ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
TAFT AVENUE CORNER MENLO STEET, PASAY CITY

Legal Technique
and logic
Summer Class A.Y. 2016-2017

Fallacies
Chapter 4

Submitted to:
Atty. Victor Carlo Antonio V. Cayco

Submitted by:

Gayados, Steven Mark N.

Gelario, Floreza Lara M.
Ibaez, Emmanuel G.
Laus, Czarmaigne P.
Penaflor, Angelique Kamille U.
Valdez, Basill Owen
Vergara, Donato III U.
I. Fallacies
Is a kind of error in reasoning.
Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created
unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other
people.
The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments,
although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of
reasoning.
Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false
belief or cause of a false belief. The list below includes some fallacies of these
sorts, but most are fallacies that involve kinds of errors made while arguing
informally in natural language.
Is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the
construction of an argument.1
A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by
deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or
ignorance. Lawyers acknowledge that the extent to which an argument is sound or
unsound depends on the context in which the argument is made.2

A. Types of fallacies:

1. Formal
Are those that may be identified through mere inspection of the form
and structure of an argument3
Fallacies of this kind are found only in the deductive arguments that
have identifiable forms.
A formal fallacy is one which involves an error in the form,
arrangement or technical structure of an argument. The question in
view is not whether a conclusion is true or false, but whether the form
of the argument is correct or incorrect, valid or invalid.
The concluding statement of an argument may be objectively true,
though the argument is formally invalid; or the concluding statement
may be objectively false, though the argument is formally valid. Here
are some examples:

2. Informal
Are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of the
argument.
Informal fallacies are a matter of unclear expression.

1
(Woods, John. 2004. The Death of Argument. Applied Logic Series. 32. pp. 323.
2
(Bustamente, Thomas; Dahlman, Christian, eds. 2015. Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation.
Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. p. x.).
3
(Robert m. Johnson, A logic Book: Fundamentals of Reasoning 5th ed. 2007).
 The word "informal" does not here mean it is inferior, casual or
improper. It only means that our focus is not on the form of the
argument, but on the meaning of the argument.
An informal fallacy involves such things as: the misuse of language
such as words or grammar, misstatements of fact or opinion,
misconceptions due to underlying presuppositions, or just plain
illogical sequences of thought.

B. Categories of fallacies

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity
Are committed because of a misuse of language. They contain ambiguous or
vague language which is deliberately used to mislead people.
When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the
argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion. Some will say
single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific
form of a fallacy known as equivocation.4

Example:
All living beings come from other living beings.
Therefore, the first forms of life must have come from a living
being.
That living being is God.

Explanation:
This argument is guilty of two cases of ambiguity. First, the first
use of the phrase, come from, refers to reproduction, whereas the
second use refers to origin. The fact that we know quite a bit about
reproduction is irrelevant when considering origin. Second, the
first use of, living being, refers to an empirically verifiable,
biological, living organism. The second use of, living being,
refers to a belief in an immaterial god. As you can see, when a
term such as, living being, describes a Dodo bird as well as the
all-powerful master of the universe, it has very little meaning and
certainly is not specific enough to draw logical or reasonable
conclusions.
-
2. Fallacies of irrelevant evidence
Those which have a problem with the connection of the premise and
conclusion.

4
(Jevons, W. S. (1872). Elementary lessons in logic: deductive and inductive: with copious questions and examples,
and a vocabulary of logical terms. Macmillan.).
 They occur because the premise is not logically relevant to the
conclusion.
They are misleading because the premises are psychologically
relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises
although it does not follow logically.
What is flawed about an argument with a fallacy of relevance is that
the connection between the premises and conclusion is emotional.
To recognize this kind of fallacy, you need to be aware of the
difference between arguments that use genuine evidence and those that
rely on an emotional appeal

Examples:
You would let me borrow money from your again, right? Besides,
what friends are for?
I really feel sorry for your lost. He is a good friend of mine
tooand if he were alive, he would really want you to buy this
product. So, just print your name here in the list and Ill deliver the
product personally to you after his burial.
You cannot convict this man because he is the only breadwinner
in the family. If hes gone, his family will die in hunger.
Please pass me in this subject because my father would kill me if
he learned that I failed again.

