REVIEWER FOR QUIZ IN ENGLISH 10: LOGICAL

FALLACIES

Ex: (1) Water is liquid. Therefore: (2) H2O molecules are

liquid

Group 1 (Fallacies of Ambiguity/Trickery with Words):

meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of
inattention.

Group 2 (Fallacies of Presumption/Perversion of

Legitimate Argumentative and other Methods): starts
from unjustified or unwarranted assumptions that lead to
wrong conclusions.

Smuggled connotation: The argument or

statement includes a phrase or word that has an
emotional meaning which the facts do not
justify.
Ex: Impeccable political pedigree.
Floating Comparison: Use of a comparative or
superlative form of a term which s not connected
to anything.

Contradiction: If you assert that A is B, you

cannot assert that A is not B.
Ex: Our country is democratic but you should
follow me.
Argumentum Ad Ignorantium(argument to
ignorance): Something must be true because it
has never been proven false, something must be
false because it has never been proven true.

Ex: Most preferred, best suited.

Reification: Treating an abstract concept as a
real entity.
Ex: Technology brought bulb and gave birth to
bombs.
Amphiboly: The problem is due to poor
sentence or grammar construction leading more
than one possible meaning.
Ex: Good boys and girls'. Young men and
women.
Accent: Some sentences can be interpreted
differently depending on where the stress is
placed in a word or sentence.
Composition: committed when we reason that
what is true of the parts must, therefore, be true
of the whole.
Ex: (1) Every song on the album lasts less than
an hour. Therefore: (2) The album lasts less than
an hour.
Division: committed when we reason that what
is true of the whole must, therefore, be true of
the parts.

Ex: No one has proven that God exists,

therefore, there is no God.
Fallacy of Consensus Gentium(agreement of
the people): Arguing the conclusion is true
because most people believe it for a long time.
Ex: Most people believe in a god; therefore, God
exists.
Undistributed Middle: Middle term, or the
term that does not appear in the conclusion, is
not distributed to the other two terms.
Ex: All lions are animals. All cats are animals.
Therefore, all lions are cats.
False Dichotomy: Occurs when the claim
involved considers only extremes and fails to
take a third choice, "Either P, or Q. Not-P.
Therefore, Q."
Ex: You're either a genius or an idiot.
Call for Perfection: If you remark that a
proposal or claim should be rejected solely
because it doesn't solve the problem perfectly, in
cases where perfection isn't really required.

Ex: Mass housing results in faceless apartments.

Therefore, mass housing program should be
stopped.
False Analogy: Incorrectly comparing one thing
to another in order to draw a false conclusion,
reasoning that since such applies to P, it will
apply to Q as well, because Q is like P.
Ex: I looked at the yellow stain on my finger
yesterday and thought, if it does that to your
fingers, imagine what it does to your lungs.
Group 3 (Fallacies of Presumption/Perversion of
Legitimate Argumentative and other Methods)
Genetic Fallacy: Committed when an idea is
either accepted or rejected because of its source,
rather than its merit, assuming that the present
form of a thing reveals its origins or vice versa.
Ex: 1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany
during the war. Therefore: 2) Eugenics is a bad
thing. "I was brought up to believe in God, and
my parents told me God exists, so He must."
Begging the Question: An argument is circular
if its conclusion is among its premises, if it
assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is
trying to prove, The arguer commits it when he
presupposes exactly the claim he is arguing for
Ex: (1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore: (3) The Bible is inerrant.
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
This argument is circular because its conclusionThe
Bible is inerrantis the same as its second premise
Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would
reject the arguments conclusion should also reject its
second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a
whole.

