LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

I. INTRODUCTION

Logic is one of the oldest intellectual disciplines in human history. It dates back to
Aristotle. It has been studied through the centuries by people like Leibniz, Boole,
Russell, Turing, and many others. And it is still a subject of active investigation
today.

Logic it is also a language for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use when

doing logical reasoning. Human reasoning has been observed over centuries from
at least the times of Greeks, and patterns appearing in reasoning have been
extracted, abstracted, and streamlined. The foundation of logic was laid down by
a British mathematician George Boole in the middle of the 19th century, and it
was further developed and used in an attempt to derive all of mathematics by
Gottlob Frege, a German mathematician, towards the end of the 19th century. A
British philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell, found a flaw in basic
assumptions in Frege's attempt but he, together with Alfred Whitehead,
developed Frege's work further and repaired the damage.

In logic it deals in true or false statements, and how the truth/falsehood of a

statement can be determined from other statements. However, instead of dealing
with individual specific statements, it is going to use symbols to represent arbitrary
statements so that the results can be used in many similar but different cases. The
formalization also promotes the clarity of thought and eliminates mistakes.

There are various types of logic such as logic of sentences (propositional logic),
logic of objects (predicate logic), logic involving uncertainties, logic dealing with
fuzziness, temporal logic etc.

Logic in just about everything we do. The language of logic is used to state
observations, define concepts, and to formalize theories. The logical reasoning is
used to derive conclusions from bits of information. Furthermore, logic is
increasingly being used by computers - to prove mathematical theorems, to
validate engineering designs, to diagnose failures, to encode and analyse laws and
regulations and business rules.

Logic is also becoming more common at the interface between man and machine,
in "logic-enabled" computer systems, where users can view and edit logical
sentences. Think, for example, about email readers that allow users to write rules
to manage incoming mail messages - deleting some, moving others to various
mailboxes, and so forth based on properties of those messages. In the business
world, ecommerce systems allow companies to encode price rules based on the
product, the customer, the date, and so forth.

Moreover, logic is sometimes used not just by users in communicating with

computer systems but by software engineers in building those systems (using a
programming methodology known as logic programming).

II. BASIC CONCEPTS/DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Legal Technique and Logic - is a formal argumentation wherein there is an

intellectual presentation of a legal issue.

Page 1 of 53
 2. Legal technique - is a complex phenomenon, consisting of a set of various
skills, methods, ways and procedures, organized into a functioning unity.

- it is the reason why presumption and fiction are usually

described as par excellence means of legal technique,
representative of its inventiveness.

3. Logic – comes from the Greek word "logos", which has a variety of
meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or
principle.
- it is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and
criteria of valid inference and demonstration.

- It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.

Types of Logic

a. Formal Logic - is what we think of as traditional logic or philosophical

logic, namely the study of inference with purely formal and explicit
content (i.e. it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly
abstract rule), such as the rules of formal logic that have come down to
us from Aristotle.

- Is also called a logical calculus that is used to derive one

expression (conclusion) from one or more other expressions
(premises). These premises may be axioms (a self-evident
proposition, taken for granted) or theorems (derived using a
fixed set of inference rules and axioms, without any additional
assumptions).

b. Informal Logic - is a recent discipline which studies natural language

arguments, and attempts to develop logic to assess, analyze and
improve ordinary language (or "everyday") reasoning. Natural language
here means a language that is spoken, written or signed by humans for
general-purpose communication, as distinguished from formal languages
(such as computer-programming languages) or constructed languages
(such as Esperanto).

- It focuses on the reasoning and argument one finds in personal

exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and the
social commentary that characterizes newspapers, television,
the Internet and other forms of mass media.

c. Symbolic Logic - is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the

formal features of logical inference. It deals with the relations of
symbols to each other, often using complex mathematical calculus, in an
attempt to solve intractable problems traditional formal logic is not able
to address.

d. Propositional Logic (or Sentential Logic) – is a system in which formulae

representing propositions can be formed by combining atomic
propositions using logical connectives, and a system of formal proof
rules allows certain formulae to be established as theorems. (See the
section on Propositional Logic below).
Page 2 of 53
e. Mathematical Logic - uses both the application of the techniques of
formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and,
conversely, the application of mathematical techniques to the
representation and analysis of formal logic.

f. Deductive Logic - concerns what follows necessarily from given premises

(i.e. from a general premise to a particular one). An inference is
deductively valid if (and only if) there is no possible situation in which
all the premises are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be
remembered that a false premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

g. Inductive Logic - inductive reasoning is the process of deriving a reliable

generalization from observations (i.e. from the particular to the
general), so that the premises of an argument are believed to support
the conclusion, but do not necessarily ensure it. Inductive logic is not
concerned with validity or conclusiveness, but with the soundness of
those inferences for which the evidence is not conclusive.

h. Modal Logic - is any system of formal logic that attempts to deal with
modalities (expressions associated with notions of possibility,
probability and necessity). Modal Logic, therefore, deals with terms
such as "eventually", "formerly", "possibly", "can", "could", "might",
"may", "must", etc.

i. Propositional Logic or Sentential Logic - is concerned only with

sentential connectives and logical operators (such as "and", "or", "not",
"if ... then ...", "because" and "necessarily"), as opposed to Predicate
Logic (see below), which also concerns itself with the internal structure
of atomic propositions.

j. Predicate Logic - allows sentences to be analyzed into subject and

argument in several different ways, unlike Aristotelian syllogistic logic,
where the forms that the relevant part of the involved judgments took
must be specified and limited. Predicate Logic is also able to give an
account of quantifiers general enough to express all arguments occurring
in natural language, thus allowing the solution of the problem of
multiple generality that had perplexed medieval logicians.

k. Logical Fallacy - is any sort of mistake in reasoning or inference, or,

essentially, anything that causes an argument to go wrong.

l. Paradoxes - is a statement or sentiment that is seemingly contradictory

or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true in fact.
Conversely, a paradox may be a statement that is actually self-
contradictory (and therefore false) even though it appears true.
Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the
contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the
premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true
together.

Page 3 of 53
 4. Legal Reasoning - is a method of thought and argument used by lawyers
and judges when applying legal rules to specific interactions among legal
persons.

5. Legal argument - is a statement or set of statements that you use in order to

try to convince people that your opinion about something is correct.

6. Propositions - It refers to the ratio of a court judgement; i.e. "the reason for
the decision" which is the legally binding element of the case and that
which creates the precedent.

a. Categorical Proposition - it is a type of proposition which has

no condition for their assertion. e.g. Roshan is a student.

b. Conditional or Hypothetical Proposition - A type of compound

proposition, it is false only when the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false. e.g. If Ram will pass, then he will get a
bicycle.

c. Disjunctive Proposition: A type of compound proposition; if

true, at least one of the component of propositions must be
true. e.g. Ram is honest or clever.

7. Inference - is the process of deriving logical conclusions from premises

known or assumed to be true. The term derives from the Latin term, which
means "bring in." An inference is said to be valid if it's based upon sound
evidence and the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

8. Conclusions - conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the

major and minor premises in a syllogism. An argument is considered to be
successful (or valid) when the premises are true (or believable) and the
premises support the conclusion.

9. Premise - is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument

requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or propositions)
known as the premises or premises along with another declarative sentence
known as the conclusion.

III. INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW

- Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed

true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.

- Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction,

forecasting, or behavior.

- Inductive reasoning is the ability to come up with a rule after many observations.
A conclusion reached by using induction is called a conjecture. This kind of
reasoning is about observing patterns and coming up with logical steps or
sequences. Induction assumes that the same thing will happen every time based on
what we have seen. However, this is not always true. All that is needed is one
example where the pattern does not hold true to disprove a conjecture, that

Page 4 of 53
example is called a counter example. One example of using inductive reasoning is
determining the next number when given a sequence of numbers.

Example Determine the next two terms in the following sequence:

1, 3, 7, 13, 21, 31, . . .