3. Fallacies of insufficient evidence

They occur because the premise fail to provide evidence strong enough to
support the conclusion, they are not sufficient to cause a reasonable person to
accept the conclusion.

Example:
This winter was colder than last winter: the climate must be
getting colder

Explanation:
This is a logical fallacy of insufficient evidence because more
evidence than a change for one year is needed to establish a
climatic trend.

II. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

Sometimes called sophisms
The meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention or may be
deliberately manipulated within the course of an argument. A term may have one
sense in a premise but quite a different sense in the conclusion. When the
inference drawn on depends upon such changes it is of course fallacious. Mistakes
of this kind are called Fallacies of Ambiguity.
A. EQUIVOCATION
Most words have more than one literal meaning and most of the time we
have no difficulty in keeping those meanings apart by noting the context and
using our good sense when reading and listening. Yet when we confuse the
several meanings of a word or phrase accidentally or deliberately we are
using the word equivocally.
If we do that in the context of an argument, we commit the fallacy of
equivocation.

Example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Explanation:
In the example, two distinct meanings of the word light are used in
the same argument. In the premise, the word light is used to mean
not heavy, and in the middle term light is used in its optical
sense. Because the two definitions are unrelated, the premise does
not bear on the conclusion, even though the same word is used
throughout.

This fallacy consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted

conclusion by using a term in its different senses and making it
appear to have only one meaning.

B. AMPHIBOLY
Means two in a lump
Occurs when one is arguing from premises whose formulations are
ambiguous because of their grammatical construction.
A statement is amphibolous when its meaning is indeterminate
because of the loose or awkward way in which the words are
combined. When it is stated as premise with the interpretation that
makes it true and a conclusion is drawn from it on the interpretation
that makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly is committed.

Example:
I give and bequeath the sum of Php 500,000 to my nieces
Angeline Ramos and Rose Perez.

Explanation:
You know the counsel for the beneficiaries are going to claim that
each is entitled to Php500,000; the estate lawyer will argue that the
total sum is not Php1,000,000 but Php500,000 only.
 Example:
I am opposed to taxes which slow economic growth.

Explanation:
Is the speaker opposed to all taxes because they slow economic
growth or just taxes that slow economic growth?

Though grammatically it would indicate the latter, but if a comma

were added after taxes, it would indicate the former.

C. ACCENT
Also referred to as accentus
Is a type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is
changed by placing an unusual verbal emphasis or when, in a written
passage, it is left unclear on which word the emphasis was supposed to
fall.
When a premise relies for its apparent meaning on one possible
emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn that relies on the meaning of the
same words accented differently, the fallacy of accent is committed.
It consists in misleading people by placing improper emphasis on a
word, phrase or particular aspect issue or claim.

Example:
I didnt take the test yesterday.

Explanation:
Somebody else did
I did not take it
I did something else with it
I took a different one
I took something else
I took on some other day

D. COMPOSITION
A fallacy of ambiguity in which an argument erroneously assigns attributes
to a whole (or to a collection) based on the fact that parts of that whole (or
members of that collection) have those attributes.

a. Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the

attributes of the whole itself.
 Examples:
Every part of a certain machine is light in weight, the machine as
a whole is light in weight.

Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the

team is a great team.

b. The second type of fallacy is committed when it is concluded that what

is true of the parts of the whole must be true of the whole without an
adequate justification for the claim.

Example:
The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4.
However it is invalid to conclude the number 4 is odd.

E. DIVISION
The fallacy of division is simply the reverse of fallacy of composition. In it
the same confusion is present but the inference proceeds in the opposite
direction.

Examples:
Since a certain corporation is very important, and Mr. Doe is an
official of that corporation, therefore Mr. Doe is also important.

