for

the purpose of easily attacking it.
2. The arguer attacks “what he distorts” and then
concludes that the opponent’s real argument has The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts
been demolished. the attention of the reader or listener by changing the
subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one.
Example:
Example:
Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools. Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers
Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no
what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people
suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents
omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I are caused by carelessness, they could be avoided if people
hardly think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg’s argument is would just exercise greater caution.
nonsense.
* The original issue is about nuclear power being dangerous. him and conclude that smoking does not in fact lead to any
addiction.
* The arguer changes this subject to the danger of
electrocution and proceeds to draw a conclusion about * He has all the motives to lie because he owns a Tobacco
that. company.

* The new subject is clearly different from the possibility of B. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
nuclear explosion or meltdown, but the fact that both are
related to electricity facilitates the arguer’s goal of leading
someone off the track.

2. FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION

The fallacies of weak induction occur because the

connection between premises and conclusion is not strong
enough to support the conclusion. When the premises of an argument state that nothing has
been proved one way or the other about something, and the
Unlike the Fallacies of Relevance where is committed conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing,
because the premises are logically irrelevant to the the argument commits an appeal to ignorance.
conclusion, the Fallacy of weak induction has arguments that
are LOGICALLY RELEVANT but provides weak reason to Examples:
believe that the argument is true.
People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive
The fallacies of weak induction include: evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever
succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a
A. APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY lot of nonsense.
B. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
C. HASTY GENERALIZATION People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims
D. FALSE CAUSE of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we
E. SLIPPERY SLOPE must conclude that the claims of astrology are true.
F. WEAK ANALOGY
*We ignore the fact that ASTROLOGY is something that is not
yet proven yet. So, conclusions would be weak.

A. APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY

occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

for us to believe that the argument is true (The person might
lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced,
might have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,”
or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall.)

Example:
James W. Johnston, former Chairman of R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, testified before Congress that tobacco is
not an addictive substance and that smoking cigarettes does
not produce any addiction. Therefore, we should believe
 C. HASTY GENERALIZATION E. SLIPPERY SLOPE

The fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause

fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests
Hasty generalization is a fallacy that affects inductive on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient
generalizations. The fallacy occurs when there is a reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take
reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative place.
of the group. Such a likelihood may arise if the sample is
either too small or not randomly selected. Often, this fallacy is committed when an arguer viewed an
innocent first statement visualizes it to cause multiple chain
Example: reaction ultimately resulting in a DISASTER.

Today’s money managers are a pack of thieves, every last Example:

one of them. Look at Bernie Madoff and Robert Allen Professor Fallon has asked us to purchase a coffeemaker for
Stanford. They ripped off billions of dollars from thousands her office (Innocent first step). But we shouldn’t do that
of trusting clients. And Raj Rajaratnam profited to the tune because next she’ll want a microwave, and then a convection
of millions of dollars through illegal insider trading. oven. Then she’ll want a full-sized refrigerator, a sink with
* The specific cases cited (citation of some money managers hot and cold water, a dishwasher, and a complete set of
who committed theft) were just not enough evidence to expensive china (Chain rection – not likely to occur). This will
support a stated GENERAL RULE that “ALL MONEY exhaust the budget of our department (DISASTER).
MANAGERS ARE THIEVES”.
F. WEAK ANALOGY
D. FALSE CAUSE

This fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy (an

argument from analogy is an argument in which the
conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or
The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between
similarity, between two things or situations).
premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal
connection that probably does not exist.
The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy
(Similarity) is not strong enough to support the conclusion
Example:
that is drawn.
During the past two months, every time that the
cheerleaders have worn blue ribbons in their hair, the
Example:
basketball team has been defeated. Therefore, to prevent
Amber’s dog is similar in many ways to Kyle’s cat. Both like
defeats in the future, the cheerleaders should get rid of
being petted, they enjoy being around people, they beg for
those blue ribbons.
food at the dinner table, and they sleep with their owners.
Amber’s dog loves to romp on the beach with Amber.
False cause: every time that the cheerleaders have worn blue
Therefore, Kyle’s cat PROBABLY loves to romp on the beach
ribbons in their hair, the basketball team has been defeated.
with Kyle.
* the chances of winning is not determined whether they
* it does not mean that just because both have a lot of
wear blue ribbons or not.
similarities is that they are similar in every aspect.
 Example:
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION, AMBIGUITY Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future
AND ILLICIT TRANSFERENCE for the simple reason that if a person has no vision of the
future, he could not possibly preach revolution.

FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION *We beg the question. “How do we know that a person with
- These fallacies arise not because the premises with no vision of the future could not possibly preach
are irrelevant to the conclusion or provide revolution?”
insufficient reason for believing the conclusion
but because the premises presume what they 3. The third form of petitio principii involves circular
purport to prove. reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first
premise that is possibly false.
Fallacies under FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION:
1. BEGGING THE QUESTION Example:
2. COMPLEX QUESTION
Verizon has the best wireless service. After all, their phones
3. FALSE DICHOTOMY
have the clearest sound. And we know this is so because
4. SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
customers hear better on Verizon phones. And this follows
from the fact that Verizon has digital technology. But this is
BEGGING THE QUESTION (Petitio Principii) exactly what you would expect given that Verizon has the
best wireless service.

* The argument begins with what they are trying to end. It

has multiple conclusions that is not well supported the a
single shaky premise.

*We beg the question. “How do we know that their phones

have the clearest sound?; How do we know that customers
hear better on Verizon phones?; How do we know that
Verizon really has a digital technology?” – simple stating that
“Verizon has the best wireless services” doesn’t explain
In arguments that commit “Begging the question” fallacy, those claims.
THE ACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSION IS NOT ---
APPARENT so the argument is said to “beg the question”. COMPLEX QUESTION

Begging the question occurs when the premises that are

meant to support an argument already assume that the
conclusion is true by itself.

