TITLE

Table of CONTENTS

FALLACIES OF
RELEVANCE
Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by
offering considerations that simply dont bear on its truth. In
order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer
evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of
relevance dont do this; the considerations that they offer in
support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining
whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by
such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if
they dont have any evidential value.

AD POPULUM - The Appeal to Emotion

An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion
is emotions- fear, envy pity or the like - of the listeners.

Closing statement of Pnoys speech after the Mamasapano

Massacre: Sa harap ng ating pagluluksa, sa harap ng mga
pagnanasa ng ilang bumawi at maghiganti, sa harap ng
bantang magiba ang tiwalang pinanday natin sa napakahabang
panahon, ngayon, sinusubok ang kakayahan nating pagmalas
ng ibayong malasakit sa ating kapwa. Kaya nga po, sa lahat ng
kapwa kong nag-aasam ng kapayapaan, mula sa mga
mambabatas, sa mga kasapi ng unipormadong hanay, sa mga
pinuno at kasapi ng MILF, sa mga kababayan natin sa
Bangsamoro, Sa bawat disenteng Pilipino: Ipakita natin kung
ano ang kayang abutin ng isang bansang binubuklod ng
nagkakaisang adhikain. Siguruhin nating hindi masasayang ang
sakripisyo ng mga nasawing kasapi ng Special Action Force.
Mararating natin ang katarungan, harinawa, sa loob ng tamang
proseso, at nang hindi bumibitaw sa pangarap nating
makamtan ang malawakan at pangmatagalang kapayapaan.
Premise:
The president is saying that we have built a framework for lasting peace in
mindanao and that the death of the fallen 44 have provided us an
opportunity to rise above our emotions concerning the tragedy by keeping a
clear perspective.
Conclusion:

We must seek a peaceful and lawful solution to the incident in Mamasapano.

We should also not resort to any actions that may lead to reprisals from the
MILF that would compromise the peace agreement we are trying to forge
with them.
Why is it a fallacy under [Ad Populum: Appeal to Emotion]?
This fallacy is an appeal to emotion because it relies on the peoples
sensibilities towards peace and their aversion towards violence. It does not
speak of concrete avenues for justice for the members of the Special Action
Force but merely states that we should not act in any adverse manner that
would compromise the peace process. By invoking the different sectors of
society, the president is trying to create emotions of nationalism or a feeling
joint responsibility on the part of the different sides in ensuring the passage
of the BBL and continuing peace in Mindanao. The president also

AD MISERICORDIAM - The Appeal to Pity

A fallacy in which the argument relies on the generosity, altruism or mercy,
rather than on reason.

Rep. Luz Ilagan of Gabriela on the response of the government

during Typhoon Yolanda: Six days after Typhoon Yolanda,
survivors continue to walk, sleep and scour for food among the
dead in ruined structures. Why is it that no centralized shelter
or even a tent city has been built these areas? Why are
survivors left to line up for relief goods and rice when we know
that they do not even have clean water or pots to cook them
with? Why is it that centralized socialized kitchen for food
distribution has been set up? Why is it that there is no
makeshift hospital to attend to those who need medical
attention?
Premise:
The Government did not stage efficient strategies to ensure immediate
rescue and relief in case of emergencies like Typhoon Yolanda.
Conclusion:
Thousands of people died and suffered during the aftermath of the typhoon.
The local government units were ill prepared to face a catastrophe of this
magnitude and the national government were sluggish in their response.
Why is it a fallacy under [Ad Misericordiam]?
This fallacy is an appeal to pity because instead of directly citing the portions
that were inadequate in the governments response during the aftermath of
Typhoon Yolanda, Representative Ilagan used the images of starving

refugees and the appalling conditions in Leyte to push the argument that the
local and national government failed in their duty to protect the well-being of
their constituents. It appealed to masses feelings of grief and loss to in
effect send a cutting remark on the government's failures. Though its
premises may contain factual items, their whole context cannot be seen
because they have been glossed over by emotions of grief or pity that
overpower the logical underpinnings of the statements.

AD BACULUM - The Appeal to Force

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open or veiled threat of force.

Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte interviewed after the Commission

on Human Rights criticized his alleged kill order towards
criminals.
"Alam mo sa totoo lang, kung walang Pilipino na papatay para
sa taong bayan, sa mga farmers, at takot mamatay, walang
mangyayari sa bayan na ito ... We have to defend the Filipino
farmer,"
"Ano'ng unethical? Talagang gagawin ko! Can you point out to
me [what] law [says] that I cannot threaten criminals? Shut
up!"
Premise 1:
Filipinos rising up to kill and defend farmers are justified in their acts of
violence against criminals
Premise 2:
It is not unethical to threaten criminals with death and that the law does not
appreciate the threat as a crime.

Conclusion:
In order to effect change and ensure prosperity in this country, we must be
ready to commit acts of violence against criminals who threaten our
communities stability.
Why is it a fallacy under [Ad Baculum]?
Mayor Duterte commits the fallacy of appeal to force because he not only
answers the questions of the CHR with a logical response but instead
answers with a threat and angry retort. In his statement, He further
threatens individuals who would not follow the rule of law in his city with
near draconian punishments and even incites violence against criminals.

AD HOMINEM - The Argument against the Person

A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the person
taking a position.

Mirriam Defensor Santiago on the alleged violations of the

Geneva Conventions of war in the Mamasapano Massacre:
Inisa-isa sila. They were just sitting ducks there. Sa video
makikita natin, Its so gruesome, it will infest your nightmares.
Tinamaan lang sa paa, pinuntahan niya, binaril niya sa ulo twice. Wala siyang pakundangan. Thats the people were going
to sign an agreement with? The Bangsamoro Basic Law?
Maliban diyan, may dala pa siyang baril at camera.
Kayayabang- yabang na tao, i-uupload niya sa Youtube! Parang
trophy of war niya yan. Ganyang klase ng kalaban ang meron
tayo.
Premise:
The members of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters and the Moro
Islamic Liberation front are unscrupulous, cowardly, braggarts and are
without mercy.
Conclusion:
We should not pass the Bangsamoro Basic Law
Why is it a fallacy under [Ad Hominem]?
This fallacy is an argument against the person because the premise of
deciding whether the Bangsamoro Basic Law should be passed or not rests
on the qualities of a mere fraction of the total members of the MILF. It does
not take into consideration the possible positive effects a working peace in

Mindanao would create and merely draws on the alleged qualities of the
members of the MILF that were part of the encounter in Mamasapano. The
argument of the Senator does not take into consideration the members of
the MILF who not only did not take part in the Mamasapano incident but are
genuinely interested in peace and the passage of the BBL.

AD HOMINEM - The Argument against the Person:

Circumstantial
A fallacy in which the argument relies upon an attack against the person
taking a position. The mistake made in the circumstantial form of the ad
hominem fallacy is to treat those personal circumstances of a person as the
the premise of an opposing argument

Sen. Santiago addressing Napoles in the senate hearing on the

PDAF Scam as to why she did not bring a lawyer. Napoles
chose not to bring counsel but she could afford one! The Public
Attorneys Office is for indigent litigants only!
Premise:
Janet Napoles is rich and could afford to get her own counsel to bring during
the senate hearing.
Conclusion:
Napoles should have brought counsel of her own choice and not opt to use
the PAO.
Why is it a fallacy under [Ad Hominem: Circumstantial]?
This is a fallacy of circumstantial Ad Hominem because even though Napoles
may have allegedly the funds to obtain her own counsel, the bill of rights
provides that an accused has the right to counsel during a hearing. The Bill
of rights under section 14 provides that an accused has the right to be heard
by himself and counsel. Due process provides that if the accused appears

without counsel, in front of the body that is prosecuting him/her that she be
afforded the services of impartial counsel. This is a constitutional right that
regardless of his/her financial situation should be respected.

IGNORATIO ELENCHI - Irrelevant Conclusion

A Fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion from one that
is proposed.