Try to determine if there is a pattern from one term to the next. There is not a
constant term being added between terms, but there is a pattern:

1+2=3
3+4=7
7 + 6 = 13
and so on . . .

With each addition, two more than the previous number added is now added. In
observing this pattern, we can induce that the next two numbers will be 43
(adding 12) and 57 (adding 14).

IV. INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or

deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the
possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses
deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a
theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we
predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. From the
general, theory, specific and the observations.

During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true
conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people
confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is
important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can
be identified.

Deductive reasoning usually follows steps. First, there is a premise, then a second
premise, and finally an inference. A common form of deductive reasoning is the
syllogism, in which two statements a major premise and a minor premise reach a
logical conclusion. For example, the premise "Every A is B" could be followed by
another premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion
"This C is B." Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to
make sure the argument is valid.

For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal."
For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed
that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore,
the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a
class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

Deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It's
possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If
the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be
untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is

Page 5 of 53
bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather is valid logically but it is untrue because
the original statement is false

V. FALLACIES

Fallacies are an important part of logic and one that can immediately
enrich once life. It will helps develop the vocabulary and skills needed to better
evaluate the arguments of politicians, neighbors, advertisers, authorities, and
people. Much of philosophy is about identifying and evaluating arguments and
studying fallacies can help people do both better.

Fallacies are also a mark of a well-educated mind and it greatly enriches the
quality of philosophical discussions. In short, students who studied both formal
and informal fallacies can more easily engage in philosophy at the highest levels.

In a similar way, some people think of fallacies as “a bunch of bad

arguments." They cannot distinguish among the fallacies and are lost, though they
may not know it. While it is true that all fallacies are faulty inferences, each
fallacy is different and knowing the name and pattern of each can clarify the way
of thinking, improve debating skills, and help people better discover truth.

Fallacies have form that is always and absolutely fallacious/invalid whereas

informal fallacies have form that sometimes non-fallacious. Learning the formal
fallacies is far more beneficial than most people realize.

Fallacies are simply invalid or faulty arguments. It is not a precise term. It is

ambiguous. It can refer either to:
1. Kind of error in an argument
2. Kind of error in reasoning (including arguments, definitions,
explanations, and others)
3. False belief, or
4. The cause of any of the previous errors including what are normally
referred to as rhetorical techniques.

Studying fallacies will help people better evaluate all kinds of arguments.
Committing fallacies is not always a bad thing. Recognizing fallacious tendencies
and cognitive biases can make a person more human.

A. FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES

1. Formal fallacies - are errors in the structure of deductive arguments. Deductive

logic involves the transference of the collective properties of classes to and across
individuals or subsets of those classes. There are certain structural defects that the
human mind frequently makes in those kinds of transference, which we call logical
fallacies.

For example, the collective class ‘human being’ has the property ‘hands’, so we
can safely transfer the property ‘hands’ to any individual or group of humans: e.g.
logically Swedes (a subgroup of humans) have hands. However, if we happen to
observe that monkeys have hands, we cannot assert that (say) monkeys are
humans, or monkeys are Swedes, or Swedes are monkeys. All of those are invalid
deductions (fallacies) that make illicit transferences of properties between
unrelated groups.

Page 6 of 53
Example
Premise: All black bears are omnivores.
Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.
Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.

Bears are a subset of omnivores. Raccoons also are a subset of omnivores. But
these two subsets do not overlap, and that fact makes the conclusion illogical. The
argument is invalid that is, the relationship between the premises doesn’t support
the conclusion.

2. Recognizing Formal Fallacies

Raccoons are black bears are instantaneously recognizable as fallacious and

may seem too silly to be worth bothering about. However, that and other forms
of poor logic play out on a daily basis, and they have real world consequences.

Example
Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.
Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.
Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.

This argument fails on two levels. First, the premises are untrue because although
many Arabs and Iranians are Muslim, not all are. Second, the two ethnic groups
are sets that do not overlap; nevertheless, the two groups are confounded because
they largely share one quality in common. One only has to look at comments on
the web to realize that the confusion is widespread and that it influences attitudes
and opinions about U.S. foreign policy.

3. Informal Fallacies - are failures of reasoning rather than failures of logic. They
are rhetorical mistakes that people make while trying to argue, improper
inferences, emotional reasoning, and dogmatic adherence, equivocations of
various sorts, lies and manipulation. They are not structurally invalid in the same
way that logical fallacies are structurally invalid, but they disrupt the flow of
reasoning in argumentation, usually with the implicit or explicit intent of
preserving a perspective that would otherwise be refuted.

For example, argumentum ad hominem — as argument to the person — is a

misapprehension in which the reasoned conflates the strengths or weaknesses of
an argument with the strengths or weaknesses of the person making the argument.
This can lead one to reject well-reasoned arguments made by bad people, or
accept poorly-reasoned arguments made by good people, which can create
confusion and conflict.

4. Using Ethos, Logos, and Pathos to Test Arguments for Fallacies

One way to go about evaluating an argument for fallacies is to return to

the concept of the three fundamental appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos.

a. Ethos is an argument that appeals to ethics, authority, and/or credibility

b. Logos is an argument that appeals to logic
c. Pathos is an argument that appeals to emotion

Page 7 of 53
Fallacies of ethos relate to credibility. These fallacies may unfairly build up the
credibility of the author (or his allies) or unfairly attack the credibility of the
author’s opponent (or her allies).

Some fallacies give an unfair advantage to the claims of the speaker or writer or
an unfair disadvantage to his opponent’s claims. These are fallacies of logos.

Fallacies of pathos rely excessively upon emotional appeals, attaching positive

associations to the author’s argument and negative ones to his opponent’s
position.

5. Conclusion

Both formal and informal fallacies are errors of reasoning, and if a speaker
or writer relies on such fallacies, even unintentionally, she undercuts her
argument. For example, if someone defines a key term in her argument in an
ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument will appear very weak to an
critical audience.

In addition, when listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair

attempts at audience manipulation, more than their evaluation of the author’s
argument (logos) may be compromised. Their evaluation of the credibility of the
speaker (ethos), and perhaps their ability to connect with that speaker on the level
of shared values (pathos), also may be compromised. At the very least, the
presence of fallacies will suggest to an audience that the speaker or writer lacks
argumentative skill.

B. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

As a logical fallacy, ambiguity occurs when linguistic ambiguity causes an

argument to appear cogent when it is not. This can happen when an ambiguous
word or phrase occurs more than once in an argument and has different meanings
in two or more occurrences.

There are two main types of ambiguity

1. Lexical - A word or short phrase that is ambiguous. As noted above, "note" is

lexically ambiguous. When an argument commits a fallacy based on lexical
ambiguity, it is called "equivocation"―see the sub fallacy, above.

2. Structural - A phrase, sentence, or passage that is grammatically ambiguous. For

instance, the phrase "ancient philosophy professor" can mean either a teacher of
classical Greek and Roman philosophy, or a very old professor of philosophy2. An
argument that commits a fallacy based on structural ambiguity is said to be
"amphibolous" and to commit the fallacy of amphiboly―again, see the subfallacy,
above.

Kinds of Ambiguous Fallacy

1. Ambiguous Language - An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that

has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the
propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we
are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The

Page 8 of 53
 fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different
senses.

2. Equivocation - An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word

or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument
but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

Example
 Really exciting novels are rare.
 But rare books are expensive.
 Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.

Explanation
The word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument,
so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious.
In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of
otherwise valid deductive arguments.

3. Amphiboly – it occurs even when every term in an argument is univocal, if

the grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.

Example
 A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging
through the campus in his pickup truck.
 Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.

Explanation
The premise actually heard on a radio broadcast could be interpreted in
different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.

4. Accent - arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written

emphasis.

Example
 Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.
 Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

Explanation
The premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy
stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion.

5. Composition - involves an inference from the attribution of some feature

to every individual member of a class or part of a greater whole to the
possession of the same feature by the entire class or whole.