Since PNP is one of the most corrupt agencies of the government,

therefore these three policemen cannot be trusted.

III. FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

A. Argumentum ad Hominem
This kind of fallacy ignores the issue by focusing on the personal
circumstances and/or characteristics of an opponent;
It shifts attention from the argument to the arguer;
Instead of disproving the substance of what is asserted, the argument
attacks the person who made the assertion.

Two kinds of argumentum ad Hominem

1. Abusive argumentum ad Hominem This fallacy attacks the

argument based on the arguers reputation, personality or personal
shortcoming. The idea is to win others approval not on the basis of the
merits of the case, but on disdain of the character or position of those on
the opposite side.
Example:
X argues that death penalty should be revived because it instills
fear among the criminals and thereby prevent or deter them from
committing a crime. Y counter-argues that X knows nothing about
death penalty because he did not finish elementary education.

Explanation:
The attack on the character is simply irrelevant to the point in issue
since it focuses on the person arguing by stating his educational
attainment. It does not necessarily follow that a person who did not
finish elementary education cannot give good arguments in favor
of death penalty.

Example:
A argues that the bar exam is easy because it does not involve a lot
of computations and complicated formulas. B counter-argues that
A does not know anything about the bar exams or anything about
law school exams because A is not a law student.

Explanation:
Here, instead of presenting reasons why the bar exams is hard, B
attacks the personal circumstance of A (not being a law student),
which is totally irrelevant to the issue presented by A.

Case in point: Mene vs Judge Belen. (A.M. RTJ-08-2119)

Summary of the case:

Atty. Mane, the complainant charged Judge Belen of demeaning,
humiliating and berating him during a hearing of which he was a
counsel for one of the parties. Respondent judge allegedly
criticized Atty. Mane for not being a graduate of UP college of
Law.

The Supreme Court held that respondent was guilty of conduct

unbecoming of a judge. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates
that a judge should be courteous to counsel, for it is unbecoming of
a judge to utter intemperate language during the hearing.

Judge Belen committed an abusive argumentum ad hominem since

instead of presenting arguments on how Atty. Mane is unfit or
incompetent as a lawyer (i.e. by stating that the pleadings or
motions he filed are not presented in a clear and concise manner),
Judge Belen focused on the fact that Atty. Mane is not a graduate
of UP College of Law.
 2. Circumstantial The fallacy consists in defending ones position by
accusing his or her critic or other people of doing the same thing. It is also
called tu quoque which means youre another or you yourself do it.

Example:
X, a member of the previous administration, criticizes the move of
the present administration, in which Y is a member, to privatize
government-run industries. Y defends such action of the current
administration by stating that when the previous administration
was in power, it sold several government companies like
NAPOCOR and MWSS to private sector.

Explanation:
Here, Y committed a circumstantial argumentum ad Hominem
since instead of presenting good reasons about how the present
administration is justified in its privatization move, Y focused on
what the opposition did when it was in power (which was not the
issue).

Example:
A, a lawyer, criticizes B, another lawyer, for unreasonably
delaying the case by moving for postponement for more than 5
times. B counter-argues that A has also postponed a case that he
handled in the past for 10 times.

Explanation:
Here, B committed a circumstantial argumentum ad Hominem
since instead of presenting good arguments on why the
postponements are justified, B focused on what A did in his
previous case (which was to postpone the case for 10 times).

B. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

This fallacy focuses not on the argument but on the emotional appeal to
pity of the person making the argument. The judge is persuaded to accept
the argument of the lawyer not because it is valid/based on established
law and jurisprudence but because of the counsel invoking feelings of
compassion and sympathy.

Example:
Closing speech of Clarence Darrow, a prominent U.S. lawyer,
when he defended Thomas Kidd, a union official on trial for
criminal conspiracy (a portion of which states):

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 earth. I appeal to you for those men who
rise in the morning before daylight comes and who go home at
night when the light has faded. I appeal to you in the name of those
children, the living and the unborn.