During the Senate Hearings on the Mamasapano Massacre:

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano: Wala ngang engkwentro sa inyo
pero si Usman at Marwan sa inyo nagtatago.
MILF Peace Panel Chairman Iqbal: Wala sa amin si Marwan.
Dito nga sa Maynila, nasa tabing bahay na ang kriminal hindi
pa makita.
Premise:
If in Metro Manila it is difficult enough for a person to know if there neighbor
is a criminal, what more in the their situation in Mamasapano.
Conclusion:
The MILF are denying that knowledge that terrorists were hiding barely half
a kilometer away from the MILF base in Mamasapano.
Why is it a fallacy under [Ignoratio Elenchi]?
It is a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion because the MiLF Chairman Iqbal drew
the conclusion that the reason why the MILF were ignorant as to the location
of Marwan and Usman was the fact that even in the Metro, it is difficult to
know the location of wrongdoers. This is clearly a fallacy due to the alleged
information networks that the MILF operates in and around their bases of

operations that would have had gathered intel on operatives staying within
their area of control. They did not answer the question of Senator Cayetano
directly and opted to use a situation that is different from that which is
relevant in this situation. Metro Manila is in the control of the Government
and in itself is the largest community in the Philippines. Mamasapano which
is in MILF controlled territory could not have had the same level of
population and would therefore be easier to monitor through their agents.

FALLACIES OF
DEFECTIVE INDUCTION
Definition!!!!!

Ad Ignorantium Argument from Ignorance

A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because it has not
been proved false, or false because it has not been proved true

I am the SILG [Secretary of the Interior and Local

Government], I have not heard of these previous attempts, or
this last attempt. This involves 400 men. So, who did you
coordinate with?," Roxas said in order to show that he was not
liable nor involved regarding the Mamasapano incident.
Premise:
Roxas cannot be held liable because has not heard of the previous attempts,
nor the last attempt of operations against the Malaysian bomb maker called
Marwan.
Conclusion:
It cannot be sufficiently proven that he had prior knowledge of the SAF
Operations, therefore Roxas is not liable.
Why is it a fallacy under Ad Ignorantium?
The fallacy under Ad Ignorantium is that which is held to be true just
because it has not been proved false. In this case, Roxas cannot be held
liable for the mamasapano incident due to his claim that he had to prior
knowledge and that his claim cannot be adequately proven false.
Resigned Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Alan
Purisima claimed that Interior Secretary Manuel Mar Roxas II was

responsible for giving statements that were inconsistent with regard to the
Jan. 25 Mamasapano operation. Allegedly, Roxas tried to escape liability by
claiming that he was not aware of previous operations against Malaysian
bomb maker Zulkifli bin Hir alias Marwan, or that such claims cannot be
proven with sufficient evidence.
Purisima indicated that relieved PNP Special Action Force (SAF) chief Director
Getulio Napeas himself admitted during Senate hearings that he briefed
Roxas on these operations. However, this indication was not adequate to
overturn the claims of Roxas that he was surprised at the commission of the
operation. Based on his statement, he had not been briefed on Oplan
Exodus, nor on previous operations against Marwan.
Simply stated, Roxas claimed that no liability can arise on his part regarding
the Mamasapano incident because it cannot be sufficiently proven that he
had been previously informed about the matter.

Ad Verecundiam - Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of a supposed
authority who has no legitimate claim to expertise in the matter

In his World Day of Peace message in 2010, the retired pope

specifically cited climate change as a threat to human rights,
such as the right to life, food, health, and development.
Can we remain indifferent, he asked, before the problems
associated with such realities as climate change, desertification,
the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural
areas,

the

pollution

of

rivers

and

aquifers,

the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes,

and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?

Premise:
The

Pope

believes

that

climate

change,

desertification

and

loss

of

productivity in vast agricultural areas, etc are realities. The Pope is

influential in all matters of the community.
Conclusion:
Indeed, climate change, desertification and loss of productivity in vast
agricultural areas, etc are realities.

Why is it a fallacy under Ad Verecundiam?

