FALLACIES 2.

Circulus In Probando - arguing in a circle (happens when unprepared in

cross exam)

-rhetorical fallacies
Ignorantio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
-hermeneutic fallacies
- the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that
which was intended or required.
Classified:

1. Fallacy of accent - arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by

placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it is left unclear
which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.
Eg. Post no bills vs Post no bill{s) - I can post a bill, because it’s only singular.
2. Fallacy of amphibology - gives rise to miscomprehension
1. Argumentum ad Hominem
- when the arguer befogs the issue, thus evading the arguments of his
opponents and instead directs his attack at the character, personality or belief of
his adversary
- (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or
circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument
instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the
argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

Fallacies of Presumption 2. Argumentum ad populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority):

-Petitio Principi
- The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing
the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this
fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
Types:

1. Assumption Non Probata - assumtpion on the truth of unproved premise 1. "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by
appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an
authority) in a society thinks or believes.
 2. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on - appeal to ignorance
the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.
- the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
3. "appeal to emotion": the fallacy of using expressive
and emotively laden language to arouse emotion in support of a - This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
conclusion.

6. Argumentum ad Verecundiam
3. Argumentum ad envidiam

- Is committed when an arguer ignores the real question and inflames the - is an argument based on authority
audience with hatred and rancor
- The Latin means "appeal to reverence"

- Here, authorities mean people presumed to be experts, as opposed to

4. Argumentum ad misericordiam people holding power over others -- Scott Johnson

- the sob story 7. Argument from tradition & culture

- or the Galileo argument -
- is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by
exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of
appeal to emotion.

- pity and commiseration 8. Argumentum ad Judicium

5. Argumentum ad ignorantiam - maintains his contention is valid because people in general believe it to be
so

- Basis: majority/general belief cannot be wronged

9. Argumentum ad Baculum - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous
argument or statement.

- To avoid: Must prove the connection between cause and effect

- Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick"

- is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to
bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

10. Argumentum ex Concessio

- is an argument from a previous admission.

11. The Fallacy of Complex Question

- fallacious question

- It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something

that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.

- eg “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

- Damned if you do, damned if you don’t question

12. Non Sequitur

 Ashford release the full amount Php 100 million on January 1, 2000, less 12%
interest per annum interest good for two years. Thereafter GO shall pay Ashford
on installment basis every month for a period of two years only inclusive of the
amount of interest. On the first month, GO failed to pay. Until the 6th month of
supposed amortization, still, there was no amount paid, whatsoever. So Ashford
demanded only on the 6th month when it could have demanded as early as first
month of default payment. Unfortunately, despite demand, no payments were
MR. GO (GO, hereafter), is a private individual, of legal age, Filipino and a resident
made.
of Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines;

And so, Ashford filed a formal demand to pay full amount plus interest, plus
MR. TIU (TIU, hereafter), is a private individual, of legal age, Filipino and a resident
surcharges and penalties including the agreed Php 100,000.00 liquidated damages.
of Lapaz, Iloilo City, Philippines;
GO did not heed with the demand until Ashford filed an Extra-Judicial Foreclosure
of Property.

ASHFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ASHFORD, hereafter), is a financial institution

engaged in legitimate business in the Philippines and with principal address at
GO offered to pay the full amount after the filing of the extra-judicial foreclosure.
General Santos City.
Ashford considered the same, and required GO to execute a Promissory Note
covering Php 150,000,000 covering all interest and surcharges. The promissory
note states that payment shall be done for a period of 1 year only.
GO entered into a real estate mortgage (REM) with Ashford in the amount of One
Hundred Million Pesos (Php 100,000.00). The real property owned by GO is located
at Jaro, Iloilo City with an area of 10,000 square meters or 1 hectare. Because its
location is near Megaworld, Inc., the zonal valuation drastically increased at Php
10,000.00 per square meters thereby totaling to 100 million pesos for 10,000 After a year, no payment was tendered whatsoever and so Ashford proceeded
square meters or 1 hectare. The consideration of the real estate mortgage shall be with the foreclosure. Thereafter, the property was sold at public auction and
paid within a period of two (2) years at 12% per annum interest and in case of Ashford was the highest bidder in the amount of Php 200 million Pesos.
breach, any party shall be liable for liquidated damages amounting to 100,000.00
in favor of Ashford.
Before the certificate of sale was issued, GO manifested its intent to redeem the
property within a period of 1 year from the time of the issuance of the certificate
of finality. GO insisted that under the buy-back scheme, it is allowed to redeem the
property and he is entitled to first preference. Unfortunately, upon the lapse of 1
year period, GO was not able to pay. Consequently, the property was consolidated
and registered under the name of Ashford from GO.

After 1 year from the expiration of redemption period, GO approached Ashford

and wish to buy the property. Ashford offered that the property is for sale at 300
million pesos, CASH. GO requested for a year to prepare the money with the
express knowledge of Ashford. Within the same period of time, no one bought the
property and so GO believes that Ashford honored his word to buy it 300 million,
Cash.

However, with the knowledge of GO, Ashford negotiated with TIU to sell the
property at 500 million pesos. The following day after the negotiation, the
property was sold to TIU at 500 million pesos cash.

When Tiu started his ground-breaking ceremony to erect a new building in the said
property, GO filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
claiming that Ashford hid the transaction from him and that Ashford is bound by its
verbal promise to sell the property back to GO in the amount of 300 million pesos
only. He further alleged that because TIU offered a higher selling price, Ashford
sold the property in haste.