Example
 Every course I took in college was well-organized.
 Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Explanation
Even if the premise is true of each and every component of the curriculum, the
whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective. Notice that
this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes
from an unusual specific case. For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that
Page 9 of 53
even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does
not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

6. Division - involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an

entire class or whole to the possession of the same feature by each of its
individual members or parts.

Example
 Ocelots are now dying out.
 Sparky is an ocelot.
 Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Explanation
Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact
does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members. Again,
be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a
general rule to an atypical specific case. The essential point in the fallacy of
division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not
follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.

C. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

Assessing the legitimacy of arguments embedded in ordinary language is

rather like diagnosing whether a living human being has any broken bones.
Only the internal structure matters, but it is difficult to see through the layers
of flesh that cover it. Soon we'll begin to develop methods, like the tools of
radiology that enable us to see the skeletal form of an argument beneath the
language that expresses it. But compound fractures are usually evident to the
most casual observer, and some logical defects are equally apparent.

The fallacies of relevance, for example, clearly fail to provide adequate

reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in
attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only the unwary, the
predisposed, and the gullible are apt to be fooled by their illegitimate appeals.
Many of them were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin
names for them have passed into common use. It's worthwhile to consider the
structure, offer an example, and point out the invalidity of each of them in turn.

Kinds of Relevance Fallacies

1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) - In the appeal to force, someone in

a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon
anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition.

Example
 If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of
F for this course.
 I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United
States.
 Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

Explanation
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
Page 10 of 53
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.

2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) - 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.

Example
 I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my
children.
 If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to
drive to work.
 If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve
to death.
 Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Explanation
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.

3. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum) - relies upon emotively charged

language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its
conclusion.

Example
 As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the
Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-
fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing
of concern for children.
 Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

Explanation
The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might
arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread
occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

4. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) - in 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.

Example
 Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.
 Therefore, spiders are insects.

Explanation
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.

Page 11 of 53
5. Ad Hominem Argument - the mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad
hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject a proposition because
it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can
happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition
must be false because of who believes it to be true

Example
 Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead
of 21.
 But we all know that Harold dresses funny and smells bad or is 19 years
old and would like to drink legally or believes that the legal age for
voting should be 21, not 18 or doesn't understand the law any better
than the rest of us.
 Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

Explanation
In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on
the truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone believes it’s
opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true even if the person is
unsavoury or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a
common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.

6. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam) - proposes that we accept

the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise.

Example
 No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the
moons of Jupiter.
 Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

Explanation
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.

7. Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) - tries to establish the truth of a

proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely
different conclusion.

Example
 All children should have ample attention from their parents.
 Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.
 Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Explanation
Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents
generally, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focussed on women alone
and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in
distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.

8. Scare Tactics - the scare tactics fallacy is committed when a speaker or presenter
threatens harm to a reader or listener if he or she does not accept the speaker’s
conclusion.

Page 12 of 53
Examples:
 Conversation among politicians: We both agree that we are the rightful
rulers of the Ideal Islands. It would be regrettable if we had to send troops
to the Island to convince the citizens.
 Conversation at the supermarket checkout line: The same sex bill is wrong
for our state and any politician who supports it will find out how wrong he
or she is at the next election.
The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the
growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take
the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us
to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.

9. Bandwagon Fallacy - this is a bandwagon fallacy because there are many other
features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer
pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being
adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no
guarantee of its truth.

The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the

difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on
current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal
to popularity does not.

Example
 Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to
get in touch with our true inner being.
 Therefore: Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner
being.

Explanation
This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere
fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in
thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are
becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.

10. Fallacist’s Fallacy - involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the
argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular
point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point
of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.

It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those

that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority:
“Simon Singh says that 2+2=4”. Or one could argue that taking paracetamol
relieves headaches using a post hoc: “I took the paracetamol and then my
headache went away; it worked!”

Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should
not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.

Example
 People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t accept
that when we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore
there is no life after death.

Page 13 of 53
11. The Fallacy of Composition - is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every
part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property. This
pattern of argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of division. It is not always
fallacious, but we must be cautious in making inferences of this form.

Examples
 Every song on the album lasts less than an hour.
 Therefore: The album lasts less than an hour.

Explanation
Obviously, an album consisting of many short tracks may itself be very long.
Not all arguments of this form are fallacious, however. Whether or not they are
depends on what property is involved. Some properties, such as lasting less than
an hour, may be possessed by every part of something but not by the thing itself.
Others, such as being bigger than a bus, must be possessed by the whole if
possessed by each part.

One case where it is difficult to decide whether the fallacy of composition is

committed concerns the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This
argument takes the contingency of the universe (i.e. the alleged fact that the
universe might not have come into being) as implying the existence of a God who
brought it into being. The simplest way to argue for the contingency of the
universe is to argue from the contingency of each of its parts, as follows:

Example
 Everything in the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to
exist).
 Therefore: The universe as a whole is contingent (i.e. could possibly have
failed to exist.

Explanation
It is clear that this argument has the form of the fallacy of composition; what is
less clear is whether it really is fallacious. Must something composed of contingent
parts itself be contingent? Or might it be that the universe is necessarily existent
even though each of its parts is not?

Another controversial example concerns materialistic explanations of

consciousness. Is consciousness just electrical activity in the brain, as mind-brain
identity theory suggests, or something more? Opponents of mind-brain identity
theory sometimes argue as follows:

Example
 The brain is composed of unconscious neurons.
 Therefore: The brain itself is not conscious.

Explanation
It is certainly difficult to see how consciousness can emerge from purely
material processes, but the mere fact that each part of the brain is unconscious
does not entail that the whole brain is the same.

12. Gambler’s Fallacy - is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from
probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that
are statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up,
it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of
Page 14 of 53
results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes
of the next coin toss.

 The gambler’s fallacy appears to be a reasonable way of thinking because

we know that a coin tossed ten times is very unlikely to land heads-up
every time. If we observe a tossed coin landing heads-up nine times in a
row we therefore infer that the unlikely sequence will not be continued,
that next time the coin will land tails-up.

 In fact, though, the probability of the coin landing heads-up on the tenth
toss is exactly the same as it was on the first toss. Past results don’t bear on
what will happen next.

13. The Moralistic Fallacy - is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The
naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of
how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic
fallacy moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about
how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy;
sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be.

Example
 Have you ever crossed a one-way street without looking in both
directions? If you have, reasoning that people shouldn’t be driving the
wrong way up a one Way Street so there’s no risk of being run over from
that direction, then you’ve committed the moralistic fallacy. Sometimes
things aren’t as they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in directions that
they shouldn’t. The rules of the road don’t necessarily describe actual
driving practices.

14. Naturalistic Fallacy - There are two fundamentally different types of statement:
statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of
value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is
the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of
the former kind.

Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The

argument, “(1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a
philosopher” is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the
premises. This is because the conclusion contains an idea—that of being a
philosopher—that isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about
being a philosopher, and so cannot establish a conclusion about being a
philosopher.

Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the
same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world
is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce
a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. If the
premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about
the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any
value judgement; you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

Example
 Feeling envy is only natural.
 Therefore: There’s nothing wrong with feeling envy.
Page 15 of 53
Explanation
This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and
therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy. The argument’s premise simply describes
the way that the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel envious. To describe
the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be.
The argument’s conclusion, then, which is value judgement, cannot be supported
by its premises.

It is important to note that much respectable moral argument commits the

naturalistic fallacy. Whether arguments of the form described here are fallacious is
controversial. If they are, then the vast majority of moral philosophy commits a
basic logical error.

15. The Red Herring - is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a

fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an
arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the
most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.

The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using
smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry.
Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red
herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him
with a tangential issue.

Example
 You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing!
How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”

16. Weak Analogy - Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical

structure is this:
 A and B are similar.
 A has a certain characteristic.
 Therefore: B must have that characteristic too.

For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the
universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from
the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must
be a product of intelligent design too.

An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The

weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed
when the comparison is not strong enough.

