Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Fundamentals of Thinking
A. Simple Apprehension
- also known as affirmation, is the operation by which we grasp the whatness of something
- making a thing present in and to our minds without telling something about it
- It also means an act of being conscious about something.
- Simple apprehension, as an act or operation, requires something to act upon just as consciousness
requires something to be conscious about. This something is called object of simple apprehension.
When I become conscious of something, this something then is the object of my consciousness. But how
am I able to be conscious of the object of my consciousness?
B. Concept
- To make this object of simple apprehension present into our minds requires a sign.
- A sign is anything that points us to something. For example, a red traffic light is a sign of “stop”, a
cross is a sign of Christianity, two thumbs up is a sign of approval or congratulations, etc.
- Unlike other signs, this sign that we are pertaining to does not point us to something else but to itself
– it points itself.
- The sign of the cross, for a contrary example, does not point itself because it points something else,
namely Christianity, but “chair” (or chair-thought as we called it previously) points itself and not
something else.
- This sign of the object of simple apprehension is called concept (or thought as we called it
previously).
- E.g. Just as there is a chair that exists in reality, so there is also a “chair” that is present in our mind.
The “chair” that is present in our mind (chair-thought) is an example of a concept, a sign that points to
itself.
C. Term
- Term is also a sign, but it does not point to itself but to something else.
- For example, when you see a word FREEDOM written with a charcoal on a wall of an abandoned
building, you would immediately realize that this word does not point to itself as merely a word. In fact,
it is obviously absurd to answer the question “What is that which is written on the wall?” by saying “It
is a word”. This is because that which is written on the wall does not point to itself but to something
else, namely a thought or an idea. The word composed of seven letters F.R.E.E.D.O.M. points us to an
idea or thought which is freedom.
- Just a concept is a sign of an object of simple apprehension, so is term the sign of a concept.
- Differentiating concept and term is a little bit confusing. Let us, then, put it is this way: Suppose
there is a Filipino and an American in a particular area and both of them only speak their own language.
Then, they saw a chair. The Filipino says it is an “Upuan” while the American says it is a “Chair”. The
terms “Upuan” and “Chair” are two terms but they only point one specific concept, namely upuan or
chair.
One must remember, however, that in the real order, the object of simple apprehension, the concept, and
the term is one thing, not three. We showed here their distinctions so that we may understand the
structure through which we produce thoughts.
One who studies Logic does not need to master this concept. Nevertheless, since we shall deal with the
rules that govern the use of concepts and terms later on, it is very important to know what, in the first
place, is concept and term.
This case is different, however, when my thought is myself. In this kind of thought, the thought and the
one who thinks is one.
Intelligence and intellect, as we will show later, are two different concepts. Human beings and some
animals have intelligence, so do computers, but only human beings have intellect.
Since concept always points to itself, it follows that it is always one and the same regardless
of the language being used. For example, I cannot have a concept of a “table” when in fact I am
referring to a chair, and vice versa.
Since this is the case, one important criterion for a reasoning to be called logical is that concepts
are not confused with one another. In Filipino, we commonly attribute the act of confusing and
misinterpreting concepts as pamimilosopo. An example would be clear: a mother called her son matigas
ang ulo (hard-headed) because he is so stubborn, but the son reacted that his head is just hard as
anybody else, because no head is soft! The son here confuses the concept of hard-headedness and that of
having a hard head. Ergo, other than being called matigas ang ulo, the mother adds that her son is also a
pilosopo; that is, one who interprets things obscurely.
To aid us in pointing the error of reasoning due to confusion of concepts or terms, it is very
important to know what kinds of concepts or terms there are and the laws that govern their relationship
with one another.
KINDS OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS
A. Inferior and Superior Terms
1. Inferior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with a superior term by way of
specificity. That is, the inferior is the specification of the superior term. If the superior term is animal,
then inferior terms could be bird, fish, deer, etc.