3 ways of committing Begging the question:

1. The first, and most common, way of committing this The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or
fallacy is by leaving a possibly false key premise out more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question
of the argument while creating the illusion that and a single answer is then given to both of them.
nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion.
It means that a single question can result to two different
Example: interpretation based on the answer given to the one that
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that asked the question.
abortion is morally wrong.

*We beg the question. “How do we know that abortion is a

form of murder?”

2. The second form of petitio principii occurs when the

conclusion of an argument merely restates a
possibly false premise in slightly different language.
 POSSIBLE * We ignore and suppressed an evidence that “Not all dogs
RESPONSES
Example: it follows that are completely friendly and pose no threat to people who
You you have pet them” that we conclude that “the dog approaching us
You were respond cheated in the would be safe to pet”.
asked YES past.
whether you
have stopped FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
You It means that
cheating on
respond you continue to
exams. These fallacies arise from the occurrence of some form of
NO cheat.
ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion (or both)

Fallacies under FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY:

* This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent 1. EQUIVOCATION
into acknowledging something that he or she might 2. AMPHIBOLY
otherwise not want to acknowledge.
EQUIVOCATION

FALSE DICHOTOMY (False Dilemma)

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a

disjunctive (“either . . . or . . .”) premise presents two unlikely
alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the
arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving
the desirable one as the conclusion.

Example:
- The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the
EITHER you let me attend the Pink concert OR I’ll be conclusion of an argument depends on the fact
miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don’t want me that a word or phrase is used in TWO DIFFERENT
to be miserable for the rest of my life, so it follows that you’ll SENSES in the argument.
let me attend the concert. - Such arguments are either invalid or have a false
premise, and in either case they are unsound.
* this asserts exclusive disjunction that there is no other
possible alternative for her not to be miserable but to attend Example:
the Pink concert. The premise is limited to the desired Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the
outcome of the arguer. law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be
repealed by the legislative authority.
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
* the argument has the word “LAW” which has TWO
DIFFERENT SENSES. A law in court is different in the law
governing scientific reasoning.

AMPHIBOLY

If an inductive argument does ignore evidences of the truth

of its premises (uncongent), then the argument commits the
fallacy of suppressed evidence.

Example:
Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who - The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer
pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to pet the little dog misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then
that is approaching us now.
 draws a conclusion based on this faulty REMEMBER: COMPOSITION AND HASTY GENERALIZATION
interpretation. MIGHT BE SIMILAR AT FIRST GLANCE BUT THEY ARE
- the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in DIFFERENT
grammar or punctuation, or some other careless
arrangement of words. COMPOSITION HASTY GENERALIZATION

Example:
John told henry that HE had made a mistake. It follows that
John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.

* The word “HE” could be interpreted differently.

* John told henry that HE (JOHN) had made a mistake. Or, Attributes of “parts” of the A specific case is mistaken
class is mistakenly to be the case for all cases
* John told henry that HE (HENRY) had made a mistake. transferred to the class as in GENERAL.
* because of this, a reader or listener could easily a WHOLE.
misinterpret this kind of argument.
DIVISION

FALLACIES OF ILLICIT TRANSFERENCE

Arguments that commit these fallacies involve the incorrect

transference of an attribute from the parts of something
onto the whole, or from the whole onto the parts.

Fallacies under FALLACIES OF ILLICIT TRANSFERENCE:

1. COMPOSITION
2. DIVISION
The fallacy of division is the exact REVERSE of composition.
As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from
COMPOSITION
whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion
of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of
an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or
members).
Example:
This airplane was made in Seattle. Therefore, every
component part of this airplane was made in Seattle.

* It does not mean that because the airplane was made in

seattle that its individual component parts were also made
in seattle.

REMEMBER: DIVISION AND ACCIDENT MIGHT BE SIMILAR

AT FIRST GLANCE BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion
of an argument depends on the ERROR or MISTAKE in the DIVISION ACCIDENT
transference of an attribute from the parts of something
onto the whole.

Example:
Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete.
Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.

* it does not mean that because every basketball player on

the team is an excellent player it automatically equates to an Attributes of the “WHOLE A GENERAL RULE is
excellent team as a whole. CLASS” is mistakenly mistakenly taken to be the
transferred to its specific rule for each specific case.
PARTS.
 FALLACIES

FORMAL INFORMAL

Fallacy of Relevance Fallacy of Weak induction Fallacies of

Presumption,
Ambiguity, and
Illicit Transference

A. APPEAL TO FORCE A. APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED

AUTHORITY
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

B. APPEAL TO PITY B. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

A. BEGGING THE QUESTION

B. COMPLEX QUESTION
C. APPEAL TO PEOPLE C. HASTY GENERALIZATION
C. FALSE DICHOTOMY
DIRECT APPROACH D. SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
1. Appeal to Fear D. FALSE CAUSE

INDIRECT APPROACH FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

E. SLIPPERY SLOPE
1. Appeal to Vanity
A. EQUIVOCATION
2. Appeal to Snobbery
F. WEAK ANALOGY
B. AMPHIBOLY
3. Appeal to Tradition

FALLACIES OF ILLICIT
D. ARGUMENT AGAINST TRANSFERENCE
THE PERSON
A. COMPOSITION
1. Ad Hominem ABUSIVE
B. DIVISION
2. Ad Hominem Circumstantial

3. To Quoque “You Too”

Fallacy

E. ACCIDENT

F. STRAWMAN

G. MISSING THE POINT

H. REDHERRING BRYAN DEO A. TATARO

Instructor - MC-4: Logic and Critical Thinking