Critical Thinking and Logic

GED0073
 Module 4
Informal Logic and Falacies
 Module 4 Subtopic 1
Informal Logic and Fallacies
Content

1. Definition of Informal Logic

2. Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic
3. Definition of Fallacies
4. Types of Fallacies
5. Classifications of Informal Fallacies
1. Definition of Informal Logic

❑ Informal logic is a broad term for any of the various methods of analyzing
and evaluating arguments used in everyday life as opposed to arguments
used in academics.
❑ Also known as non-formal logic or critical thinking.
❑ It is considered as an attempt to develop a logic that can analyze and
assess the "informal" reasoning that occurs in everyday language contexts
in, for example, political debates, legal proceedings, social commentaries,
opinion pieces featured in the mass media (in newspapers, magazines,
television, the Internet, etc.), etc.
❑ It is the study of various types of arguments in their natural setting –
ordinary discourse. This logic identifies, interprets, analyzes and evaluates
arguments in various language games without using any of the templates
of formal logic. (Acuña, 2004)
2. Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic

Formal Informal

•It is particularly •Deals primarily

concerned with with the content
the form of the of the argument
argument more and less so with
than the content. its form.
3. Definition of Fallacies

❑ A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists of something other than

false premises alone. Such defects comprise either mistakes in reasoning
or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
❑ It is a type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a mistake
in reasoning.
❑ It is an argument that is psychologically or emotionally persuasive but
logically incorrect.
4. Types of Fallacies

Formal Informal

• A formal fallacy is one that may • Informal fallacies are those that
be identified by merely can be detected only by
examining the form or structure examining the content of the
of an argument. Fallacies of this argument.
kind are found only in deductive • They are patterns of mistakes
arguments that have identifiable that are made in the everyday
forms. uses of language. Informal
fallacies arise from confusions
concerning the content of the
language used.
4. Types of Fallacies

Everything that runs has feet. Premise 1: Every A has B

The Pasig River runs very swiftly. Premise 2: A
Therefore, the Pasig River has feet. Conclusion: Therefore, B.

❑ This example has a valid form.

❑ However, if you look at its content, it creates a fallacy due to the different
meanings of the word “run”.
❑ The presence of this content-based error makes this an informal fallacy.
4. Types of Fallacies

Franklin Drilon, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Premise 1: A are B

Richard Gordon are Philippine Senators. Hidden Premise 2: A are C
Therefore, it must be the case that all senior Conclusion: Therefore C must be
citizens must be Philippine Senators. B

❑ This example has no problems in its actual content. The premise makes
sense.
❑ However, the form of the argument is invalid.
❑ This invalid form makes it a formal fallacy.
4. Types of Fallacies

Feathers are light. Premise 1: A are B

Light cannot be dark. Premise 2: B cannot be C
Therefore, feathers cannot be dark. Conclusion: Therefore, A cannot be C.

❑ Logically, this makes sense in terms of its form.

❑ However, if you look at its content, it creates a fallacy due to the different
meanings of the word “light”.
❑ The presence of this content-based error makes this an informal fallacy.
❑ Keep in mind, content-based errors are not just about how certain words
can have multiple meanings.
5. Classification of Informal Fallacies

A. Fallacies of B. Fallacies of Weak C. Fallacies of D. Fallacies of

Relevance Induction Presumption Ambiguity
• Appeal to Force • Appeal to • Begging the • Equivocation
• Appeal to Pity Unqualified Question • Amphiboly
• Appeal to People Authority • Complex Question • Composition
• Argument Against • Appeal to • False Dichotomy • Division
the Person Ignorance • Suppressed
• Fallacy of Accident • Hasty Evidence
• Strawman Fallacy Generalization
• Missing the Point • False Cause
• Red Herring • Slippery Slope
• Weak Analogy
5. Definition of Fallacies

A. Fallacies of Relevance
❑ The most numerous and the most frequently encountered.
❑ The premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion.
However, because they are made to appear to be relevant, they may
deceive.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
❑ Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells
that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him
or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
❑ The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or
psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either an
individual or a group of people.
Peppa Pig is the best show on TV;
and if you don’t believe it, I’m
going to call my big brother over
here and he’s going to beat you
up.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
❑ Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely
evoking pity from the reader or listener. This pity may be directed toward
the arguer or toward some third party.
❑ It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or
mercy, rather than on reason.

You need to let me pass the

subject. If you don’t, I will
lose my scholarship and
would not be able to
continue studying.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
❑ An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conclusion is an
appeal to popular belief.
❑ It is a fallacy because, instead of evidence and rational argument, the
speaker (or writer) relies on expressive language and other devices
calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against some cause.

You want to grow up and be

just like Wonder Woman,
don’t you? Then eat your
vegetables.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
❑ Rejecting an argument by attacking the person who offered it – either in
pointing out a character flaw to imputing evil intentions.
❑ The thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at some person who
defends the conclusion in dispute.

I don’t want to work

together with him in this
department. He’s a filthy
atheist.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
5. Fallacy of Accident
❑ It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover.
❑ Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the
premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion.

Visayans love to make jokes.

Therefore, the President should
not be punished when he makes
rape jokes.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
6. Strawman Fallacy
❑ It is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument,
and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been
demolished.
❑ By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it
down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been
knocked down as well.

The people are pushing the government

to do mass vaccination. Mass testing is so
expensive and sometimes are ineffective.
For this reason, the government should
refuse mass testing.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
❑ This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one
particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely
related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
❑ Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.” The arguer is ignorant of
the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a
conclusion that misses the point entirely.

Crimes of theft and juvenile

delinquencies have been increasing at
an alarming rate lately. The conclusion
is obvious: We must reinstate the
death penalty immediately.
5. Definition of Fallacies
A. Fallacies of Relevance
8. Red Herring
❑ The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention
of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but
sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a
conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some
conclusion has been established.