It can be seen here that

a conclusion is based on the judgment of a

supposed authority, the Pope, who has no legitimate claim to expertise in

the matter.
The controversy regarding the reality of climate change is one best studied
by meteorological experts who have access to scientific methods and data to
justify their claims. To have a pope jump on the bandwagon of global
warming would sow confusion in the community because of his influence
over Catholics and believers. His intrusion on geopolitical and meteorological
thickets only tends to confuse and mislead the people.

Non Causa Pro Causa False Cause

A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is treated as a cause

After typhoon Yolanda impacted the tourism industry of the

Philippines, Koko PImentel said in a press release, "Ignorance,
they say, is a source of fear. It is a fertile ground for panic.
Disaster plus a panicking people is the perfect recipe for a
bigger, a greater disaster.
Premise:
Ignorance is a source of fear which leads to panic. Disaster may be
combined with panic.
Conclusion:
Ignorance is the cause of a bigger and greater disaster.
Why is it a fallacy under Non Causa Pro Causa?
Koko Pimentel made the earlier statement in order to encourage industry
operators to be prepared for disasters after the heavy impact of typhoon
Yolanda. However, in his press release, he made it appear that the massive
disaster is brought about mainly by the ignorance of the people, when in
fact, the damage was attributed to Yolanda being one of the strongest
typhoons ever recorded. It was already established in the World Disaster
Report of 2012 that the Philippines ranked as the third most disaster-prone
country in the world. The Philippines is clearly vulnerable to disaster.

While it is true that the people must be prepared with warning systems in
place, disaster response networks organized, communications equipment on
standby and evacuation centers established for future contingencies, it is a
fallacy to claim that ignorance is the actual cause of a bigger and greater
disaster.

Converse Accident Hasty Generalization

a fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual cases to
generalization

A lawyer, based in Cotabato also expressed fear that hatred

against Muslims will intensify following the Charlie Hebdo
incident in Paris Syempre pag white ang pinatay, sympathize
silang lahat. Terrorism na. Pag Muslim community ang i-attack,
hindi sya considered na terrorism kundi self-defense (If a white
person is killed everyone sympathizes. They will say its an act
of terrorism. But when a Muslim community is under attack, it
is not considered terrorism but self-defense), said the lawyer
who requested anonymity.

Premise:
1: If a white person is killed, it is an act of terrorism.
2. If a Muslim community is attacked, it is self-defense.
Conclusion:
1. All white persons are victims of terrorism.
2. All Muslim communities start the violence and whoever attacks them are
only doing it for self-defense.

Why is it a fallacy under Hasty Generalization?

This example falls under the fallacy of Hasty Generalization because one
moves carelessly from individual cases to generalization. In the Charlie
Hebdo Incident in Paris, there was a violent attack on several white
journalists who were working for a local paper. The attack was shown to
have been committed by Muslims.
This attack intensified the already negative notion of the community towards
Muslims. Since the victims were white people, the generalization was that in
any incident involving white people, they are merely victims. Consequently,
in any incident involving Muslims, they are the antagonists who initiate
violent methods that further terrorism.

FALLACIES OF
PRESUMPTION
DEFINITION!!!!

Accident
The fallacy of applying a general rule to a particular case whose special
circumstances render the rule inapplicable.

People v. Taylaran, G.R. No. L-49149, October 23, 1981.

Section 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent
and to counsel and to be informed of such right No force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates
the free will shall be used against himself. Any confession
obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
TAYLARAN questioned the admissibility of the said confession
for not having complied with the Constitutionally mandated
procedure.

Premise:
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right No
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be used against himself. Any confession obtained in violation of
this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Conclusion:
Taylaran should have been informed of his rights. Since he was not informed
of his rights, the evidences against him, including his own confession, shall
be inadmissible.
Why is it a fallacy of Accident?
It is fallacy of Accident because it presupposes that a rule applies to all
circumstances. The rule is that all persons under investigation, must be
informed of his rights during such custodial investigation. In this case,
however, no formal investigation has taken place, and no formal nor
confession was sought for from the defendant. The confession that he has
presented was out of his own volition and free will, even before the
investigation for the crime began. Therefore, he was not under investigation
yet, and he does not fall within the Constitutionally mandated protection for
persons under custodial investigation.
This is a fallacy because it assumes that the Constitutionally mandated
protection applies in all cases. That is, however, the general rule. There are
exceptions. In this case, while Taylaran is indeed undergoing investigation,
the evidence he is seeking to become unenforceable is evidence acquired
prior to investigation, making it enforceable.