Misleading context: Occurs when a word,

phrase, concept, quote, entity, or proposition is
taken out if its context.
Ex: This was a fantastic movie, as long as you
aren't looking for plot or character development.
Unqualified source: Citing evidence from a
source not qualified to give it.
Ex: My favorite actor, who appeared in a movie
about AIDS, has testified that the HIV virus
doesnt really cause AIDS and that there has
been a cover-up. So, I think that AIDS must be
caused by something other than HIV and the
drug companies are hiding it so that they can
make money from expensive anti-HIV drugs.
Loaded question: A question that has a
presupposition built in, which implies something
but protects the one asking the question from
accusations of false claims. It is a form of
misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when
the audience does not detect the assumed
information implicit in the question, and accepts
it as a fact, are designed (deliberately or by
accident) to do more than get straight answers.
Ex: How many times per day do you beat your
wife? Where did you hide the gun? [assumes
that you hid the gun] How often do you do that?
[assumes that you do it at least sometimes]
Statistics Fallacies
Skewed sample: Drawing a conclusion about a
population based on a sample that is biased, or
chosen in order to make it appear the population
on average is different than it actually is.
Ex: Based on a survey of 1000 American
homeowners, 99% of those surveyed have two
or more automobiles worth on average $100,000
each. Therefore, Americans are very wealthy.
Gambler's fallacy: Reasoning that, in a
situation that is pure random chance, the
outcome can be affected by previous outcomes.

Ex: I have flipped heads five times in a row. As

a result, the next flip will probably be tails.
Large numbers: For sufficiently large samples,
the results look like the expected value (for any
reasonable definition of like).

Ex: Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against

sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs
with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is
acceptable.
Damning the source: Discrediting an argument
because of its origin (like genetic fallacy)

Group 4 (Fallacies of Relevance/Evasions)

Argumentum Ad Baculum(argument to the
club): Uses violence instead of argument.
Ex: Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my
summer at Jesus camp? Dad: Because if you
dont, you will spend your entire summer in
your room with nothing but your Bible!
Argumentum Ad Vericundiam(argument to
authority): Using an authority as evidence in
your argument when the authority is not really
an authority on the facts relevant to the
argument.
Ex: My 5th grade teacher once told me that girls
will go crazy for boys if they learn how to
dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies
go crazy for you, learn to dance.
Proving the wrong conclusion: Using
arguments that seem to lead to a logical
conclusion, but upon closer inspection actually
does not.
Ex: He comes from a good family and is
intelligent, he cant do that.
Two wrongs make a right: Justifying a wrong
by arguing that other people did the same

Diversion: Introducing an anecdote for

humorous or rhetorical effect.
Group 5 (Fallacies of Relevance/Evasions): argument
relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion
and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth.
Argumentum Ad Personam(argument to the
person): Appealing to the particular bias or
personal interests of the readers.
Ex: "Well ya wanna be in the club don't ya?"
Argumentum Ad Populum: Appeal is less to
particular interests than to biases and attitudes
pervasive throughout the group, there is an
appeal to patriotic feelings.
Ex: A true Filipino will work for the outright
removal of these bases from our soil.
Special Pleading: Applying conditions n one
case but not admitting them on other similar
cases.
Ex: Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should
go to prison, but your honor, he is my son! He is
a good boy who just made a mistake!
Fallacy of the golden past: Appeal to a time in
the past when things were better.

Ex: Jimmy stole Tommys lunch in the past.

Therefore, it is acceptable for Tommy to steal Jimmys
lunch today.
Tu quoque(you also): Claiming the argument is
flawed by pointing out that the one making the
argument is not acting consistently with the
claims of the argument.

Fallacy of the future: Approving an idea

because it is the wave of the future.
Ridicule: Ridiculing the opponent or his
argument instead of presenting evidence or
logic, usually by misrepresenting the argument
or the use of exaggeration.

Person 1 claims that X is true. Person 2 makes X look

ridiculous, by misrepresenting X. Therefore, X is false.
Ex: It takes faith to believe in God just like it takes faith
to believe in the Easter bunny -- but at least the Easter
bunny is based on a creature that actually exists!
Explanation: Comparing the belief in God to belief in
the Easter bunny is an attempt at ridicule, and not a good
argument. In fact, this type of fallacy usually shows
desperation in the one committing the fallacy.

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.
Ex: 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.