Explanation:
Here, Clarence Darrow committed an appeal to pity since instead
of presenting good arguments on why Thomas Kidd is not
involved in a criminal conspiracy he instead invoked the plights
and troubles of the men, women and children. He stated how these
men and women struggled for their lives, which is completely
irrelevant to the fact in issue

C. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

This Fallacy consists in persuading others to accept a position by using

threat or pressure instead of presenting evidence for ones view. The
strength of this fallacy lies on the fear that it creates to people which
leads them to agree with the argument.

Illustration:
Cabinet secretary to a Congressman: The President wants
Congress to pass this bill. I think you have to support it. Of course,
you dont want Malacaan to reduce your Priority Development
Assistance Fund which will finance your infrastructure projects in
your town.

Explanation:
This argument of the cabinet secretary used to threat to persuade
the congressman to support the president.

This is fallacious since it ignores the real issue at hand which is

whether the bill should be supported or not. The cabinet secretary
should have explained how the bill can be beneficial for the
country and, thus, has to be passed by the Congress, rather than
threatening the congressman of fund reduction for his projects.

Threats and other forms of intimidation can often bring about the
acceptance of a conclusion, but not because good arguments were
presented. There is no way that such arguments could qualify as
good one, because their premises have no bearing on the merit of
their conclusions.
E. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Dome arguments are designed to persuade people by means of the
wording of one of its premises. There are arguments that are said to beg
the question.
Even though the conclusion is clearly not justified by the premises,
the listener is, in effect, begged to accept it. Somehow there
appears to be eviential support, but what seems to be evidence is
actually a form of conclusion in disguise.

Different types of Petitio Principii:

1. Arguing in Circle - This type of begging-the-question fallacy states or

assumes as a premise the very question that should be proven in the
conclusion. This circular argument makes use of its conclusion to serve
as its premise. In, short, the argument presupposes the truth of its
conclusion. This, its premise fails to provide evidence since it is not
different from the conclusion and as questionable as the conclusion it
purports to support.

Illustration:
Gina: This person 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.

Explanation:
In this argument, Gina may think that she is giving a reason why
the person committed bribery, but at best she is only explaining
what the act of bribery means.

2. Question-Begging Language - This fallacy consists in 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 the same conclusion.
Question-begging language prematurely assumes that a matter that is or
may be at issue has already been settled. In such cases, the listener is
subtly being begged to infer a particular conclusion, although no good
reasons are presented for doing so.

Illustration:
Prosecutor to witness: Would you tell us, Ms. Diaz, about the
nature of relationship you have with the rapist, Mr. Sanchez?
 Explanation:
The prosecutor is using language in his question to Ms. Diaz that
begs the very question at issue in the courtroom. An alert defense
attorney would object vigorously to the implicit argument
embedded in this question begging language.

3. Complex Question - This fallacy consists in asking a question which

some presuppositions are buried in that question. Another term used to
refer to this fallacy is loaded question, which suggests, like the term
complex, that more than one question is being asked in what appears to
be a single question.

In this deceptive way of arguing, one of the questions is explicitly

expressed but the others are implicit. When the respondent answers, he or
she is somehow affirms a questionable assumption contained in the
question.

Illustration:
Prosecutor: would you allow a criminal to roam around your
village?

Explanation:
In this case, the questioner has assumed a positive answer to an
implicit question namely, that the person accused is a criminal.

Whatever answer the respondent would give to the questions will

force him to agree with the assumed claim of the questioner
through this is unsupported by evidence.

4. Leading Question - This fallacy consists in directing the respondent to

give a particular answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the
question is asked. A leading question usually involves asking only one
question. This question contains an unsupported claim, in that it
unjustifiably assumes a position on what is probably debatable or at least
an open issue. The questioner is, in effect, asking another to assume the
same position on the issue, yet it fails to provide any adequate justification
for the respondent to do so.

The questioner therefore is simply begging the respondent to come at the

same conclusion.

