FALLACIES

Fallacies are defined as inaccuracies within a statement or points in an information that is

incorrect after a judgment from a separate supporting material, such as extrusive research or
misalignment in the layout of facts. One definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
quotably states a fallacy is “a false or mistaken idea”. Fallacies are common occurrences,
whether intentional or unintentional, present in arguments and discourse. The identification
of fallacies stands crucial to formal documents regarding court matter, scientific data, or
literature content of a specific text. As fallacies could lead to misinterpretation or severe
errors in judgment towards a person’s words or the content of a reading material’s veracity.

Types of Fallacies

There are two main acceptable types of fallacies, namely; Formal Fallacy and Informal
Fallacy.

Formal Fallacy: these are structural fallacies within an invalid argument. Often observed to
have traceable correlation to the point of a side’s argument. A formal fallacy is also termed
as a “Logical fallacy” due to its nature to refer to a valid reasoning.

​ Under formal fallacies are four more classifications:

a.​ Affirming the Antecedent: also known as Modus Ponens, where the first premise
stands hypothetical, the second premise is not hypothetical and affirms that the
antecedent (p) is true to formulate the conclusion or the consequent (q). (valid)

E.g:
If p then q: “If there’s something burning, there should be smoke.”
Where p: “There’s something burning.”
Where therefore q: “Therefore there’s smoke.”

b.​ Affirming the Consequent (fallacy of the converse): argument from the premises “if p
then q, therefore p”, wherein p stands for the antecedent and q stands for the
consequent of the argument, as the second premise affirms that the consequent is
true.

E.g:
If p then q: “If there’s something burning, there should be smoke.”
Where q: “There is smoke.”
Where therefore p: “Therefore, there’s something burning.”

c.​ Denying the Antecedent: an argument constituted around the premises “if p then q,
not p, therefore not q”, simply stating that the aforementioned antecedent is denied
itself by the second premise.
 E.g:
If p then q: “If there’s something burning, there should be smoke.”
Where not p: “There’s nothing burning.”
Where therefore not q: “Therefore, there’s no smoke.”

d.​ Denying the Consequent: also known as Modus Tollens, where in this error, the
second premise denies the consequent, and therefore the antecedent is false or
incorrect. (valid)

E.g:
If p then q: “If there’s something burning, there should be smoke.”
Where not q: “There’s no smoke.”
Where therefore not p: “Therefore, there’s nothing burning.”

Informal Fallacy: refers to types of incorrect arguments due to the content or context of the
statement, constituted upon an illogical point and invalid reasoning.

Under informal fallacies are seventeen (17) classifications based from the Texas
State University, College of Liberal Arts, Department of Philosophy.

a.​ Ad Hominem: translates to “attacking the person” or the arguer in a discoursal.

Where in this case, the individual’s aspect or characteristic is addressed instead of
the argument that was laid out by them a.k.a. personal attack.

E.g: “Don’t trust what Jason says about trigonometry, he has ADHD.”

b.​ Appeal to Ignorance: a fallacy that occurs due to lack of substantial supporting
evidence to deny a claim or to constitute against a said claim.

E.g: “I can take the last slice, nobody said they wanted it.”

c.​ Begging the Question: happens when an arguer assumes the truth of a conclusion to
a claim without evidence and without a significant standing or position.

E.g: “The Philippine political board is ridiculous, they should be paying more attention
to bigger problems in the economy.”

d.​ Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition: a fallacy that occurs when a set
of prerequisites is assumed to be needed to attain a standardly sufficient condition or
an appealing condition to the arguer.

E.g: “I don’t understand why I didn’t pass, I read all the subjects.”

e.​ Equivocation: is observed when a specific term in an argument is used expansively

for a separate portion which is then used as a support of the original claim.
 E.g: “George graduated valedictorian, but he flunked two of his subjects this
semester. A student who flunked subjects can’t be a model valedictorian graduate.”

f.​ False Dilemma: happens when an arguer stands in an “either-or” position without
taking into account classifiable possibilites.

E.g: “Either I have to graduate or I’ll be disowned by the family.”

g.​ Faulty Analogy: a fallacy that occurs when an arguer assumes a comparison
between two objects that share an aspect which could share other characteristics
and could be misinterpreted to be the point referred to.

E.g: “Saying ‘women are for the kitchen’ is like saying ‘a swiss knife is for opening
cork bottles’.”

h.​ Inconsistency: when an arguer lays points contradictory to other aforementioned

points in an argument.

E.g: “I’m not scared of roaches, though I wouldn’t say I would actually touch or get
near one.”

i.​ Irrelevant Authority: refers to the mistake of implementing a factor or individual as an

authoritative figure for the argument without sustaining data of their effective and
legal influence over the argued claim.

E.g: “The U.S is the best place to go to college, it’s the country Neil deGrasse Tyson
went to school in.”

j.​ Is-ought: pertains to fallacies under the belief that due to preset systems being how
they are, there should be no reason to go against them or to differ from them.

E.g: “Killing is normal, it’s part of the food chain and the circle of life, where there’s
survival of the fittest.”

k.​ Ought-is: a fallacy also referred to as “wishful thinking” where one’s desired
perspective or assumptions are the way everything should be.

E.g: “The world would be a better place if men all disappear, women are smarter than
men and live longer because they are.”

l.​ Questionable Cause: the fallacy where a non-related factor is selected as the causal
factor due to the connection of events and coincidental happenings.

E.g: “Ever since you transferred to this district, we never gained customers.”

m.​ Red Herring: a fallacy where the subject matter is avoided by directing attention to a
separate matter.
 E.g: “Quit acting gloomy over something like that, other people have it worse when
they’re literally suffering from cancer or war.”

n.​ Slippery Slope: an incorrect argument where a decision is rejected due to a

forecasted chain of events that could lead to a worse case scenario that is
undesirable to the arguer.

E.g: “I can’t let Jamie talk to other girls, because they’d take that chance to become
his friend, and in a given time they’d want to become something more closer with
him.”

o.​ Straw Person: a fallacy that occurs when the minor arguments receive more attention
than the more compelling portions of a provided argument.

E.g: “Stop talking to your friends, maybe it’s why you keep failing class so often.”

p.​ Two Wrongs: a fallacy in an argument that tries to justify one’s act or perspective
because it has been committed against them. Or in slang terms “going lower” or
underhanded than the perpetrator.

E.g: “She threw a punch first, so I’m giving her two.”

q.​ Unwarranted Generalization: a fallacy that occurs when a claim or argument is based
on a poorly supported basis.

E.g: “Cats are aggressive, my neighbor’s cat scratched my face when I tried to pet it.”

THEORIES OF TRUTH
-​ The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable
reality is true.
-​ The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and
coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
-​ The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
-​ The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial
for you.