2. Superior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with the inferior term by way of
generality. That is, the superior term is the general concept of which the inferior term is a member. For
example, if the inferior term is bird or cat, then its superior term is animal. If the inferior term is
Filipino, then the superior term is human being.
The general rule in dealing with superior and inferior terms is that what is true with a superior term may
not be true with an inferior term, but what is true with an inferior term is always true with a superior
term.
In making statements using these concepts, one must remember that a concrete term cannot be
predicated with an abstract term, and vice versa.
For example:
These are incorrect:
The top of Mount Apo is height.
“The top of Mount Apo” is a concrete term while “height” is an abstract term.
Examples:
Absolute Connotative
man lazy
sun luminous
wall white
Wall exists as a substance, but white does not. This means that we do not see white in itself; what we see
is a white wall or a white cloth or a white dress. So white presupposes an absolute concept (substance)
like wall or cloth or dress in order to exist. In the same way, we do not encounter lazy as it is, what we
encounter is a lazy person or a lazy animal. All adjectives are connotative.
One cannot make use of connotative concepts without presupposing absolute concepts.
The brown jumped over the lazy dog near the river bank, or
D. Unconnected Concepts
Concepts are unconnected if both of them are inferior that neither oppose nor include one another. They
are called unconnected because the truth value of one inferior term does not imply, or is not necessarily
connected to, the truth value of the other inferior term. For example, the statement “Some birds
migrated” does not have anything to do with the statement “Some zebras migrated” because what can
be true to a bird may not be true to a zebra, both of which are inferior to the term animal, so they are
unconnected.
Hence, the general rule is that an inferior term cannot be inferred from another inferior term.
E. Connected Concepts
These are concepts so related to one another that one either exclude or include the other. There are
various types of connected concepts. These are:
a. Synonymous terms
One may interchange a term with another synonymous term without changing the original meaning that
one tries to convey. So, if reasoning proceeds from one term to another synonymous term, it is valid.
Example:
Those who labor must receive credit.
The reward must be in a form of ready money.
Therefore, those who work must receive cash.
There are three pairs of synonymous terms in this valid argument: “labor-work”, “credit-reward”,
“ready money-cash”.
Hence, from this observation, we conclude that what is being affirmed to an inferior term cannot be
denied to a superior term, but not vice versa.
a. Relative Concepts
They are called relative concepts because even if they cannot be simultaneously true in a substance or
individual and are also not opposed to one another, still one cannot be realized without the other. For
example the concepts husband and wife are relative concepts. Even if no one can be both a husband and
a wife, and even if husband and wife are not opposed to each other, no one can be called a husband
without a concept of wife just as nobody can be called a wife if there is no concept of husband.
Other examples:
parent – offspring
teacher – student
adviser – advisee
brother – brother/sister
b. Contrary Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one is necessarily a negation of the other, but whose
negation of one does not necessarily mean an affirmation of the other. For example, the concepts black
and white are contrary concepts, so that if something is black (affirmation), then that something cannot
be white (negation); but, if something is not black (negation), it does not necessarily mean that that thing
is white (affirmation).
Other examples:
good – evil rational - irrational
light – darkness motivated - unmotivated
boy – girl intentional - unintentional
dead – alive logical – illogical
c. Contradictory Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one necessarily entails negation of the other, and vice
versa. For example, black and non-black are contradictory concepts, so if something is black then it is
not a non-black, or if something is a non-black then it is not black.
Other examples:
life – lifeless
man – non-man
rational – non-rational
motivated – non-motivated
Sometimes, there is confusion between a negative contrary concept and a negative contradictory
concept. For example, one confuses between non-rational and irrational, or non-motivated and
unmotivated. Although these concepts appear to be analogous or synonymous still they are different.
That is, it does not mean that if one is non-rational, then that one is irrational, or if something is non-
motivated, it does not mean that it is unmotivated. But the reverse is not true: if something is dead,
surely it is lifeless, or if something is white, surely it is non-black.