Illustration:
Lawyer: you were outside the country when the crime was
committed, werent you?
 Explanation:
In this case, the defense lawyer is leading the witness, by
assuming a position on the very question at issue namely,
whether the defendant was in the country or outside the country
when the crime happened.

IV. FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

A. Appeal to the Ages (Argumentum ad Antiquum)

This fallacy attempts to 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.

Examples:
I dont understand why the Church allowed cremation of the dead.
In our time, we have not been taught to burn the bodies of our dead
loved ones. It was not done when my lolo and lola died, as well
when tatay and nanay died. We should not also do that to any of
our relatives.

There is nothing wrong with kaingin. Our forefathers have

practiced it since time immemorial. Do you mean to tell me that
they were all the while?

Explanation:
The reasoning is fallacious because what was true before may not
be true at present. It only appealed to the comfortableness of a
tradition.

B. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

This fallacy consists in persuading others by appealing to people who command
respect but not have legitimate authority in the matter at hand.
An authority in a particular field is one who has sufficient knowledge of
the matters belonging to that field, is qualified by training or ability to
draw appropriate inferences from knowledge, and is free from any
prejudices or conflicts of interest that would prevent him or her from
formulating sound judgments.

Example:
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.

Another type of inappropriate authority is a biased one. Some people may be

qualified in a particular filed by training, ability and position, yet they are so
 vitally interested in or affected by the issue at stake that there would be a good
reason to treat their testimony with suspicion.
In determining whether the fallacy of inappropriate authority is present,
one has to pay attention on the background or circumstances of the
supposed authority being relied on with regard to a particular issue.

C. Accident
This fallacy consists in applying a general rule to a particular case when
circumstances suggest that an exception to the rule should apply.

Example:
Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Leo Beltran should not be arrested for his speech that
incited the riot last week.

Cases:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST
ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILS. (TBAP) vs. COMELEC
[289 SCRA 337; G.R. NO. 132922; 21 APRIL 1998]

All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is

licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be
allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than
there are frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege
subject, among other things, to amendment by Congress in
accordance with the constitutional provision that any such
franchise or right granted shall be subject to amendment,
alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so
requires.

TBAP is an organization of lawyers of radio and television

broadcasting companies while GMA Network operates radio and
television broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines under a
franchise granted by Congress. The petitioners in this case
challenged the validity of BP 881 which requires radio and
television broadcast companies to provide free air time to
COMELEC for the use of candidates for campaign and other
political purposes arguing that it takes the property without due
process of law and without just compensation as well as denying
radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of
the laws. Moreover, they argue that this is in excess of the power
given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of
media communication or information during the period of election.

Is the contention valid?

In ruling that the contentions are without merit, the High Court
observed that all broadcasting entities, whether radio or television,
are licensed by the government and the franchise granted to them
are mere privileges.

As regards the contention that the law singles out radio and
television stations to provide free air time rests on the fallacy that
the broadcast media are entitled to the same treatment under the
free speech guarantee of the Constitution as free media. Their plea
to invalidate said law would pave the way for a return to the old
regime where moneyed candidates could monopolize media
advertising to the disadvantage of candidates with less resource.

To avoid committing the fallacy of accident, it is very important to

understand the nuances of the law to determine what are the cases
where a certain provision applies and the cases it is not applicable
of.

PEOPLE vs. GACOTT

[242 SCRA 514; G.R. NO. 116049; 13 JULY 1995]

For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of

respondent RTC Judge Gacott dismissing a criminal case was
annulled by the Supreme Court. The respondent judge was also
sanctioned with a reprimand and a fine for gross ignorance of law.

Does the Second Division of the Supreme Court have the

competence to administratively discipline respondent judge?

To support the Courts ruling, Justice Regalado relied on his

recollection of a conversation with former Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion who was the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary of the 1986 Constitutional Commission of which
Regalado was also a member. It held that the very text of the
present Section 11 of Article VIII clearly shows that there are
actually two situations envisaged therein. The first clause which
states that "the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts," is a declaration of the grant of
that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure
in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc. It was not therein
intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard
and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an
absurdity.