Complex Question
The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that
rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to
endorse that assumption.

An article regarding the undercover mission of one Anna Erelle

on one ISIS soldier.
Over the next few days, he sent pictures of himself with his
44 Jeep and holding a gun. Soon he was telling her that he
loved her and she must come to Syria.
When you get here, youll be treated like a princess, he
promised.
This is why girls go there, said Erelle. Its the dream of a
good life. They are persuaded that its a paradise and that they
dont have any future in Britain or France and they wont find
good husbands and can never be good Muslims surrounded by
infidels. Bilel told Melodie she could have a beautiful life, a big
apartment and lots of children.

Premise:
Women usually go to Syria to be with ISIS men in order to live better lives.
This is notwithstanding the terrors they might experience considering that
ISIS is waging war on whoever stands on different beliefs and principles.
Women still would rather disregard the dangerous fact, in order to be
blessed with a luxurious lifestyle.
Conclusion:
Erelle should go the Syria as well because she, like all women, are looking
for a life of luxury and richness.
Why is it a fallacy of a Complex Question?
The first instance of the fallacy is evident in the statement when you get
here. It automatically assumes that Erelle will be going to Syria to join the
ISIS soldier. It is, in the same manner, asking as though when will you get
here? There is already a conclusion which states that her arrival is imminent
and that it is only a question of when. The second instance of the fallacy is
found in the conclusion this is why girls go there. There is a conclusion as
to what girls want, and for what purpose girls go to Syria. An assumption is
presented that shows a generalization of women being materialistic, inferior
and that they are a people who only want to be treated like a princess.
This excerpt from the article that narrates the experience of an undercover
reporter is filled with the fallacy of a Complex Question which presupposes
independent conclusions within the statements that were provided.

Petitio Principii Begging the Question

An argument is begging the question if its conclusion is among its premises,
if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such
arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof
because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its
conclusion.

On the arrest of Makati mayor Junjun Binay for being cited in

contempt.
Asked what would happen once the personalities are arrested
and presented at the hearing, Guingona said the subcommittee
need to write another recommendation to lift the detention
order.
We have to follow the rules of the Blue Ribbon committee, we
have to protect the institution of the Senate Blue Ribbon.
Pagkatinawag ka ng Blue Ribbon, kung wala kang valid excuse,
dapat sumipot ka, dapat magpakita ka. Rules are rules and
they apply to everyone. He said.

Premise
When the Senate Blue Ribbon committee orders a personality to appear
before it, attendance becomes mandatory in the absence of any valid
excuse. That is the rule.

Conclusion
Makati mayor Junjun Binay should have shown himself before the committee
because that is the rule. Since he did not appear before the committee,
without any valid excuse, he was arrested for being cited in contempt.
Why is it a Fallacy
It is a fallacy because as per the statement of Guingona, rules are rules,
and they apply to everyone. Granted that the Senate Blue Ribbon
committee is mandated to call upon any individual for the purposes of
legislative inquiry. However, in order to explain as to why an individual is
required to appear before the committee after such individual has been
summoned, Guingona explained with saying that because that is the rule,
and rules are rules.
A circular argument was created in such a way that the statement becomes
endless without any substantial conclusions.

FALLACIES OF
AMBIGUITY
DEFINITION

A1:

EQUIVOCATION

A fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in

different parts of an argument.
Sample:
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.

Specifically, the provisions of the Plunder Law claimed by petitioner to have

transgressed constitutional boundaries are Secs. 1, par. (d), 2 and 4 which
are reproduced hereunder:
Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property,
business, enterprise or material possession of any person within the
purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly
through

dummies,

nominees,

agents,

subordinates

and/or

business

associates by any combination or series of the following means or

similar schemes:
xxx
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the
statutory definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key
phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec. 1,
par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions,
according to petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being
impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative of
his fundamental right to due process.