Examples of invalid arguments because of confusion between contrary and contradictory concepts:
Karon in this discourse is equivocal. In one sense, it means “later”; in the other sense, it
means “now”. Thus, both the Ilonggo and and the Cebuano have ignorantly misinterpreted each other.
Consider another example:
Pastor: Let us give our hearts to God.
Child: Would I not die if I do it?
Pastor: Yes dear child, but to die in God means life.
Surely, the child and the pastor do not mean the same thing.
1. Univocal Terms
A term is univocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more but in exactly the same sense.
Examples:
My men are hungry, but your men were filled.
“Pablo” and “Yolanda” are strong typhoons.
Arroyo and Aquino were senators.
2. Equivocal Terms
A term is equivocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a completely different sense.
Examples:
“Yolanda” is a typhoon and a girl.
Alexander is a man; the picture on the wall is a man.
A date is a time, but it is also a romantic appointment.
3. Analogous Terms
A term is analogous if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a sense that is partly the same and partly
different.
Examples:
The examination test is also a test of character.
I am healthy; the farm is healthy.
The warriors who died in the battle are warriors of peace.
To prevent error in reasoning, it is very important that terms are used univocally. Otherwise,
confusion could arise.
Examples:
All persons are mortals. The picture on the wall is a person.
Therefore, the picture in the wall is mortal.
The person in the first example equivocal, while the warrior in the second is analogous, both of
which commit the same error.
SUPPOSITION OF TERMS
Supposition is the property by which a term stands for a definite one of the various things it
can stand for (Bacchuber, 1957, p.230). A term can stand as a material image, as a subject or predicate
of a sentence, as something pertaining a reality, or as pertaining to something or someone in reality.
Consider these examples:
1. Chair has five letters.
2. Chair is an absolute concept.
3. Chair is a furniture.
4. A chair is used to block the pathway.
In Example 1, “chair” stands as a material image, the word itself. In Example 2, “chair” stands
for an essence or whatness that exists only in the mind; that is because the whatness of “chair” in this
example cannot be “absolute concept” except only in the mind. In Example 3, “chair” stands for it real
essence or whatness because it tells us what the chair really is. It must be noted that in this example the
supposition of “chair” does not actually imply an actual existence of a chair. In Example 4, however,
“chair” stands for an actually existing chair. Yet in all four examples, “chair” has exactly the same
meaning, signification, and definition; that is, the examples do not indicate equivocal meanings of the
term “chair”.
Shift in suppositions of terms in reasoning will lead us into error. Thus, to avoid this kind of
error, it is important to be able to identify the supposition of a particular term in a particular statement.
Consider this invalid argument:
Philosophy means love of wisdom. Existentialism is a philosophy. Hence, existentialism means love of
wisdom.
One who does not know anything about supposition will readily claim that this argument is
valid. However, deeper analysis will show that this argument is invalid. We will explain why this is so
after we discussed the kinds of supposition.
KINDS OF SUPPOSITION
A. Material Supposition
It is the use of a term for the spoken or written sign itself, but not for what it signifies (Bacchuber, 1957,
p.231). In the following examples, the supposition of “chair” is material: “Chair rhymes with hair,” and
“Chair has R as its last letter”. In all these usages, chair is really a furniture, but the fact that chair’s
being a furniture has nothing to do with the fact chair rhymes with hair, or that its last letter is R. Hence,
in these examples we only consider the material make up of the word “chair”.
B. Formal Supposition
Formal supposition is the use of a term not for the sign itself, but for what it signifies. In the example
“Chair is a furniture”, chair has a formal supposition because it is not the word chair that is a furniture
but what the chair signifies that is a furniture.
2. Real Supposition
It is the use of a term for what it signifies in the real order. The supposition of chair is real in the
sentence, “The chair is used to block the pathway” because it refers to something in the real order.
Other examples:
Man is a rational animal.
Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
This monkey is a primate.
Real supposition is on one hand, either absolute or personal, and on the other hand, either essential or
accidental.
