FALLACIES BRIEF DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE REFUTATION

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
A. ARGUMENTUM AD This fallacy attempts to I dont understand why the
ANTIQUUM persuade others of a Church allowed cremation
(APPEAL TO THE AGES) certain belief by appealing of the dead. In our time, we
to their feelings of have not been taught to
reverence or respect for burn the bodies of our
some tradition instead of dead loved ones. It was not
giving rational basis for done when my lolo and lola
such belief. (p. 110) died, as well when tatay
and nanay died. We should
not also do that to any of
our relatives.
(In the first example, the
speaker argues that
cremation is wrong on the
grounds that such practice
is not in accordance with
the traditional beliefs.)
(p.110-111)
The reasoning is fallacious
because what was true
before may not be true at
present. Given the social,
cultural and even physical
changes in our society and
the world at large, what
may be acceptable in the
past may not be acceptable
today, just as what was not
acceptable then may be
acceptable now. (p.111)

There is nothing wrong

with kaingin. Our
forefathers have practiced
it since time immemorial.
Do you mean to tell me
that they were wrong all
the while?

(In the second example,

the practice of kaingin is
defended on the basis of
what was traditionally
done.) (p.110-111)
B. ARGUMENTUM AD This fallacy consists in The doctrine of biological There is nothing wrong with
VERECUNDIAM persuading others by evolution cannot be true, appealing to the judgement
(APPEAL TO appealing to people who for it contradicts the of qualified authorities in a
INAPPROPRIATE command respect or biblical account of creation; field of knowledge as a
AUTHORITY) (P.111) authority but do not have the church fathers never means of supporting some
legitimate authority in the accepted it and the particular claim related to
matter at hand. (p.111) fundamentalists explicitly that field. But when the
condemn it. authority on whose
o An authority in a judgement the argument
particular field is (What is wrong in the rests fails to meet the
one who has above argument is its stated criteria, the
sufficient knowledge reliance on certain argument should be
of the matters influential authorities who, regarded as fallacious.
belonging to that although respected and (p.112)
field, is qualified by looked upon by many
training or ability to people, are not appropriate It occurs most frequently in
draw appropriate authority on this matter as
the form of a transfer of an
inferences from that the issue is not about
authoritys competence
knowledge, and is morals and religion but
from one field to another.
free from any about science.) (p.112)
(p.112)
prejudices or
An entertainer, for
conflicts of interest Another type of
example, is appealed to as
that would prevent inappropriate authority is a
an authority on dairy
him or her from biased one. Some people
products; or a sports star is
formulating sound may be qualified in a
treated as an expert on
judgements. particular field by training,
appliances.
ability and position, yet
(The convincing power of they are so vitally
this kind of appeal lies on interested in or affected
the fact that the people by the issue at stake that
cited command respect or there would be good reason
strong following, so even if to treat their testimony
the issue at hand is not with suspicion. (p.113)
within the parameters of
their expertise, people tend
to believe them.) (p.112)
C. ACCIDENT (P.114) This fallacy consist in Freedom of speech is a This fallacy occurs when
applying a general rule to a constitutionally guaranteed such general rules are
particular case when right. Therefore, Leo applied to special
circumstances suggest that Beltran should not be circumstances. The
an exception to the rule arrested for his speech that application of the general
should apply. (p.114) incited the riot last week. rule is inappropriate
because of the situations
(In this argument, the accidents, or exceptional
general rule is that facts. (p.114)
freedom of speech is
normally guaranteed, and
the specific case is the
speech made by Leo
Beltran. Because the
speech incited a riot, the
rule does not apply.)
(p.114)
D. HASTY GENERALIZATION This fallacy consists in A survey of the members Like other fallacies of
(CONVERSE ACCIDENT) drawing a general or of the Moro Islamic insufficient evidence, the
(P.118) universal conclusion from Liberation Front (MILF) and premise used to support its
insufficient particular case. their families showed that conclusion may be
(p.118) more than 85% of them acceptable and relevant
favor the proposal to have but they are not enough or
As such it is also known as a separate independent adequate to establish it. It
converse accident because government in Mindanao, is called hasty
its reasoning is the 10% disapprove of it while generalization since it
opposite of the fallacy of 5% are undecided. These moves carelessly or too
accident we take a survey results clearly show quickly from the insufficient
particular case (which may that majority of Filipino evidence to the conclusion.
be an exception) and make Muslims supports the said (p.118-119)
a general rule or truth out proposal.
of that. (p.118)
(Here, our basis for
claiming that majority of
Filipino Muslims supports
the proposal is not
adequate to support this
claim since it only pertains
to the MILF members and
their families which do not
represent the general
Filipino Muslim population.)

E. ARGUMENTUM AD This fallacy consists in Since science cannot prove
IGNORANTIAM assuming that a particular
(ARGUING FROM claim is true because its
IGNORANCE) (P.120) opposite cannot be proven.
(p.120)
o Arguing from
ignorance means
using the absence
of evidence against
a claim as
justification that it is
true or using the
absence of evidence
for a claim as
evidence that it is
false. In short, it is
treating the
absence of evidence
as if it were the
presence of
evidence.
F. FALSE DILEMMA (P.122) This fallacy arises when the Many people are protesting
premise of an argument
presents us with a choice
between two alternatives
and assumes that they are
exhaustive when in fact
they are not. (p.122)
o Alternatives are
(p.119)
The error it does is passing
that breathing the same air the burden of proof to its
as an AIDS victim will not opponent. But it is not the
result in the spread of the task of the other side to
virus, children with AIDS provide it because it is not
should not be allowed to the one making any
attend public schools. proposition. The one
proposing that particular
(The premise of this action should be followed
argument, however, tells us has the burden of providing
nothing about any kind of positive basis why it should
proof or basis for its claim. be the case. (p.121)
This argument actually has
what is called the burden of
proof that is, it has the
task of giving evidence why
we should not allow
children with AIDS to
attend public schools that
is, to give evidence that
breathing the same air will
result in the spread of the
virus.) (p.121)
The fallacy of false
the implementation of dilemma often derives from
warrant-less arrest. I think the failure to distinguish
it is just right for that can contradictories from
facilitate the militarys contraries. (p.123)
crackdown on terrorist
groups. You surely dont A common way to commit
want terrorism to prevail in false dilemma is to treat
our country. contraries as if they were
exhaustive when contradictories. (p.123)
they cover all (The arguer presupposes
possibilities that there are only two
(meaning, these are alternatives in this case;
the only choices we implement warrant-less
have). arrest and get rid of
terrorism or not implement
it and terrorism prevails.)
(p.122-123)