Some people are asking for stricter

requirements for a driver’s license.
However, road accidents happen
everywhere and anytime. Data shows a
lot of road accidents happen on a daily
basis. Since most of these are caused
by drivers’ errors, they could have been
prevented if they were more careful.
5. Definition of Fallacies

B. Fallacies of Weak Induction

❑ Occurs not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion,
as is the case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because the
connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to
support the conclusion.
❑ A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the
conclusion.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
❑ Occurs when a cited authority or witness lacks credibility. There are several
reasons why an authority or witness might lack credibility. The person
might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might
have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,” or might lack the
requisite ability to perceive or recall.

I think we should buy that new

gaming phone released by
Samsung. Kris Aquino is
endorsing it after all.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
❑ This fallacy occurs based on the notion that if you cannot prove something
is true, it is automatically false. The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved.

Since you haven't been able to

prove your innocence, I must
assume you're guilty.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
3. Hasty Generalization
❑ The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is
not representative of the group. Such a likelihood may arise if the sample
is either too small or not randomly selected.

Indonesia has the death penalty, so

their crime rate is low. Therefore,
all countries ought to implement
the death penalty to deter
criminality.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
4. False Cause (Non Causa Pro Causa)
❑ The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably
does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the
false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the
conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X
probably does not cause Y at all.

There are so many poor people in

the Philippines who can hardly
make ends meet. It’s the
government’s fault why there are
so many people living in poverty.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
5. Slippery Slope
❑ The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when the conclusion of an argument
rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to
think that the chain reaction will actually take place.

Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil

rights and should be summarily abandoned. If
pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers
and news magazines is only a short step away. After
that there will be censorship of textbooks, political
speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by
university professors. Complete mind control by the
central government will be the inevitable result.
5. Definition of Fallacies
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction
6. Weak Analogy
❑ The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong
enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.

Guns are like hammers. They are

both tools with metal parts that
could be used to kill someone. If
people can have hammers, they
should be allowed to have guns too.
5. Definition of Fallacies

C. Fallacies of Presumption
❑ These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but
because the premises presume what they purport to prove.
❑ This is any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption
that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
5. Definition of Fallacies
C. Fallacies of Presumption
1. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
❑ The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer
creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support
for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by
restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a
circle.
❑ Petitio principii means “request for the source.”
❑ The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the
argument is said to beg the question.

Avatar is the greatest movie of all time

because it is the number one top grossing
film of all time.
5. Definition of Fallacies
C. Fallacies of Presumption
2. Complex Question
❑ The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more)
questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is
then given to both of them.
❑ This is designed to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that
he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.

I asked where you hid the marijuana you

were smoking. You replied, “Under the
bed.” It follows that you were in fact
smoking marijuana.
5. Definition of Fallacies
C. Fallacies of Presumption
3. False Dichotomy
❑ The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (either…or)
premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones
available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative,
leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.

Either you support the Liberal Party or you are part of the
problem. Surely, you don’t want to be a part of the problem.
5. Definition of Fallacies
C. Fallacies of Presumption
4. Suppressed Evidence
❑ This fallacy is committed when the arguer ignores evidence.
❑ The most common occurrence of the suppressed evidence fallacy appears
in inferences based on advertisements. Nearly every ad neglects to
mention certain negative features of the product advertised. As a result,
an observer who sees or hears an advertisement and then draws a
conclusion from it may commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence.

The ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken says,

“Buy a bucket of chicken and have a barrel
of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a bucket of
that chicken, we will be guaranteed to
have lots of fun.
5. Definition of Fallacies

D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
❑ This is an informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings
of words or phrases within an argument.
❑ Also known as a “sophism”.
5. Definition of Fallacies
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation
❑ The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or
implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such arguments are
either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound.

Any law can be repealed by the legislative

authority. The Law of Gravity is a law.
Therefore, the Law of Gravity can be
repealed by the legislative authority.
5. Definition of Fallacies
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
2. Amphiboly
❑ The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty
interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone
other than the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in
grammar or punctuation.
❑ Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the unintended
interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on it.

Professor Cruz said that he will give a lecture

about heart failure in the biology lecture hall.
It must be the case that a number of heart
failures have occurred there recently.
5. Definition of Fallacies
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
3. Composition
❑ The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the
parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs
when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows
that the whole has that attribute, too, and the situation is such that the
attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to
whole.

Each atom in this teacup is invisible.

Therefore, this teacup is invisible.
5. Definition of Fallacies
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
4. Division
❑ The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition
goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is
committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its
parts (or members).

Freemasonry as a fraternity is over 300

years old. Mr. Suico is a freemason.
Therefore, Mr. Suico is more than 300
years old.
References
• Acuña, Andresito E. Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques for Critical Thinking. Sixth Edition. UP Department of
Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004).
• Bauzon, Priscillano T. A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy with Islamic and Islamic Values, National
Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011).
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of Education for the LET.
• Bauzon, Prisicllano. Logic for Filipinos, National Book Store, Mandaluyong City (2013).
• Copi, Irving and Cohen, Carl, and McMahon, Kenneth. Introduction to Logic. 14th edition. USA (2011)
• Dy, Manuel. Contemporary Social Philosophy Kaths Publishing, Makati City (2012)
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one origin and
meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• Espartinez-Santiago, Alma (2014). Logic: Art of Reasoning. 7th edition. C&E Publishing, Inc.
• Hurley, Patrick, Introduction to Logic, Cengage Learning, Singapore (2011)
• Maboloc, Christopher Ryan B. Elements of Logic, An Integrative Approach, Rex Book Store, Manila (2012)
• https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html#
• https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nature_log.html
• http://thelogiccafe.net/logic/ref1.htm