Definition
Parts of a Definition
1. Definiendum – the word that is defined
2. Definiens – the phrase that explains the definiendum
Kinds of Definition
I. Kinds of Definition Based on Usage
A. Lexical Definition
A lexical definition (Latin, lexis which means “word”) is the definition of a word according to
the meaning customarily assigned to it by the community of users. It simply reports the meaning which
a word already has among the users of the language in which the word occurs. A dictionary or lexicon
comprises this kind of definition.
E.g.: Lexicon - dictionary: a reference book that alphabetically lists words and their meanings, e.g. of an
ancient language
River - large natural channel of water: a natural stream of water that flows through land and
empties into a body of water such as an ocean or lake
B. Stipulative Definition
A stipulative definition is a kind of definition in which a new word or term is coined in order to
signify a meaning or object for which no word in the language has previously been given.
For example, the word selfie has been invented in order to signify a person who loves to take
picture of himself or herself.
Suppose that another living creature was found in another planet. Surely, there is no word in our
language to signify such creature. We, then, have to stipulate that the creature shall be known by this or
that particular name. Doing this means making a stipulative definition.
C. Precising Definition
The purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a word. There are terms in
our language which must have precise definitions because some future actions are based on our
knowledge of them.
For example, the arguments for or against contraception requires a clear, precise, and
unambiguous definition of life of human organism because such definition implies the moral bearing of
contraception.
Other examples which need precising definitions are legal terms like “theft”, “murder”, “private
property”, “rights”, and “sovereignty” since the definition sets the condition of understanding laws and
legislative praxis.
D. Theoretical Definition
Theoretical definitions attempt to define an object according to its true nature, and not
necessarily according to the way the word is used by a community of users.
Take, for instance, the definition of table salt as sodium chloride. Unless the persons involved
have some acquaintance with elementary chemistry, this would be a bad definition, for it would define
the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar. For those acquainted with the principles of chemistry, however,
this definition is the best one, for it reveals the real nature of salt. Other familiar theoretical definitions
are “force equals mass times acceleration,” or “light is electromagnetic energy (of a certain range of
wavelengths).” For scientific purposes, theoretical definitions are necessary and cannot be replaced by
other types of definitions. A theoretical definition answers the question, “What really is x?” where “x” is
the object whose name is to be defined.
Philosophers, too, are interested in theoretical definitions. The desire to know what is really the
nature of “human person”, “knowledge”, “existence”, “being”, “beauty” etc., tells us why philosophy
today have so many branches like Philosophy of the Human Person, Epistemology, Existentialism,
Metaphysics, and Aesthetics which endeavour to get correct theoretical definitions of the objects just
mentioned.
E. Persuasive Definition
Some definitions are intended either mainly or at least partly to influence attitudes. Persuasive
definition, under which these definitions are categorized, incites either favourable or unfavourable
responses to the object so defined. Here are examples of persuasive definitions:
Democracy is a government of the weak, inferior race.
Democracy is a government of the people by the people for the people.
A dictator is one who achieves greatness by violence in the political sphere.
Love is only an illusion on people who do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Contraception is the deliberate prevention of unwanted pregnancy so that families may be able to give
the best care to their children.
Contraception is the wilful interference of God’s will so that children who would have seen the light of
day are deliberately prevented from doing so.
Persuasive is not really concerned with revealing the true nature of the concept defined but of
influencing attitude by using phrases that appeal to one’s emotion.
A. Extensional Definition
Also known as Denotative Definition, it is a way of defining a word based on giving examples of the
things or objects referred to by a term. For example, defining a computer for someone who never saw a
computer before would be utterly lacking. It is important, therefore, to show him or her a computer.
Showing a computer to describe a term “computer” is an extensional definition.
2 Types:
1. Definition by Example – a definition in which we list or give examples of the objects denoted by the
term
2. Ostensive – an extensional definition which merely points out an object referred by a term.
3. Quasi-ostensive – an extensional definition which does not only point the object referred to by the
term but also gives a description about the object being pointed out.