Example
 The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but
is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind
and degree of order exhibited by watches and the universe sufficient to
support an inference to a similarity in their origins?

D. IRRELEVANT APPEALS
Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that,
though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many
different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways of influencing what
Page 16 of 53
 people think without using evidence. Each is a different type of fallacy of
relevance.

Kinds of Irrelevant Appeals

1. Appeal to Antiquity - is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to

antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been
around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas
can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn
anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

Example
 Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a
relatively recent development).
 Therefore: Some form of religion is true.

Explanation
This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it
offers in favour of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are
known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar
system. It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true
(that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false
(that no religion is true). We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any
other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true.
Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.

2. Appeal to Authority - is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be

an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority

speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any
authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is
not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being
cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the
subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their
testimony.

Example
 Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved
the problem of evil.
 Therefore: No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of
evil.

Explanation
This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an
authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that
no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries
little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had
successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos
Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish
the conclusion of the argument.

Page 17 of 53
3. Appeal to Consequences - is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal
either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of
disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are
clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the
way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best
for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as
true.

Examples
Appeal to Good Consequences:
 If believe in God then you’ll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you’ve
never felt before.
 Therefore: God exists.

Appeal to Bad Consequences:

 If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life
doesn’t have any meaning.
 Therefore: God exists.

Explanation
Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence
for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In
the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited
as evidence that God exists. In the case of the second argument, the negative
consequences of disbelief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. Neither
argument, though, provides any evidence for Santa’s existence. The consequences
of a belief are rarely a good guide to its truth. Both arguments are therefore
fallacious.

4. Appeal to Force - is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name,

“argumentum ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a cudgel”. Disbelief,
such arguments go, will be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore,
you’d better believe.

Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences,

where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the
arguer.

Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a
pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be
true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious.

Example
 If you don’t accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way
around, then you’ll be excommunicated from the Church.
 Therefore: The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.

Explanation
This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no attempt
to provide evidence for its conclusion; whether or not you’ll be excommunicated
for disbelieving the geocentric model has no bearing on whether the geocentric
model is true. The argument therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy.

Page 18 of 53
5. Appeal to Novelty - is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to
novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus
also related to the bandwagon fallacy.

That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have
no merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we
now reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are
new now will surely go the same way.

Examples
 String theory is the most recent development in physics.
 Therefore: String theory is true.

 Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development.

 Therefore: Atheism is true.

Explanation
Each of these arguments commits the appeal to novelty fallacy. The former
takes the newness of string theory to be evidence that string theory is true; the
latter takes the newness of atheism to be evidence that atheism is true. Merely
being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. The newness of string theory
and atheism alone, then, should not be taken to be evidence of the truth of these
two positions.

6. Appeal to Pity - attempts to persuade using emotion specifically, sympathy

rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or
group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly
effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not
always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We
should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our
beliefs to be true.

Examples
 Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on
the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses,
anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the
practice of abortion.

 A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear
example of an appeal to pity.

 A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the
11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether
al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life.
Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for
the death penalty.

7. 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

Page 19 of 53
diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its
popularity.

Example
 Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.
 Therefore: God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

Explanation
This argument is an appeal to popularity because it suggests that God must
exist based solely on the popularity of belief in God. An atheist could, however,
accept the premise of this argument (the claim that belief in God is widespread)
but reject its conclusion without inconsistency.

8. Appeal to Poverty Fallacy - is committed when it is assumed that a position is

correct because it is held by the poor. The opposite of the appeal to poverty is the
appeal to wealth.

There is sometimes a temptation to contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality

of the rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of the poor. This can give rise
to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy.

The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that the
view is true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs.

Example
 The working classes respect family and community ties.
 Therefore: Respect for family and community ties is virtuous.

Explanation
This argument is an appeal to poverty because it takes the association
between a position and poverty as evidence of the goodness of that position.
There is, however, no necessary connection between a position being associated
with poverty and its being true, and so the argument is fallacious.

9. Appeal to Wealth Fallacy - is committed by any argument that assumes that

someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more
expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.

In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to

which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated
with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than
poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less
expensive goods solely because of their price.

This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be associated with all that is good, and all that is
good need not be associated with wealth.

Examples
 My computer cost more than yours.
 Therefore: My computer is better than yours.

 Warren is richer than Wayne.

 Therefore: Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne.

Page 20 of 53
Explanation
Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of
superiority. They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy.

10. Appeal to Wealth Fallacy - is committed by any argument that assumes that
someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more
expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.

In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to

which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated
with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than
poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less
expensive goods solely because of their price.

This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be associated with all that is good, and all that is
good need not be associated with wealth.

Examples
 My computer cost more than yours.
 Therefore: My computer is better than yours.

 Warren is richer than Wayne.

 Therefore: Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne.

Explanation
Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of
superiority. They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy.

E. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only due to their

imprecise use of language. Once terms are clarified, fallacies of ambiguity are
exposed. It is to avoid fallacies of this type that philosophers often carefully define
their terms before launching into an argument.

The accent fallacy, and the fallacy of equivocation, are classic examples of
fallacies of ambiguity. Equivocation is particularly important to look out for in
evaluating philosophical arguments.

Kinds of Ambiguity Fallacy

1. Accent Fallacies - are fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a
word or sentence. The meaning of a set of words may be dramatically changed by
the way they are spoken, without changing any of the words themselves. Accent
fallacies are a type of equivocation.

Example
 Suppose that two people are debating whether a rumour about the actions
of a third person is true. The first says, “I can imagine him doing that; it’s
possible.”

 The second replies, “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This
looks like agreement. If however, the second person stresses the word
imagine, then this appearance vanishes; “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him
Page 21 of 53
 doing that.” This now sounds like a pointed comment meaning that though
it may just about be possible to imagine him doing that, there’s no way
that he would actually do it.

2. The Fallacy of Equivocation - is committed when a term is used in two or more

different senses within a single argument.

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time
they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different
meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in
meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the
conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about
different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.

Example
 The church would like to encourage theism.
 Theism is a medical condition resulting from the excessive consumption of
tea.
 Therefore: The church ought to distribute tea more freely.

Explanation
This argument is obviously fallacious because it equivocates on the word
theism. The first premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood as
belief in a particular kind of god; the second premise of the argument is only true
if theism is understood in a medical sense.

Real-World Examples
 Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
 Faith is irrational; it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
 Therefore: Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.

Explanation
This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two
different meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary
for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does
not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts
the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven,
according to Christianity.

For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for
the kind of faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is no one understanding of
faith according to which both of the argument’s premises are true, and the
argument therefore fails to establish its conclusion.

Another argument relating to Christianity that crops up from time to time

goes like this:

 Jesus is the Word of God.

 The Bible is the Word of God.
 Therefore: Jesus is the Bible.

Explanation
This is usually used to support some further conclusion about the authority
of the Bible or something similar, but there’s no need to go any further to see that
Page 22 of 53
there’s a problem here: the phrase “Word of God” means very different things in
the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation.

F. FALLACY OF PRESUMPTION
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.

Arguments involving false dilemmas, complex questions, or circularity all

commit fallacies of presumption: false dilemmas assume that there are no other
options to consider; complex questions assume that a state of affairs holds when it
may not; circular arguments assume precisely the thing that they seek to prove. In
each case, the assumption is problematic, and prevents the argument from
establishing its conclusion.

Kinds of Presumption Fallacy

1. The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent - is committed by arguments that have

the form:
 If A then B
 B
 Therefore: A

The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A

obtained then a consequence B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that
this consequence B does obtain. The faulty step then follows: the inference that
the state of affairs A obtains.

Example
 If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the
boss.
 There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
 Therefore: Fred wants to get me sacked.

 If Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his
existence, then we wouldn’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
 We don’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
Therefore:
 Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his
existence.

Explanation
This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why
Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him
wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job
I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying
to get me fired.

2. Arguing from Ignorance - infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is
not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known
that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a
valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though,
arguments from ignorance are fallacious.
Page 23 of 53
Example
 No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
 Therefore: God exists.

