8/3/2019 Logic Module 1

1/4

LOGIC: MODULE 1Teach a child WHAT to THINK and you make him a slave of knowledge;But, teach a child HOW to THINK and you make knowledge his slave.Module 4b: Fallacies of Content

INTRODUCTIONOnce upon a time in Greece, there was a bunch of wandering teachers who, fora certain fee, educated the youth in matters of how to attain success in theconduct of life. The most notable among them were Protagoras of Abdera,Gorgias of Leontini, Prodicus of Ceos, Hippias of Elis and Antiphon of Athens.They are the Sophists.

As they trained the young men of Greece in rhetorics and forensic oratory, theiremphasis on the power of words resulted to verbal trickery. The Sophistsstressed persuasion rather than truth.

1. The philosopherSocrates (470-399 B.C.) started his unrelenting assaultagainst their shady dealings.

2. Plato (427-347 B.C.) immortalized their attacks against them in hisilluminating literary masterpieces.

3. Aristotle, wrote the first formal studies on logic, the verbal trickeries ofthe Sophists was included in their scope.Since then, the study of fallacies, as the Sophists' verbal trickery came tobe called, has been considered an integral part of logic.

What are Fallacies? The fallacies are lies and faulty arguments that, although incorrect,

are subjectively convincing. That means they are not just plain lies and faulty arguments, for there

are countless other lies and incorrect arguments whose malice andfaultiness are obvious and could not deceive anybody.

The fallacies are a special type, for they can easily pass off as truthand sound reasoning.

The reason why they are considered part of logic is the idea thatthrough a comprehensive study of what is incorrect, faulty anddeceptive, we may learn:

what is to be avoided and, eventually,o what is to be pursued the truth.

Though the Sophists were long gone their legacy has remained alive with us.To date, the most prolific spinner of fallacies are the commercialadvertisements whose glossy prints, gigantic billboards, lovely jingles, andattractive video clips are omnipresent, trying to cast their seductive spells onthe unwary.Closely following the advertisers are the politicians, the most seasoned andthe proverbial fallacy workers.Their wagging tongues, calculated gestures and cunning moves are designedto fool voters.Moreover, the ghosts of the Sophists are restless, they can actually possessanybody.Fallacies can be made and uttered by anyone, by our enemies andfriends, by our professors and classmates, by our parents and even byourselves.The world is in fact buzzing with lies. The only way to be spared from them isto avoid them, but the only way to avoid them is to know them in the firstplace.It is quite frustrating to know that there may be hundreds of fallacies circulatingaround, and several of theses hundreds are hybrids -- meaning, single incorrectarguments that are incorrect in more than one way. What follows are studies of some of the most fundamental and

elementary kinds of fallacies.II. Fallacies of content

The second major block of fallacies that we are going to examine are faulty notbecause of their structure, but on account of their questionable content. Hencethey are called fallacies of content. Under this major block, we have three (3)groups, namely:

a) linguistic manipulationb) psychological warfarec) logical maneuvers

Linguistic manipulationsThere are some fallacies of content that are fabricated by manipulating thelanguage used in order to achieve some desired effect.The fallacies under this group would exploit the nature of language in general andof words in particular.

It has been established since classical times that for every word thereis something signified. This thing that is signified by the word is whatwe call the denotation, or the objective meaning. But every denotationand every word will always imply certain attributes and characteristics,these are the connotation, or the subjective meaning.

For instance, the words man of principle, obstinate, and pig-headedroughly denote the same thing, that is a person who is firm and whosticks to his principles. But the connotation of each word varies fromone another. Man of principle obviously sounds highly positivecompared to pig-headed. Whereas denotations are usually fixed andrigid, connotations are not.

The fallacies of linguistic manipulation exploits this connotativefluidity in order to impress and intimidate, to seduce and tosecure sympathies, or simply to mislead others.

1. Prestige jargon2. Emotional words3. Double talking or euphemism

In this group of fallacies, we can see that though language is themedium through which we convey truth, it can also be the mediumthrough which we conceal the same truth.

1. PRESTIGE JARGON JARGON means technical and specialized language. When used among experts and among persons of the same field of

practice, who are all familiar with the denotations of their specializedterminology, jargon is all right and even helpful for the sake ofprecision.

But when maliciously used for an audience who are not expertsor who belong to other fields of practice in order to soundimpressive and intimidating, the presence of jargon becomesquestionable.

For example, when a school physician tells the parents of somebodywho is injured in a campus brawl "the patient is suffering fromcircumorbital hematoma, the prescribed treatment is a regulatedapplication of low-temperature compress, and our prognosis is highlypositive given an ample time frame," when he simply means that "the

patient got a black eye, he needs cold compress and his conditionwould disappear after a few days," is guilty of the fallacy of prestige

jargon. The use of jargon can be fallacious in two ways.

First, when somebody starts using highly technical words,the immediate connotation would be is that such a personis an expert in his field, and who would dare to argueagainst an expert. That is intimidation.