Extensional or denotative definitions are important especially when a term requires a
demonstration in order to be understood. For example, one cannot define “color red” without pointing to
something that is of color red.
There are, however, serious limitations of extensional or denotative definitions. One limitation is
that a person who uses this kind of definition is that he may not be able to articulate what the thing
really is because he knows only what the thing is like. Articulation of meaning is important because it
clarifies ambiguity in understanding, and more importantly, it indicates the depth of understanding a
person has of a particular term. Another reason is that extensional definitions cannot define terms that
have no extension. For instance, how can we extensionally define terms like “length”, “infinite”,
“nothingness”, “value”, etc?
B. Intensional Definition
Also known as connotative definition or definition by comprehension, it is a way of defining a word by
giving its meaning. Giving the meaning of the term may be done through giving its etymological origin
or its synonym, or stating the essential attributes of the concept signified by the term.
4 Types:
1. Etymological Definition - Defines a word by giving the meaning of the word or words from which it
is derived. E.g. Philosophy is derived from philos, a Greek word which means “loving,” and Sophia,
which means “wisdom”.
2. Definition by Synonym - Defines a word by giving a synonym (either of the same language as the
word to be defined or of a different language) that is better known than the word to be defined. E.g.
anthropos means man, to confect means to put together
3. Operational Definition – A type of intensional definition widely used in science. It defines a word or
an occurrence by stating the necessary conditions that are required in order for something to be called
such a term. It has a form “Something is X, if and only if…”
For instance, X is magnetic, if and only if, whenever any piece of iron, nickel or cobalt is placed
closed to it, it attracts the latter toward itself.
Another example: X is harder than Y, if and only if, when a point of X is drawn on the surface of Y,
X scratches Y.
4. Definition by Genus and Difference or Real Definition – is regarded as the best type of definition
because it tells us what a thing really is. It is defining a term by giving a larger class to which the
concept signified by the term belongs (called as genus) and stating the properties that a concept has that
differentiates it from other concepts under the same genus (called as difference).
For example:
Man is a rational animal. (“Animal” is the genus because it is the larger class to which the concept
“man” belongs. “Rational” is the difference because it is what differs man from all other animals.)
Girl is a young woman. (Genus = woman; Difference = young)
Triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines. (Genus = plane figure; Difference = bounded
by three straight lines)
Rules of Definition:
1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the object being defined.
Essential attributes are attributes which make the object what it is. So, a good definition of “X”
must be able to answer the question “What really is X?”
The definition of man as a rational animal satisfies this criterion, for it tells us what man really
is. However, defining man as an animal who is capable of speech violates this rule because being able
to speak is not what makes man as “man”.
Hypothetical Syllogism
Hypothetical Syllogism – is a syllogism that has a hypothetical proposition as one of its premises.
a. Conditional Syllogism
b. Disjunctive Syllogism
c. Conjunctive Syllogism
A. Conditional Syllogism – is a syllogism whose major premise is a conditional proposition. The major
premise is composed of two parts: antecedent (ante = before) and consequent (sequi = follow). The
antecedent is the component which states the condition while the consequent is the result which follows
from the antecedent.
Examples:
1. If you are worthy (antecedent), then you can have my blessing (consequent).
But you are not worthy.
Therefore, you cannot have my blessing.
2. If the student is responsible enough (ante.), he can pass this subject (cons.).
But he can pass this subject.
Therefore, he is responsible enough.
4. If the blue litmus paper turns red (ante), then the chemical is acid (cons).
But the chemical is not acid.
Then the blue litmus paper will not turn red.
5. If the tools are here (ante.), then we can start planting (cons.).
If they arrived early, then the tools are here.
Therefore, if they arrived early, then we can start planting.
2. To deny the consequent is to deny the antecedent, but to affirm the consequent does not mean
affirmation of the antecedent. Example 2 above is a violation of this rule. It doesn’t mean that because
he can pass the subject that he is already a responsible student.