Explanation
This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly
consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence.

3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning - An argument is circular if its

conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is
trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument
fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already
accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its
premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the
argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already
accept the argument’s conclusion so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the
argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Example

 The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.

 Whatever the Bible says is true.
 Therefore: The Bible is inerrant.

Explanation
This argument is circular because its conclusion (The Bible is inerrant) is the
same as its second premise. Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would
reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along
with it, the argument as a whole.

Real-World Examples

The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular

argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.

Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right

to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a
right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be
allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”.

Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you
to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it
is trying to prove.

4. Complex Question Fallacy - is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests
on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse
that assumption.

Examples

 Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Page 24 of 53
Explanation
This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat
your wife, a presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.

 Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”

Explanation
Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the
question implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not
admit it. No room is left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex
question, and a subtle false dilemma.

5. Cum Hoc Fallacy - is committed when it is assumed that because two things
occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow;
correlation is possible without causation. This fallacy is closely related to the post
hoc fallacy.

Example

As the graph below (taken from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
website) shows, two things have happened since the early 19th-century: one is
that the number of pirates has declined, the other is that global average
temperatures have risen.

As the graph below shows, two things have happened since the early 19th-
century: one is that the number of pirates has declined, the other is that global
average temperatures have risen.

If correlation implied causation, we would be able to infer a connection between

these two events. It is not the case; however, that global warming is an effect of
the decline in piracy. Neither is the decline in piracy the result of increasing
temperatures. Mere correlation does not imply a causal connection.

Graph showing a correlation between an increase in global average temperatures

and a rise in incidences of piracy

If correlation implied causation, we would be able to infer a connection between

these two events. It is not the case; however, that global warming is an effect of

Page 25 of 53
the decline in piracy. Neither is the decline in piracy the result of increasing
temperatures. Mere correlation does not imply a causal connection.

Real-World Example

Nestle, the makers of the breakfast cereal Shredded Wheat, once ran an
advertising campaign in which the key phrase was this: “People who eat Shredded
Wheat tend to have healthy hearts.” This is very carefully phrased. It does not
explicitly state that there is any causal connection between eating Shredded Wheat
and having a healthy heart, but it invites viewers of the advertisements to make
the connection; the implication is there. Whether or not there is any such
connection, the mere fact that the two things are correlated does not prove that
there is such a connection. In tempting viewers to infer that eating Shredded
Wheat is good for your heart, Nestle are tempting viewers to commit a fallacy.

6. False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy - is committed when a false dilemma is

presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when
there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the
options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious.

Examples
 Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came
into existence out of nothing.
 The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing
comes from nothing).
 Therefore: A Creator brought the universe into existence.

Explanation
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be
thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor
came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.

 Another example emerged when George W Bush launched the war on

terror, insisting that other nations were either for or against America in her
campaign, excluding the quite real possibility of neutrality.

 Complex questions are subtle forms of false dilemma. Questions such as

“Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?” implicitly restrict the options
to either being wrong and admitting it or being wrong or not admitting it,
thus excluding the option of not being wrong.

7. Hasty Generalisation Fallacy - draws a general rule from a single, perhaps

atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.

Example
 My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
 Therefore: Christians / atheists are grouches.

Explanation
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.

Page 26 of 53
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.

8. No True Scotsman’ Fallacy - is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to

prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory
are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but
purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute
a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a

counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No
true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

 Angus puts sugar on his porridge.

 No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
 Therefore: Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
 Therefore: Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman
puts sugar on his porridge.

Explanation
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being
assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The
existing belief thus becomes un falsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious
groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is
permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent
counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently
lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really
have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus
preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is un falsifiable,
there is no possible refutation of it.

9. Post Hoc Fallacy - The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means,
literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed
when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have
occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail
causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it
was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum hoc fallacy.

Example
 Most people who are read the last rites die shortly afterwards.
 Therefore: Priests are going around killing people with magic words!

Explanation
This argument commits the post hoc fallacy because it infers a causal
connection based solely on temporal order.

Page 27 of 53
Real-World Examples

One example of the post hoc flaw is the evidence often given for the efficacy of
prayer. When someone reasons that as they prayed for something and it then
happened, it therefore must have happened because they prayed for it, they
commit the post hoc fallacy. The correlation between the prayer and the event
could result from coincidence, rather than cause, so does not prove that prayer
works.

Superstitions often arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy. Consider,
for example, a sportsman who adopts a pre-match ritual because one time he did
something before a game he got a good result. The reasoning here is presumably
that on the first occasion the activity preceded the success, so the activity must
have contributed to the success, so repeating the activity is likely to lead to a
recurrence of the success. This is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy in action.

10. Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy - applies a general statement too broadly. If

one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific
features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping
generalisation fallacy. This fallacy is the reverse of a hasty generalisation, which
infers a general rule from a specific case.

Example
 Children should be seen and not heard.
 Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
 Therefore: Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard.

Explanation
No matter what you think of the general principle that children should be
seen and not heard, a child prodigy pianist about to perform is worth listening to;
the general principle doesn’t apply.

11. Slippery Slope Fallacy - arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to
another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to
another and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to
do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem
with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention
without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

Example
 If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks
albums, and before you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and
everything.
 You don’t want to become a punk.
 Therefore: You shouldn’t buy a Green Day album.

Explanation
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly
possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we
could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn’t been
proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

12. Subjectivist Fallacy

Page 28 of 53
There are two types of claim: objective and subjective.

Objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone. For example, the claim
that the Earth is cuboid is an objective claim; it’s either true for everyone or false
for everyone. It isn’t possible for the Earth to be cuboid for me, spherical for you,
but flat for everyone else, because whatever shape the Earth is it is only one
shape.

Subjective claims can have different truth-values for different people. For example,
the claim that running a marathon takes more than three hours is a subjective
claim: for many people it is true, but for a good number of runners it is false.

The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an

argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its
conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective.
Typically this is done by labelling the arguer’s conclusion as just an “opinion”, a
“perspective”, a “point of view”, or similar.

This is one of those cases where the objectionable logic is so underdeveloped that
it is difficult to pin down precisely what is wrong with it. Someone who just
grunts “that’s just your opinion” is clearly trying to imply something, but their
reasoning isn’t explicit.

Examples
 Your argument concludes that p is objectively true.
 P is subjective.
 Therefore: Your argument fails.

Explanation
This argument is fine as long as its premises are true, but where (2) is false it
commits the subjectivist fallacy.

 Your argument concludes that p is true.

 Many people don’t accept that p is true.
 Therefore: Your argument fails.

Explanation
This argument doesn’t commit the subjectivist fallacy; it has nothing to do
with objectivity and subjectivity. Instead it is an example of an appeal to
popularity, giving far too much weight to the opinion of those who don’t accept
the conclusion of the argument, failing to recognise that even an argument for a
conclusion that many people don’t accept can be sound.

13. Tu Quoque Fallacy - is committed when it is assumed that because someone

else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically
committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”,
with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is
that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in
the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Example
 The Romans kept slaves.
 Therefore: We can keep slaves too.

Page 29 of 53
Explanation
This argument commits the tu quoque fallacy because it assumes that if
someone else does a thing then its okay for us to do it too. It does not follow,
however, from the simple fact that the Romans kept slaves, that there is nothing
wrong with keeping slaves. It is plausible to think that the Romans acted
immorally in keeping slaves, and that we would act immorally if we followed
their example. The conclusion of the argument therefore does not follow from its
premise.

Examples of the tu quoque fallacy occur all the time. For instance, in an article
entitled Man United defend ticket price rise, BBC Sport reported:

Manchester United has hit their fans with a 12.3% average rise in season
ticket prices for the next campaign. A top-price ticket will cost £38 and the
cheapest £2. But United have defended the price rises, saying they compare
favourably with the rest of the Premiership. ‘We do not know what most of our
rivals will charge next year, buy even a price freeze across the rest of the
Premiership would mean that next year only seven clubs will have a cheaper ticket
than £23 and nine clubs will have a top price over £39 – in some cases almost
double,’ said Humby.