Premise: According to the camp of Estrada, the terms combination and

series are vague for not being provided with statutory definitions.

Conclusion: Because of the alleged vagueness, a person could be charged

with a high punishment under the offense of Plunder even though he may
only be liable for a less grave offense.
Explanation: The petitioners in this case propose that the provisions under
the Plunder Law commit the mistake of being a vague statute and thus is
unconstitutional. The petitioners could be arguing that the penal statute
commits the fallacy of Equivocation for confusing the meanings of the terms
combination or series. However, the Supreme Court disputes this by saying
that A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general
terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without
defining them; much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides,
there is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the
legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress is not
restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define
the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in the vagueness
or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can
be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder
Law.

A2:

AMPHIBOLY

A3:

ACCENT

A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within

an argument, and the difference is based on changes in emphasis given to
words within the phrase.
Sample:
Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a
sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws
themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that
since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to
the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not
indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2
of the Civil Code:
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided, ...
Premise:

Since Laws shall take effect after fifteen days

following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,

unless it is otherwise provided, ...
Conclusion:

Since the presidential issuances in question contain

special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication

in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity.
Explanation:

This is a fallacy of accent, which the respondents in the

case fell victim to. The emphasis given by the respondents to the phrase
unless it is otherwise provided after a comma following publication in the
Official Gazette has confused the respondents to argue that the issuance of
laws that provide for their effectivity date are exempt from complying with
the publication in the Official Gazette. The Supreme Court interpreted this

provision from Article 2 of the Civil Code in favor of the petitioners that
publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable requirement for the
effectivity of laws. Otherwise, without such notice and publication, there
would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non
excusat."
A4:

COMPOSITION

A fallacy in which an interference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of

the parts of a whole, to the attributes of the whole.
Sample:
Cayetano in heated exchange with Ferrer at Mamasapano clash hearing,
ANC https://anc.yahoo.com/news/cayetano-in-heated-exchange-withferrer-at-senate-hearing-225942216.html, last visited March 17, 2015.
Cayetano asked Ferrer: "What is the policy of the Republic of the
Philippines? Do we negotiate with terrorists?"
Ferrer replied that she was "not aware of any such policy."
At this, Cayetano stated, "May I put it on record we are in trouble because
the peace negotiators do not even know that we cannot negotiate with
terrorists."
Premise: Government Peace Panel chair Miriam Coronel-Ferrer declares that
she is unaware of the any government policy with regard to negotiations
with terrorists.
Conclusion: Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano concludes that the nation is in trouble
because all the peace negotiators do no know the policy.
Explanation: Sen. Cayetano in drawing his conclusion from the statement of
Chairwoman Ferrer commits the fallacy of Composition. He claims that the
lack of knowledge of Chairwoman Ferrer of a policy of non-negotiations with

terrorists, necessarily infers that the whole Government Peace Panel is

unaware of this policy and is thus incompetently doing its job.

A5:

DIVISION

A fallacy in which a mistaken interference is drawn from the attributes of a

whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole.
Sample:
FAIL!

Health

group

joins

call

for

PNoy

to

resign,

by

Jet

Villa,

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/106679/fail-health-group-joins-call-forpnoy-to-resign, last visited March 17, 2015.

Carabeo said Aquino has strong arms in dealing with critics and pro-people
movement with impunity, while it has swift pointing fingers and a
pathologic lying tongue to run away from truth and accountability as in the
D and the Mamapasano.
Thus, now, more than ever, we affirm the peoples diagnosis, Aquino is
unfit to lead as president, he added.
Premise: The Executive Department, from the operations of the Philippine
National Police, failed in its operation when its members of the Special Action
Forces died in the Mamasapano encounter.
Conclusion: Aquino is an unfit president.
Explanation: The argument of the convenor Dr. Joseph Carabeo commits the
fallacy of Division when he draws a conclusion of the competence of the
President of the Philippines from the performance of an agency under the
Executive department. He fails to consider other circumstances that could
have taken place in the events leading to the death of the 44 SAF officers
and the other government projects that the President has implemented
during his term.