If soldiers are brave, then they will not leave their companion behind.
But they will not leave their companion behind.
Therefore, they are brave.
Other examples:
Only when people learn to understand each other can there be genuine peace.
But people have learned to understand each other.
Therefore, there can be genuine peace.
Other examples:
Only when people learn to understand each other can there be genuine peace.
But there is no genuine peace.
Therefore, people have not learned to understand each other.
Examples:
a. Strict Disjunctive – when one, and only one, is true among the disjuncts (parts of disjunctive
syllogism).
Rule: If one disjuct is affirmed, then the other must be denied, and if one is denied, then the other must
be affirmed. Examples 1 and 2 above are disjunctive syllogism in a strict sense.
Other examples:
Rule: If one is affirmed, it does not mean that the other must be denied, since it can also be affirmed.
But if one is denied, then, automatically, one is affirmed since at least one of the disjuncts is true.
Examples 3 and 4 are of this type.
Other examples:
In this example, the teacher can be both in the classroom and is computing grades. Hence, we cannot say
that since the teacher is in the classroom, he is not computing grades.
Rule: In a conjunctive proposition, only one of the components can be true, but both can be false. Hence
if one is affirmed, it necessarily entails that one must be denied. However, if one is denied, it does not
necessarily entail that one must be affirmed, for both of them can be denied without contradiction.
It doesn’t mean that because you are not wealthy that you are already poor.
You cannot serve both God and money.
But you don’t serve money.
Therefore, you can serve God.
- invalid
It doesn’t mean that because you don’t serve money you can serve God.
It doesn’t mean that since you are not in Manila, then we can conclude that you are in Cotabato.
INFERENCE
Inference – it is a process by which the mind proceeds from one proposition to another proposition seen
to be implied in the former. It is the fundamental element in an argument. Without inference, there can
never be an argument.
Example:
Givens Therefore:
The cloud is dark. It will rain.
All people have dignity. That poor man has dignity.
“All people are mortals” is true. “Some people are not mortals” is false.
Some politicians are corrupt. Some corrupt people are politicians.
A. Oppositional Inference – it is a type of immediate inference in which we deduce the truth value of
another proposition (can be A, E, I, O) from a given truth value of a proposition of the same structure.
Example:
“All men are mortals” is true.
Therefore, “No men are mortals” is _______.
The answer is false.
If one is true:
(I) Some animals are flowers. – False
(O) Some animals are not flowers. – True
2. Obversion – it is done by changing the quality of the proposition (from affirmative to negative, from
negative to affirmative) and replacing the predicate with its contradictory. We call the original
proposition obvertend, and the new proposition obverse.
Examples:
Obvertend Obverse
All men are mortals. No men are non-mortals.
Some politicians are liars. Some politicians are not non-liars.
No stones are flowers. All stones are non-flowers.
Some animals are not mammals. Some animals are non-mammals.
3. Contraposition 1 – It is done by doing obversion, and then conversion. We call the original
proposition contraposend and the new proposition contraposit 1.
Examples:
Contraposend Contraposit 1
All men are mortals. No non-men are mortals.
Some politicians are liars. no contraposend 1
No stones are flowers. Some non-flowers are stones.
Some animals are not mammals. Some non-mammals are animals.
4. Contraposition 2 – it is done by doing obversion, then conversion, then obversion again. We call the
original proposition contraposend and the new proposition contraposit 2.
Examples:
Contraposend Contraposit 2
All men are mortals. All non-men are non-mortals.
Some politicians are liars. no contraposend 2
No stones are flowers. Some non-flowers are not non-stones.
Some animals are not mammals. Some non-mammals are not non-animals.
Fallacy is an error in reasoning. It consists in making arguments whose premise or premises do not
really provide sufficient grounds for the conclusion.
- Fallacies can be formal or informal. When the error in reasoning is due to the invalidity of the
structure (form) of argument, the fallacy is called formal. If the error is on the content (not the structure)
of the argument, the fallacy is called informal.