The second clause, which refers to the second situation

contemplated therein and is intentionally separated from the first
 by a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can
"order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted therein." Evidently, in this instance, the administrative case
must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.

Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative

disciplinary power to the Court en banc, a decision en banc is
needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a
judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a
lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of
more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00, or both.

Indeed, to require the entire court to deliberate upon and

participate in all administrative matter or cases regardless of the
sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested
docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court,
especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the
penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc.

D. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

This fallacy consists in drawing a general or universal conclusion from
insufficient particular case. The opposite of the fallacy of accident we take a
particular case (which may be an exception) and make a general rule or truth out
of that. It is called hasty generalization since it moves carelessly or too quickly
from the insufficient evidence to the conclusion.

Example:
A survey of the members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) and their families showed that more that 85% of them
favor the proposal to have a separate and independent government
in Mindanao, 10% disapprove of it while 5% are undecided. These
survey results clearly show that majority of Filipino Muslims
support the said proposal.

Kevin M. Saunders pointed out that committing fallacies of accident or converse

must understood in proper perspective:
It is important to remember that the application of a general rule to a
specific situation is a fallacy only when the rule is inappropriate because
of the accidents of the specific situation. Similarly, the formulation of a
general rule is a hasty generalization only when the situations leading to
the formulation of the general rule are special, not general.
Wariness of the fallacies of accident and hasty generalization should not
handcuff the courts or prevent the evolution of the law. Rather, an
understanding of the fallacies aids in the identification of situations in
 which a court could stumble into a fallacy and counsels caution and
insistence on a full exploration of relevant similarities and differences
when a general rule is applied.

E. Arguing from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy consists in assuming that a particular claim is true because its
opposite cannot be proven.
Arguing from ignorance means using the absence evidence against a claim
as a justification that it is true or using the absence of evidence for claim
as evidence that it is false.
It is basic hornbook law of logic that one must have knowledge or positive
evidence to draw any conclusion.

Example:
Since science cannot prove that breathing the same air as an AIDS
victim will not result in the spread of the virus, children with AIDs
should not be allowed to attend public schools.

Defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. This is

not really a case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. As pointed out by
Edward Damer, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is not
actually a claim. It is a highly technical judicial construct that
actually means not proven guilty. For legal purposes, it has been
determined that a person should be regarded as if he or she were
innocent unless evidence beyond reasonable doubt exists to the
contrary. The situation is not a case of shifting burden of proof, for
the burden of proof rests appropriately on the shoulders of the one
who makes the positive claim the prosecutor who says that the
defendant is guilty.

F. False Dilemma
This fallacy arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice
between two alternatives and assumes that they are exhaustive when in facts they
are not. Alternatives are exhaustive when they cover all the possibilities
(meaning, these are the only choices we have). By making the non-exhaustive
alternatives appear exhaustive, the arguer is able to force the person to choose the
alternatives presented in the argument.

Example:
Many people are protesting the implementation of warrantless
arrest. I think it is just right for that can facilitate the militarys
crackdown on terrorist groups. You surely dont want terrorism to
prevail in our country.
The fallacy of dilemma often derives from the failure to distinguish
contradictories from contraries. Contradictories exclude any gradations between
extremes. There is no middle ground between a term and its negative for
example, between black and non-black. Contraries, on the other hand, allow a
number of gradations between their extremes. There is plenty of middle ground
between a term and its opposite for example, between hot and cold, pr black
and white.
A common way to commit false dilemma is to treat contraries as if they
were contradictories. In the case of contradictories (a term and its
negative), one of the two extremes must be true and the other is false. In
the case of contraries (a term and its opposite), it is possible for both
extremes to be false. To treat contraries as if they were contradictories and
thereby commit false dilemma that is, to assume too few alternatives and
to assume that one of the alternatives must be true.