The representative of Manchester United’s argument was essentially this:

“Other Premiership clubs charge more; therefore our ticket prices are justified.”
This commits the tu quoque fallacy because it’s quite possible that all clubs,
including Manchester United, overcharge for their tickets.

G. FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is provided in

support of a claim. Probably most common fallacies fall within this category.
Limited sampling

Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of 96.
He said he ate instant noodles every day. So instant noodles cannot be bad for
your health. A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic
accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky. In both cases the
observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a lot more data is needed to
support the conclusion, e.g. Studies show that many other people who eat instant
noodles live longer, and those who encounter black cats are more likely to suffer
from accidents.

Kinds of Insufficient Evidence

1. Hasty Generalization - Making assumptions about whole group or range of cases

based on samples that are inadequate. Stereotypes about people are a common example
of the principle underlying hasty generalization. An inference drawn from insufficient
evidence.

Examples
 My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is
hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard! Two people’s experiences
are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Page 30 of 53
  It is warmer this year in Las Vegas as compared to last year; therefore,
global warming is rapidly accelerating.

2. Missing the Point - The premises of an argument does support a particular

conclusion - but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example
 The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But
drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people.
Therefore, the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.

Explanation
The argument actually supports several conclusions. The punishment for
drunk driving should be very serious, in particular but it doesn’t support the claim
that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

3. Post Hoc (False Cause) - This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post
hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”
Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one
event really does cause another one that comes later.

Examples
 If I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that
the first event caused the one that came later.

Explanation
But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really related as
cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

 President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up.
Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”

Explanation
The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime
rates, but the argument has not shown us that one caused the other.

4. Slippery Slope - This error happens when one contends that an exceptionally
minor movement will unavoidably prompt great and frequently ludicrous
conclusions. The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some
dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that
assumption.

Examples
 Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect
life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and
murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone
constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization.

Explanation

Page 31 of 53
 To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal
experimentation illegal right now. Since animal experimentation has been legal for
some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this
chain of events won’t necessarily take place.

Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and
loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on
the hillside at which things stop we may not slide all the way down to the end of
civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the
arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.

 If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t graduate, I

probably won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up
doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.

5. Weak Analogy - rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or

situations. If the two things that are being compared are not alike in the relevant
respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits
the fallacy of weak analogy.

Examples
 Guns are like hammers they’re both tools with metal parts that could be
used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase
of hammers so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous. While
guns and hammers do share certain features, these features are not the ones
at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns
because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a
distance. This is a feature hammers do not share it would be hard to kill a
crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument
based on it.

 My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains
and they’re both kind of murky. So the mere fact that you can draw an
analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Explanation
Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion arguers frequently
compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that
would violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses.
Whether these arguments are good or not depend on the strength of the analogy:
do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights?
If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a
life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so
the argument and the analogy are strong. If the property is being self-aware,
rational, or able to survive on one’s own, adult humans and fetuses do not share
it, and the analogy is weak.

6. Appeal to Authority - This sort of error is also known as “Argumentum

Verecundia” (argument from modesty). Instead of concentrating on the benefits of

Page 32 of 53
an argument, the arguer will attempt to append their argument to an individual
of power or authority, in an effort to give trustworthiness to their argument.

Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources

or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If,
however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a
famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an
expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example
 We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor
Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it. While Guy
Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting,
there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political
opinions he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than
the person writing the paper.

7. Ad Populum - The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are
several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes
advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and
uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of
the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to
convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else
(supposedly) does.

Example
 Gay marriages are just immoral. Seventy percent of Americans think so.
While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining
what laws we should have, it certainly does not determine what is moral
or immoral. There was a time where a substantial number of Americans
were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that
segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the
conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

8. Appeal to Pity - takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion
by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples
 I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me
an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it
was really hard for me to study! The conclusion here is “You should give
me an A.” But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and
applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to
accept is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might
feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion
but the information is not logically relevant, and so the argument is
fallacious.

Page 33 of 53
  It is wrong to Tax Corporation’s think of all the money they give to
charity, and of the costs, they already pay to run their businesses!

9. Appeal to Ignorance - happens when one individual utilizes another individual’s

lack of information on a specific subject as proof that his or her own particular
argument is right. In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, look, there’s no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on
this issue.

Example
 People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist. People have
been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet
been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists. In each case, the arguer tries
to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth
of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious:
if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for
something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing
people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it
constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.

10. Straw Man Fallacy - the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s
position and tries to score points by knocking it down. However, just as being
able to knock down a straw man is not very impressive defeating a watered-down
version of your opponent’s argument is not very impressive either.

Example
 Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at
it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are
wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace. The feminist argument is
made weak by being overstated. In fact, most feminists do not propose an
outright “ban” on porn or any punishment for those who merely view it or
approve of it; often, they propose some restrictions on particular things like
child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue
publishers and producers not viewers for damages. So the arguer hasn’t
really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.

11. Appeal to Popular Opinion - This sort of appeal is when somebody asserts that
a thought or conviction is correct, since it is the thing, which the general
population accepts.

Example
 Lots of people purchased this collection, so it must be great.

12. Association Fallacy - Sometimes called “guilt by affiliation,” this happens when
somebody connects a particular thought or issue to something or somebody
negative, to infer blame on another individual.

Example
 Hitler was a veggie lover, so I don’t trust vegans.

Page 34 of 53
13. Attacking the Person - Also regarded as “argumentum ad hominem” (argument
against the man), this is a common fallacy used during debates, where an
individual substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.

Example
 Don’t listen to Eddie’s contentions on teaching, he’s a simpleton.

14. Begging the Question - The conclusion of a contention is accepted as a

statement of the inquiry itself.

Example
 If the neighbour didn’t take my daily paper, who did? (This accepts that the
daily paper was really stolen

VI. SYLLOGISM
 Is a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion
by examining two other premises or ideas? Syllogism derives from the
Greek word syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference.
 It is a systematic representation of a single logical inference.

Three Components:
1. Major Premise
2. Minor Premise
3. Conclusion

The major premise contains a term from the predicate of the conclusion
The minor premise contains a term from the subject of the conclusion
The conclusion combines major and minor premise with a “therefore” symbol (∴)

When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly constructed, a
syllogism is an ironclad logical argument.

Example:
Major premise: All roses are flowers.
Minor premise: This is a rose.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am holding a flower.

TYPES OF SYLLOGISM
1. Categorical Syllogism
 Categorical syllogisms follow an “If A is part of C, then B is part of C”.
Examples

1. All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car has wheels.
Major Premise: All cars have wheels.
Minor Premise: I drive a car.
Conclusion: My car has wheels.

2. All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I am frightened.

Major Premise: All insects frighten me.

Page 35 of 53
 Minor Premise: That is an insect.
Conclusion: I am frightened.

2. Conditional Syllogism
 Conditional syllogisms follow an "If A is true, then B is true". They're often
referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't always
valid. Sometimes they're merely an accepted truth.
Examples

1. If Katie is smart, then her parents must be smart.

Major premise: Katie is smart.
Conclusion: Katie's parents are smart.

2. If Richard likes Germany, then he must drive an Audi.

Major premise: Richard likes Germany.
Conclusion: He must like all things German, including their cars.

3. Disjunctive Syllogism
 Disjunctive syllogisms follow a "Since A is true, B must be false" premise.
They don't state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's understood
that one of them is correct.
Major Premise: This cake is either red velvet or chocolate.
Minor Premise: It's not chocolate.
Conclusion: This cake is red velvet.
Major Premise: On the TV show Outlander, Claire's husband is either dead or
alive.
Minor Premise: He's not alive.
Conclusion: Claire's husband is dead.
4. Enthymemes
 An enthymeme is not one of the major types of syllogism but is what's
known as rhetorical syllogism. These are often used in persuasive speeches
and arguments.
 Generally, the speaker will omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's
already accepted by the audience.
Examples
1. He couldn't have stolen the jewelry. I know him.
Major Premise: He could not have stolen the jewelry.
Minor Premise: I know his character.

