ASSIGNMENT IN

HUMANITIES II
SUBMITTED BY:
HUELAR, NICKO Q.
BSA-5B
SUBMITTED TO:
MS. AIRESE PEROCHE
PROFESSOR- HUM II
I. DEFINE THE FOLLOWING:

INFERENCE
1. An act or a series of acts of reasoning which persons perform when, from the truth of a
proposition or set of propositions, they conclude the truth of a proposition or set of propositions.
2. Is the process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
3. An inference is said to be valid if it's based upon sound evidence and the conclusion follows
logically from the premises.
4. From the Latin, "bring in"
5. Is a statement about the unknown made on the basis of the known.

ARGUMENT
1. It is a set of claims, one of which is supposed to be supported by the others.
2. A set of statements one of which (the conclusion) is taken to be supported by the remaining
statements (the premises).

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
1. It is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide complete support for the
conclusion.
2. Does guarantee the truth of the conclusion when the premises are all true.
3. An argument is deductive if and only if it is not possible for the premise(s) to be true and the
conclusion false.
a. VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENT
i. VALID: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises
are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the
conclusion is false.
ii. One way is if the argument is valid. Another way is if the argument is strong.
iii. "Validity" and "strength" are technical terms that logicians and philosophers use
to describe the logical "glue" that binds premises and conclusions together. Valid
arguments have the strongest logical glue possible.
iv. EXAMPLE:
1. All actors are robots.
2. Tom Cruise is an actor.
3. Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.
v. Here's the standard definition of a valid argument: An argument is VALID if it has
the following hypothetical or conditional property: IF all the premises are true,
then the conclusion CANNOT be false.
 vi. INVALID: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming
that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the
conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid.
vii. EXAMPLE:
1. 1. All actors are robots.
2. 2. Tom Cruise is a robot.
3. Therefore, Tom Cruise is an actor.
viii. The first premise is the same, "All actors are robots". But the second premise is
different. Instead of assuming that Tom Cruise is an actor, we're assuming that
Tom Cruise is a robot. Now, if these premises are both true, does it follow that
Tom Cruise HAS to be an actor? No, it does not follow. It would follow if we said
that ONLY actors are robots, but the first premise doesn't say that.
ix. All we can assume is that in this hypothetical world, anyone in the acting
profession is a robot, but robots might be doing lots of different jobs besides
acting. They might be mechanics or teachers or politicians or whatever. So in this
hypothetical world the fact that Tom Cruise is a robot doesn't guarantee that he's
also an actor. And THAT is what makes this an invalid argument.
b. SOUND DEDUCTIVE AND UNSOUND DEDUCTIVE
i. Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true
premises.
ii. Unsound: an argument that is not sound.

Example of a deductive argument:

1. Jim likes either Coke or Pepsi.

2. Jim does not like Pepsi.
3. So, Jim likes Coke.
4. So with a deductive argument, if we get you to accept the premises, then you must accept the
conclusion too. Because in a deductive argument there’s no way for both the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
1. An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide some degree
of support but less than complete support for the conclusion.
2. An Inductive argument is an argument where the premises describe some cases of a certain
phenomenon, and the conclusion says that further cases will be like those cases.
a. STRONG OR WEAK ARGUMENT
i. STRONG INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: An inductive argument in which the truth of
the premises really does prove that the conclusion is probably true.
ii. WEAK INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: An inductive argument in which the truth of the
premises really does not prove that the conclusion is probably true.
 b. CONGENT AND UNCONGENT
i. COGENT ARGUMENT: A strong inductive argument in which all the premises are
actually true.
ii. UNCOGENT ARGUMENT: A strong inductive argument in which even one
premise is actually false.
c. DETERMINING WHETHER AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS STRONG OR WEAK
i. Assume all the premises are true, even if one or more is clearly false.
ii. Using only the information in the premises plus common knowledge ask: What
is the probability that the conclusion is true?
iii. Above 50%: Strong Argument
iv. 50% or Less: Weak Argument

II. DEFINE AND GIVE EXAMPLES OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. FORMAL FALLACIES- A logical fallacy whose form does not conform to the grammar and rules of
inference of a logical calculus. The argument's validity can be determined just by analyzing its abstract
structure without needing to evaluate its content.

a. All men are mortal.

b. Socrates is a man.
c. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

B. INFORMAL FALLACIES- A logical fallacy that is due to its content and context rather than its form. The
error in reasoning ought to be a commonly invoked one for the argument to be considered an informal
fallacy.

1. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY- These fallacies, also called fallacies of clearness, occur in arguments whose
formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases, whose meanings shift and change more or less subtly
in the course of the argument and thus render it fallacious.

A. EQUIVOCATION - a fallacy committed when the conclusion of the argument depends on the fact
that one or more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the
argument.
a. To identify the fallacy of equivocation, look for reasoning that involves a shift between
two or more sense of a key word or phrase in the argument, e.g.
i. A law can be repealed by legislative authority.
ii. The law of gravity is a law. Therefore;
iii. the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

B. COMPOSITION – a fallacy committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the

enormous transference of a characteristic from the parts of something onto the whole. In other
words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it
 follows that the whole has the characteristic, too, and the situation is such that the characteristic
in question cannot be legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole, e.g.
a. To recognize the fallacy of composition, look for an argument that moves from a claim
about the parts or members of a group to a conclusion about the whole. Consider then
whether it is justifiable to attribute what is true of the parts to the whole.
i. A feather is light. Therefore, a plastic containing a billion feathers is light.
ii. Each member of the orchestra is excellent, so the orchestra is excellent.
iii. Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team
as a whole is excellent.

C. DIVISION – a fallacy that is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to
whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of a characteristic from a whole onto parts.
a. To recognize the fallacy of division, look for an argument that moves from a claim about
a whole group or a group to a conclusion about one or all of the members of the whole.
Then consider whether it is justifiable to attribute what is true of the whole to its parts.
i. Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component elements, sodium
and chlorine, are non-poisonous.
ii. The union voted to strike. Therefore, every member of the union voted to strike.
iii. Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical thinking. Thus every person
is capable of philosophical thinking.

2. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE- deny, confuse, or falsify an argument by focusing on the origin of an

argument. This appeals to opinions outside of oneself rather than critical thinking or analysis.

A. FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE (argumentum ad ignoratiam)- An appeal to

ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove
otherwise. Thus, for example:
a. No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.
b. Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth.
What we don't know could nevertheless be so.

B. FALLACIES OF APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (argumentum ad verecundiam) Each of

the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between
the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal
to authority, the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is
supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for example:
a. Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.
b. Therefore, spiders are insects.
 As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some
individual (however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have
some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their
testimony as inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion.
Personality is irrelevant to truth.

C. FALLACIES OF APPEAL TO THE PERSON (ad hominem: Latin for "to the man.")- An arguer who
uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot
defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent
either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
a. Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone
knows he used cocaine.
b. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as
he knows about human excellence.
c. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps
around with anything. I know of at least one marriage she's broken up, so why should her
opinion count on anything, much less morality?

D. FALLACIES OF APPEAL TO PITY (argumentum ad misericordiam)- turning this on its head, an

appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will
otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.
a. I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.
b. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.
c. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.
d. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the
premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious.

E. FALLACIES OF APPEAL TO POPULAR WILL -an Appeal to Popular Opinion is an argument that
begins with premises about the popularity of a particular claim, and ends with a conclusion
endorsing that claim. Roughly, an appeal to popular opinion is an argument of the form; well
everyone believes it so it must be true. Now, some arguments of that form are actually good
arguments.
a. Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.
This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight
makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the
Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither
of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
i. Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’. Therefore:
ii. God, or at least a higher power, must exist.
 F. FALLACIES OF APPEAL TO FORCE (argumentum ad baculum) -someone in a position of power
threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a
proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might
propose:
a. If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.
b. I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.
c. Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could nevertheless be
false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an
effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no
grounds for believing it to be true.

3. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION-are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but are
nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of presumption begin with a false (or at least
unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their conclusion.

A. FALLACIES OF COMPLEX QUESTION- the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is
worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes
a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually an
answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.
a. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as a statement, i.e., a
verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.
i. Did you ever beat your wife?
ii. If so, have you now stopped doing this?
B. FALLACIES OF ACCIDENT- the fallacy of applying a general rule to a particular case whose special
circumstances render the rule inapplicable.
a. the fallacy of accident results from using a statement which has a qualified meaning as if
it had no qualification whatsoever.
i. The law says that you should not travel faster than 50 kph, thus even though your
father could not breathe, you should not have travelled faster than 50 kph.
ii. It is good to return things you have borrowed. Therefore, you should return this
automatic rifle from the madman you borrowed it from.

C. FALLACIES OF HASTY GENERALIZATION- A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single,
perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.
a. (1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch. Therefore:
b. (2) Christians / atheists are grouches.

This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it,
assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.

The conclusion that it reaches hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that the
neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.