- There are four (4) general classifications of informal fallacies.
A. Fallacies of Relevance
- These are arguments whose premise is irrelevant or “far” from the conclusion.
1. Argumentum ad Populum
2. Appeal to Emotion
3. Argumentum ad Misericordiam
4. Argumentum ad Baculum
5. Argumentum ad Hominem
6. Agumentum ad Crumenum
7. Ignoratio Elenchi
8. Two Wrongs Make a Right
9. Scapegoating
10. Rationalization
2. Appeal to Emotion
When you make claims by arousing feelings of anger, fear, grief, love, outrage, pity, pride, sexuality,
sympathy, relief, and so forth.
Examples:
“You would let me borrow money from your again, right? Besides, what friends are for?”
“I really feel sorry for your lost. He is a good friend of mine too…and if he were alive, he would really
want you to buy this product. So, just print your name here in the list and I’ll deliver the product
personally to you after his burial.”
9. Scapegoating
This fallacy consists in blaming other people for a problem that they know nothing about.
Examples:
“We lost the war against the Spartans because of Socrates.” (Socrates was a philosopher not a soldier)
“Ever since you came into my life, I have been so miserable.”
10. Rationalization
We are rationalizing when we give someone a reason to justify our action even though we know this
reason is not really our own reason for our action, usually because the offered reason will sound better
to the audience than our actual reason.
Examples:
“I bought the matzo bread from Kroger’s Supermarket because it is the cheapest brand and I wanted to
save money,” says Alex [who knows he bought the bread from Kroger's Supermarket only because his
girlfriend works there].
“I wanted my father to buy me an Apple Computer because it is safer to use and aside from that I could
process files and documents fast and accurate.” (The real reason is that she could have something to
boast to her peers.)
Fallacies of Presumption
These are arguments whose conclusion is supported by false or unproved assumptions.
1. Accident
2. Complex Question
3. Petition Principii or Begging the Question
4. Ad Consequentiam or Appeal to Consequence
5. Ad Hoc Rescue
6. Avoiding the Issue
7. Red Herring
8. Excluded Middle or Black/White
9. Selective Attention
10. Gambler’s
11. Inconsistency
12. Slippery Slope
13. Straw Man
1. Accident
It is when we reason with a generalization as if it has no exemption.
Examples:
“People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he’d return it. Now
he is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbour who disrespected me.”
“The pull of gravity from this object is 23 kg. So it follows that at the top of Mt. Everest, it is still 23
kg.”
2. Complex Question
You use this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial assumption is made by the
wording of the question.
Examples:
“Did you use a knife in killing that man?” [Man: “No”] “Aha! So you did kill him!”
“[Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer’s
money on missile defense?”
5. Ad Hoc Rescue
This fallacy is committed when one tries to rescue a belief by denying a contrary evidence or examples
that would falsify it.
Examples:
“If you take Vitamin C every day, you will never get a cold.” [Friend: “But I tried it last year for several
months and I still got a cold.”] “Well, I’ll bet you bought some bad tablets.”
“Filipinos are hospitable. If you met a Filipino who is not hospitable, then he is not a true Filipino.”
8. Selective Attention
It is the tendency to look only for evidence in favor of one’s controversial hypothesis and not to look for
disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it.
Example:
She loves me, and there are so many ways that she has shown it. When we signed the divorce papers in
her lawyer’s office, she wore my favorite color. When she slapped me at the bar and called me a
“handsome pig,” she used the word “handsome” when she didn’t have to. When I called her and she said
never to call her again, she first asked me how I was doing and whether my life had changed. When I
suggested that we should have children in order to keep our marriage together, she laughed. If she can
laugh with me, if she wants to know how I am doing and whether my life has changed, and if she calls
me “handsome” and wears my favorite color on special occasions, then I know she really loves me.
9. Gambler’s
Gambler’s fallacy occurs when the gambler falsely assumes that the history of outcomes will affect
future outcomes.