2. Her new purse can't be ugly. It is a Louis Vuitton.

Major Premise: Her new accessory cannot be ugly.
Minor Premise: It's made by famous designer Louis Vuitton.

In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied. In the examples above,

being familiar with someone or something implies an understanding of
them.
5. Syllogistic Fallacy

Page 36 of 53
  Some syllogisms contain false presumptions. When you start assuming one
of the major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based
in fact - as with disjunctive syllogisms and enthymemes - you run the risk of
making a false presumption.
Examples
1. All crows are black. The bird in my cage is black. Therefore, this bird is a
crow.
Major Premise: All crows are black.
Minor Premise: The bird in my cage is black.
Conclusion: This bird is a crow.

2. The scenery in Ireland is beautiful. I'm in Ireland. Therefore, the scenery

must be beautiful.
Major Premise: The scenery in Ireland is beautiful.
Minor Premise: I am in Ireland.
Conclusion: The scenery is beautiful.

RULES OF SYLLOGISM
 Six known rules of syllogism that will ensure in making a strong and
accurate argument.
1. Rule One: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor
premise, and the conclusion no more, no less.
2. Rule Two: The minor premise must be distributed in at least one other
premise.
3. Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in
the relevant premise.
4. Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.
5. Rule Five: If one of the two premises are negative, the conclusion must be
negative.
6. Rule Six: From two universal premises, no conclusion may be drawn.

VENN DIAGRAM

CONCEPT 1: Some A is B

Diagram

The possible conclusions are,

1. Some A is B
2. Some B is A

Page 37 of 53
CONCEPT 2: Some A is B and Some B is C

Diagram

Now the Possible Conclusions are

Between A and B between B and C

Some A is B Some B is C
Some B is A Some C is B

There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between A and C. Therefore, it is not possible

to derive any conclusion between A and C.

CONCEPT 3: All A is B

Diagram

The Conclusions are

All A is B
Some A is B
Some B is A

NOTE: when the statements are positive, the conclusions must be positive.

Page 38 of 53
CONCEPT 4: All A is B and All B is C

Diagram

The Conclusions are:

Between A and B between B and C between A and C

All A is B All B is C All A is

Some A is B Some B is C Some A is C
Some B is A Some C is B Some C is A

Concept 5: Some A is B. All B is C.

Diagram

The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B between B and C between A and C

Some A is B All B is C Some A is C

Some B is A Some B is C Some C is A
Some C is B

Concept 6: All A is B and Some B is C

Diagram

Page 39 of 53
 The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B between B and C

All A is B Some B is C
Some A is B Some C is B
Some B is A

Note: There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between A and C. Therefore, it is not possible

to derive any conclusion between A and C.

Concept 7: All B is A and All C is A

Diagram

The possible conclusions are:

Between A and B between A and C

All B is A All C is A
Some B is A Some C is A
Some A is B Some A is C

Note: There is no DIRECT CONNECTION between B and C. Therefore, it is not possible

to derive any conclusion between B and C.

Page 40 of 53
Concept 8: No A is B

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

No A is B
No B is A
Some A is not B
Some B is not A

Note: When NO comes in Statement, Some-not should follow in Conclusion

Concept 9: All A is B and No B is C

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B between B and C between A and C

All A is B No B is C No A is C
Some A is B No C is B Some A is Not C
Some B is A Some B is not C
Some C is not B

Concept 10: All A is B and No A is C

Diagram

Page 41 of 53
 The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B between A and C between B and C

All A is B No A is C Some B is not C

Some A is B No C is A
Some B is A Some A is not C
Some C is not A

Concept 11: Some A is B. No B is C

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B between B and C between A and C

Some A is B No B is C Some A is not C

Some B is A No C is B
Some B is not C
Some C is not B
Concept 12: Some A is B: No A is C

Diagram

The Possible Conclusions are:

Between A and B between A and C between B and C

Some A is B No A is C Some B is not C

Some B is A No C is A
Some A is not C
Some C is not A

Page 42 of 53
Note: In all the above, the conclusions are made based on the statements. There
are only one case where the conclusions are determined based on the conclusion
itself. Then, it is called as Merging Concept.

MERGING CONCEPT

 This concept is applicable when more than one conclusion does not
follows.

Rules:

1. The two non-following conclusions must be of same character.

2. One conclusion must be positive (All/Some)
3. One conclusion must be negative (No/Some-not)
4. Let me explain this concept with some examples.

Example 1

Statement: All Lotus are Flowers; No Lilly is Lotus.

Conclusion: No Lilly is a flower; Some Lilly is Flowers.

Diagram

Conclusions:

I. No Lilly is a flower. (It’s not true)

II. Some Lilly is flowers. (It is also not true)

Note: Two conclusions are false. And both are same characters (Lilly and Flower).
One is Positive and one is negative. It satisfies all the rules of Merging Concept.

Thus, the Answer is either (I) or (II).

Example 2

Statement: Some Cameras are Radios; Some Statues are Cameras.

Conclusion: Some Radios are statues; No Radio is a Statue.

Diagram

Page 43 of 53
I. Some Statues are Radios (It is false) (No direct relation between Statue and
Radio)
II. No Radio is a Statue (It is False) (It is a negative conclusion) (When
statements are positive, conclusions must be positive).

Note: Two Conclusions are False. They are of same character. One is Positive
and other is Negative.

Thus, the answer is either (I) or (II)

POSSIBILITY

 Whenever the term “Possibility” OR “Can” comes in Conclusion, we need

to check this simple table.

Explanation

Statements: Some Mangoes are Apples; Some Bananas are Apples; Some
Branches are Bananas

Conclusions: Some Mangoes are Bananas

Some Branches Being Apples is a Possibility
Some Branches are Mangoes
All Apples Being Mangoes is a Possibility

Diagram

Conclusions

1. It is False. (No Direct Connection between them).

Page 44 of 53
II. No relation between Branches and Apples. “Possibility” is there. (It is true)
III: It is False (No Direct relation)
IV: Between Apples and Mangoes “Some” can come. “Possibility is there”. It is
Also, true.
Thus, either II or IV

Important Rules:

 Draw Venn Diagrams (Basic Diagram & Possibility Diagram) according to

the Statement.
 If the conclusion does not satisfy the Basic Diagram then there is no need to
check the possibility diagrams.
 If the conclusion satisfies the Basic Diagram then it must satisfy all possibility
diagrams.
 The first Venn diagram in all images shown below are Basic Diagrams &
remaining are Possibility Diagrams.

All A are B:

Some A are B:

Some A are not B:

Examples

Page 45 of 53
Statements: All Circles are Squares. Some Squares are Roses
Conclusion 1: Possibility Diagram

Conclusion 2: Possibility Diagram

Conclusions:
I. All Roses being Square is a possibility
II. Can all Circles be Roses
Both (I) and (II) follow

Page 46 of 53
 VII. NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE SYLLOGISM BASED ON PALALI CASE:

Modesto Palali, Petitioner vs. Juliet Awisan, Respondent

G.R No. 158385 February 12, 2010

A. Negative Syllogism
P

Major Premise: Certificate of Land Title is the only evidence of ownership of

MT

real property.
S

Minor Premise: Tax Declaration is the only evidence of the petitioner over
MT

the subject property.

S

Conclusion: Therefore, Petitioner tax declaration has no proof of

P

evidence of ownership over the subject matter.

EXPLANATION: The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is

negative, but both of the premises are positive or drawing a
negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

Rules of valid syllogism based on the Palali case

Rule 1: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor premise and the
conclusion.

Rule 2: The minor premise (ex. property) must be distributed in at least one other
premise (distributed both in major and minor premise).

