SARACHO, NICOLE R

15-5017
FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING
In an ordinary course of conversation, it is not
impossible for people to utter certain fallacies in their
argument or statements. In our everyday lives, we
encounter
fallacies
in
speeches,
commentaries,
newspaper, debates and TV shows. In its ordinary sense,
fallacy may be considered as beliefs. For example, the
belief that left brained people are more logical and rightbrained people are more creative is considered a fallacy
because there is not scientific basis for its truth. On the
other hand, in Logic, a fallacy is not a false belief but a
mistake or error in thinking and reasoning. In a passage
numerous facts may be stated but it may be considered as
a fallacy if the reasoning or arguments behind those
statements are erroneous. To completely define fallacy in
Logic, it is considered as the use of invalid or otherwise
faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. One
characteristic of a fallacy is its is deceptive and misleading
since although they are considered illogical, they may
appear correct and acceptable. Depending on their
construction fallacies is psychologically persuasive and
thats the reason people tend to follow or accept it. 1
In the legal world, arguments are considered as a lawyers
most powerful tool in his profession. If he used a fallacy in
his argument, he may lose his case or it may be
detrimental in his career. In the legal profession, fallacy is
described as an error in reasoning rather than a falsity in a
claim. So, future lawyers and lawyers must first look into
the nature of the illogical and incorrect ways of reasoning
in order not to use fallacies in their arguments or
profession. Knowing the different kinds of fallacies will be
make it easier to avoid it.2
FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES
1 Francis Evangelista and David Aquino, Legal Logic, (2015).
2 Ibid at 1.

Fallacies are divided into two main groups. The first kind of
fallacy is known as formal fallacies.
Formal fallacies are those that may be identified
through mere inspection of the form of structure or
argument. Usually, formal fallacies are found in deductive
arguments that have identifiable forms. In formal fallacy,
the concluding statement of an argument may be
objectively true, though the argument is formally invalid;
or the concluding statement may be objectively false,
though the argument is formally valid. 3
For example:
All dogs are mammals
All A are B
All cats are not dogs
All C are not A
Therefore, all cats are not mammals
Therefore, All
C are not B
Examining the example above, it can be observed
that the argument is erroneous. The fact that All A are B
and All C are not A are true does not guarantee that All C
are not B is also true. This kind of fallacy is called fallacy
of illicit major. Its form violates the rules of logic making
the argument false.
On the other hand, informal fallacies are those that
can be detected only through analysis of the content of
argument. In this kind of fallacy, there is an unclear
expression. It focuses on the meaning of the argument. In
informal fallacy, there may be a misuse in the language,
misstatements of facts or opinions, misconceptions due to
underlying presuppositions or there is a plain illogical
sequence of thought. 4
For example:
All students with physical disability should not be
given a failing mark
Ari has physical disability
Therefore, Ari should not be given a failing mark.
3 Harvey Bluedorn, Formal and Informal Fallacies, (1995).
4 Ibid at 3

In the example given, one may notice that the form is

valid. But thorough inspection of the example will lead one
to believe that it is fallacious. Looking at the content, one
may see the erroneous reasoning contained in the
argument. It is illogical to base the students grade in his
physical condition rather than his/her performance in
class.
In Logic, there are various types of informal fallacies.
The various types have their purpose of misleading or
illogically persuading people to believe or accept
something in different ways. The three categories of
informal fallacy are: (1) Fallacies of Ambiguity; (2) Fallacies
of Irrelevant Evidences; (3) Fallacies of Insufficient
Evidence. 5
In this paper, the first category will be discussed
which is Fallacies of Ambiguity. Fallacy of Ambiguity is
committed because there is a misuse of language.
Arguments contain ambiguous or vague language with the
purpose of misleading people. In this kid of fallacy, there is
an imprecise use of language. When a word or an
expression is used in an imprecise manner, a door is
opened for misunderstanding and thus creating a fallacy. 6
Equivocation
Usually, a word may be use in different ways. A word
may usually have more than one distinguishable meaning.
In this fallacy the purpose is to lead an opponent to a
unwarranted conclusion and making it appear to have only
one meaning. A good argument must use word or phrases
that will retain its meaning throughout the whole
argument. 7
Example:
Logic teaches you how to argue
People argue too much
Therefore, we dont need to teach people Logic.
5 Ibid at 1
6 Ibid at 1.
7 Ibid at 1.

In this kind of argument, the word argue is used in

different sense. In the first premise, argue means the
process of arranging propositions to flow logically from a
premise to conclusion. In the second premise, argue may
mean as a heated argument or discussion. In this
argument, there is no connection between teaching logic
and encouraging people to bitterly argue.
Due to the vulnerability of language being interpreted in
different ways, it is important for lawyers to always go
back to the context in which the language in the law has
been formulated. One may notice that in every Republic
Act passed there is a definition of terms given by the
author of the bill so the readers may know how the word in
the bill is used.8
Amphiboly
In this kind of fallacy, it consists in presenting a claim
or argument whose meaning can be interpreted in two or
more ways due to its grammatical construction. The
double meaning lies not in the word but in the
grammatical construction. A statement is amphibolous
when its meaning is indeterminate because of the loose or
awkward way in which words are combined. 9
Example: Lauren calls her mother when shes alone.
In the example given, amphiboly is committed
because it is not clear when Lauren calls her mother. Is it
when Lauren is alone or when her mother is alone?
Improper Accent
In this kind of fallacy, placing improper emphasis on
a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim
misleads people. The writer or speaker places an accent

8 Ibid at 1.
9 Ibid at 1.

on a selected feature of an issue that may cause another

to come an unwarranted conclusion about it. 10
Example: President to step down from office.
In this example, it may be inferred that the President
have immediate plans of stepping down from office.
However, the whole article may have a different meaning
as for example, the president will step down from office if
the charges of corruption against him are proven.
Vicious Abstraction
This fallacy consists in misleading the people by
using vague or abstract terms. This fallacy occurs when
vague words are misused. Vague words are misused when
these words are very significant in the premises used to
establish a conclusion. If we do not know exactly the
meaning of the term due to its vagueness, we cannot
know at what point counter evidence may do some
damage to the claim in which it appears. To deal with this
kind of fallacy, one must need to sense if the opponent is
attempting to support a particular claim with a statement
containing a vague word. 11
Composition
This fallacy consists in wrongly inferring that what
holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group mad up of those individual. This fallacy turns on
confusion between the distributive and the collective use
of general terms. 12
Division
This fallacy consist in wrongly assuming that what is
true in general is true in particular.13
Example: To argue that BIR has the most corrupt
government officials in the country and therefore 3 of the
10
11
12
13

Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid

at
at
at
at

1
1
1
1.

accountants there should not be trusted is illogical. It is

erroneous to consider that the 3 accountants in BIR are
also corrupt just because of the generalization made that
the BIR is a corrupt agency.