Examples:
“I know this is a fair coin, but it has come up heads five times in a row now, so tails is due on the next
toss.”
“There was no raid for three months now. So, it’s probably unsafe to continue our drug production next
month since there would probably be raid.”
10. Inconsistency
This fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a claim that
logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Examples:
“I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are white. But I just don’t think that white women love their
babies as much as our women do.”
“I agree that everything has a price. But I believe that life is priceless.”
3. False Cause
This is an error when one attributes a false cause to a phenomenon.
Examples:
“I passed the interview because I wore a red t-shirt.”
“The Philippines has a rapid increase in GDP because many buildings are being erected.”
6. Faulty Comparison
Occurs when you try to make a point about something by comparison, and you do so by comparing it
with the wrong thing.
Examples:
“We gave half of the patients pain reliever and paracetamol to the other half. After one hour we
observed that those whom we have given pain reliever are more energized than anyone else. Hence, we
concluded that pain reliever is more effective than paracetamol.”
Wearing Addidas shoes is more comfortable than wearing Levi’s jeans.
7. Far-fetched Hypothesis
This is the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first
ruling out more mundane explanations.
Example:
“Look at that mutilated cow in the field, and see that flattened grass. Aliens must have landed in a flying
saucer and savaged the cow to learn more about the beings on our planet.”
9. Guilt by Association
Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be guilty of error
because of the group he or she associates with. The fallacy occurs when we unfairly try to change the
issue to be about the speaker’s circumstances rather than about the speaker’s actual argument.
Examples:
“Senator Cruz is pro-RH Law because he is a friend of those senators who authored the RH Law.”
- These are fallacies that occur because of the ambiguous or unclear use of language.
1. Equivocation
Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Examples:
Brad is a nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad must be perfect, too. (The word “nobody” has
equivocal meanings.)
Don’t fall in love because everything that falls breaks. (“Fall” is equivocal; one is falling in love, while
the other one is a literal falling of objects).
2. Accent
The accent fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emphasized or accented.
Example:
A member of Congress is asked by a reporter if she is in favor of the President’s new missile defense
system, and she responds, “I’m in favor of a missile defense system that effectively defends America.”
With an emphasis on the word “favor,” her response is likely to favor the President’s missile defense
system. With an emphasis, instead, on the words “effectively defends,” her remark is likely to be against
the President’s missile defense system.
“You shall not bear false witnesses against your neighbor.”
The intended meaning of this passage is that I should not speak ill against my fellow human being.
Fallacy of accent is committed when I interpret this passage differently by emphasizing or accenting one
of its words. For example, if the words “false witnesses” is accented, then I mean that it is alright to bear
witnesses against my neighbor as long as it is true. If I emphasized, “neighbor”, then I might understand
the passage as saying that it is alright to speak ill against someone as long as he is not my neighbor.
3. Amphiboly
This is an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during
the reasoning.
Examples:
“Lost and found: an umbrella by an old lady with two broken ribs.” How poor this old lady was; she has
two broken ribs!
If Croesus wages a war against the Persians, he will destroy a mighty kingdom. (Whose mighty kingdom
will Croesus destroy: the Persians’ or his own?)
4. Division
We commit the fallacy of division when we take separately what must be taken as a group.
Examples:
“Askalz is a good soccer team. Therefore, each of its members is a good soccer player.”
“The choir signs excellently. It must follow that each member of the choir sings well.”
5. Composition
The opposite of division, this fallacy occurs when we take as a unit or group what must be
taken separately.
Examples:
“Each member of the team is a good player. Therefore, the team is a good team.”
“Each human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very lightweight.”
6. Hooded Man
This is an error in reasoning due to confusing the knowing of a thing with the knowing of it
under all its various names or descriptions.
Examples:
“You claim to know Socrates, but you must be lying. You admitted you didn’t know the hooded man
over there in the corner, but the hooded man is Socrates.”
“I thought you knew your father, yet you could not even recognize that man who was wearing a coat
over there, and that was your father.”