Rule 3: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the relevant
premise. (ex. predicate - evidence is seen in the major premise and is distributed to
the conclusion)

Rule 4: Do not use two negative premises. There is only one (1) negative premise
in the example.

Rule 5: If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative. Major
premise is negative thus the conclusion is negative premise.

Rule 6: From two universal premises, no conclusion may be drawn.

Page 47 of 53
Examples of Fallacy in Exclusive Premise

First Example MT

Major Premise: The lack of concrete, communal and hostile ownership, and the

pronouncement of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.

Minor Premise: The trial court held that respondent’s right of property and

MT S

ownership was supported merely by her tax declarations and tax payment

MT

receipts were not definite evidence of ownership.

Conclusion: Tax declaration supported by mere payment receipts were not

definite evidence of ownership.

Second Example

MT

Major Premise: Respondent having failed to prove possession, her claim rests
solely on her tax declaration. But tax declarations, by themselves, are not

conclusive evidence of ownership of real property.

MT

Minor Premise: In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession, the

declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.

S P

Conclusion: Respondent's tax declaration, therefore, cannot serve as basis to oust

petitioner who has been in possession (by himself and his predecessors) of the
subject property since before the wa

Page 48 of 53
B. Positive Syllogism

Major Premise: Strong evidence of ownership is the only way to convince the

MT

court and his predecessors of better right to

ownership/subject property.

Minor Premise: Petitioner Modesto Palali was able to prove that he and his

MT

predecessor’s actual, open, continuous and physical

possession of the subject property.

Conclusion: The preponderance of evidence is therefore clearly in favour

S

of petitioner Modesto Palali, as the actual possessor under

P

claim of ownership/property.

EXPLANATION : A positive premise requires a positive conclusion, and a

positive conclusion requires a positive premise.
: The major premise is from the facts of the case and from the
decision of the court that further acknowledge by both sides.
: The minor premise came from the facts of the case
: Therefore, the conclusion must be positive.

Rules of valid syllogisms based on the Palali case

Rule 1: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor premise, and the
conclusion.

Rule 2: The minor premise (middle term – predecessors must be distributed in at

least one other premise (distributed in the major and minor premise).

Rule 3: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the relevant
premise (it is distributed in major premise conclusion).

Rule 4: Do not use two negative premises. There are only positive premises in the
example. No two negative premise.

VIII. THE IMPORTANCE OF SYLLOGISMS

Page 49 of 53
 Syllogisms represent the strongest form of logical argument. Like triangles in
architecture, the syllogism is the strongest logical structure. When formed
correctly, they are indisputable in terms of their logical validity.

However, it’s important to remember what syllogisms don’t do, they don’t
prove their own premises and it could build an argument out of very strong
syllogisms, but it wouldn’t work if its original premises weren’t correct. Thus, it
has to ensure that the starting point of the argument is solid, or no amount of
syllogisms will make the argument successful as a whole.

IX. HOW TO WRITE A SYLLOGISM

1. Start with the conclusion. Most of the time, writing a syllogism as a way of
laying out the steps in the argument that already worked out for easily starts with
the conclusion. The most important part of the syllogism is the part that was
trying to prove through logic.

Example
 Although most have live young, some mammals lay eggs.

2. Break the conclusion down into subject and predicate. The grammar of the
conclusion will dictate the logical structure of the syllogism use to support it be
able to recognize subject and predicate in the sentence.

Example
 Although most have live young, some mammals (subject) lay eggs
(predicate)

3. Locate the key terms. Take the subject and predicate, and boil them down to
their key terms. Get rid of unnecessary adjectives and other extraneous words,
and just focus on the word or words that carry the weight of the sentence.

Example
 Mammals lay eggs

4. Craft your premises. Remember that the major premise will contain the key
terms of the predicate, while the minor premise contains the key terms of the
subject. Craft separate sentences around these key terms such that they fit together
into a syllogism.

Examples
 Echidnas are mammals (minor premise)
 Echidnas lay eggs (major premise)

5. Check whether the conclusion follows from the premises. Can you make a
persuasive “if…then” statement using your premises to prove your conclusion? If
not, the syllogism is not logically structured and will not work in your argument.

Example
 If echidnas are mammals and echidnas lay eggs, then of course it follows
that some mammals must lay eggs.

Page 50 of 53
6. Check whether the premises are persuasive. If you think the reader will accept
both premises, and the syllogism is logically sound, then this step in your
argument will be beyond criticism. However, bear in mind that a skeptical reader
will often find ways to doubt your premises, so don’t take them for granted!

Example
 Echidnas are mammals (persuasive because of scientific consensus)
 Echidnas lay eggs (persuasive because of empirical observation)

X. WHEN TO USE A SYLLOGISM

Syllogisms are very abstract representations, and are rarely not seen outside
of formal logic and analytic philosophy. In other fields, it’s probably best not to
write the syllogism out as part of the paper. However, it can still be very useful as
a mental exercise even if it does not end up showing the whole syllogism to the
reader, it can be written it out on scratch paper as a way of evaluating own
argument.

XI. EXAMPLES IN PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE

Ambrose Bierce famously satirized the syllogism form in his Devil’s

Dictionary:

60 men together can work 60 times as quickly as one man alone.

One man alone can dig a hole in one minute.
Therefore, 60 men can dig a hole in one second.

Each step in this syllogism seems to make sense, and the syllogism itself is logically
sound. But the conclusion is clearly wrong because premise #1 is deceptive. In
theory it’s true that 60 men can work 60 times as fast as one. But in practice
things are not so simple, as Bierce’s clever example shows.

Aristotle invented the example in #2, the one about Socrates being mortal.
But he also used another example to demonstrate how a valid syllogism could
produce a false conclusion if based on faulty premises (despite the syllogism itself
being logically valid).

Everything white is sweet

Salt is white
Therefore, salt is sweet.

Clearly, premise #2 is wrong, and the conclusion is wrong as well. But if premise
#2 were correct, then the conclusion would be correct as well. That means the
syllogism is logically valid though factually incorrect.

XII. EXAMPLES IN POPULAR CULTURE

It can be fun to locate and critique the hidden syllogisms in the world around us.
In advertising, for example, there is always a hidden syllogism with “therefore,
you should buy our product” as its conclusion. For example, many liquor ads are
based on the following syllogism:

Women like men who buy this brand of alcohol.

Page 51 of 53
 You are a man and you want women to like you.
Therefore, you should buy this brand.

There are many potential problems with this argument, but the most obvious one
is that it probably has at least one false premise. Women probably don’t truly
prefer men who purchase that particular brand. In addition, the viewer may well
be a woman or a gay man, in which case the other premise is also false.

That’s a faulty syllogism. Just because you call Bill a dog doesn’t mean he is a
dog.”

In one episode of House, the title character refers to a “faulty syllogism” in a way
that’s not entirely clear. But the syllogism he’s referring to looks like this:

I call Bill a dog.

Things are whatever I call them.
Therefore, Bill is a dog.

The syllogism is clearly faulty because premise #2 is false.

XIII. REFERENCES

1. The Philosophy Pages by Garth Kemerling are licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

2. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

http://www.philosophypages.com/referral/contact.htm. ©1997, 2011 Garth
Kemerling. Last modified 12 November 2011.

3. https://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/
Copyright © 2019 Logical Fallacies

4. http://fileserver.net-texts.com/asset.aspx?dl=no&id=56994
Jonathan Chan

5. http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/note.php?chapter=chapter_01

6. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/ambiguit.html

7. https://www.coursehero.com/file/15463681/Logic-Reviewer-Midterms/

8. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
Copyright ©2019 The Quad

9. Drake's List of The Most Common Logical Fallacies

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-
td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

10. Syllogism. https://philosophyterms.com/syllogism/

Page 52 of 53
11. The Basics of Philosophy.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html

12. Overview of Examples & Types of Syllogisms

https://www.fibonicci.com/logical-reasoning/syllogisms/examples-types/

13. http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cd15e

Page 53 of 53