Second, by using jargon one can easily obscure his ownpoints thereby confusing others and preventing them tocounter argue.

Next time when you hear somebody saying "such aphenomenal event occurred in accordance to the pre-designed volitions of the supreme and divine being," whenhe clearly meant "it is God's will," malicious jargon is

there.2. EMOTIONAL WORDS

The fallacy of the use of emotional words happens when onecarefully employs words and images that are heavy with

emotional connotations in order to secure the sympathies ofothers.

3. DOUBLE TALKING OR EUPHEMISM Words can either have negative or positive connotations. Sometimes we can hide unpleasant denotations by employing words

with positive connotations. This is the fallacy of double talking, oreuphemism.

This happens whenever we carefully package our unpleasantideas in nice sounding words. Here, words are used to hide, tomask and to mislead others.

the use of words that sound better. For instance, gamblingas a pleasant connotation, so the organizers of

Lotto posted billboards saying play here when they clearly meantgamble here.

The bad news that there will be tax increase can be stated as "therewill be a tax enhancement," or inflation as "price enhancement."

When Ferdinand Marcos declared the martial law, he called his regimeconstitutional authoritarianism, when everybody knows that it wasactually a dictatorship.

The lab rat wasn't killed, it was sacrificed. Mass murder wasn't genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. The death of innocent bystanders is collateral damage. Microsoft doesn't find bugs, or problems, or security vulnerabilities:

they just discover an issue with a piece of software.

Psychological warfareThe fallacies of psychological warfare target the drives and motivations of man.They will seduce and intimidate man's sensuousness, emotions and even his

sub-conscious. Classically, man has been defined as a rational and intelligent

animal. Yet, modern psychology and experience have proven thatsuch a definition is only half true. Aside from being rational andintelligent, man is also an animal of sensuousness, of emotions of willand of the sub-conscious.

The human mind is not all intellect and cognition but a faculty withseveral aspects. It has a sense and perceptual aspect, an affectiveand emotional aspect, a cognitive and intellectual aspect, a volitionalor willing aspect, and a subconscious aspect.

Most often, man is not guided by his cognitive and intellectualpowers but by his sensuousness, emotions and subconsciousdrives.

1. MEANING FROM ASSOCIATION The fallacy of meaning from association is perhaps the most abused

fallacy in the production of commercial advertisements. Here, the advertised products are put side by side with logically

unrelated things and ideas, to suggest that if you purchase thisor that product you too get the associated things and ideas.

Though from a logical point of view, the unrelatedness of the productsand the things associated with them is quite obvious, still many of usare persuaded by this fallacy.

The fact that it is frequently employed by advertisers attest to itseffectivity.

Marshall McLuhan, a pioneering theorist in mass communications, haseven suggested that advertisements will not only seduce man'ssensuousness and emotions, but even his sub-conscious itself. This iswhat McLuhan calls the subliminal seduction.

2. MISUSE OF AUTHORITY

The fallacy of misuse of authority is a widely used psychological tactic. Since we cannot possibly be experts in all sorts of fields, consultingand appealing to authorities are oftentimes useful. When one finds a

mathematical problem too difficult, it is only appropriate to consultone's mathematics professor, or when having problems with an

8/3/2019 Logic Module 1

2/4

English composition, the best thing to do is to approach the languageprofessor.

The fallacy of misuse of authority happens whenever we cite anauthority in one given field regarding an issue that is outsidehis/her field of competence.

3. REPEATED ASSERTION It is a fact that it is easier to accept a lie that one has heard many

times before than to accept truth that one has never heard of. Thefallacy of repeated assertion takes advantage of this psychologicalfact.

This fallacy repeats or multiplies essentially the same assertionwith the aim that sooner or later people will accept it as true .

Adolf Hitler used this fallacy, when he practically littered Germany withhis ideological banners and slogans.

The politician who clutters all the street corners and public walls withhis and office long before election time and with truck-loads of postersduring the campaign season is guilty of this fallacy.

More ingenious advertisers will compose catchy jingles or televisionscenes that will hopefully recur over and over again in heads of theaudience, so that even though the advertisement is no longer in frontof them they will still see it or hear it in their minds.

But of course stating a lie a hundred times will certainly not make ittrue.

4. ATTITUDE FITTING

The person's attitude is his habitual way of regarding other persons,objects, situations or ideas.

The fallacy of attitude fitting is done through inserting into theargument persons, objects, situations or ideas that are known in

advance to be positively or negatively regarded by the intendedaudience.

As early as the later part of the ninth century, the Vikings discovered ahuge island that is 85 % covered with ice. Wanting to attract moresettlers, they named it Greenland. At about the same time they alsodiscovered another territory which was lush and fertile, wanting tokeep the island for themselves they called it Iceland. They knew verywell that other peoples love the images of a green and fertile land, andwere disgusted with the images of ice and frozen wasteland. Theirstrategy of naming in order to attract and repel was an early exampleof attitude fitting.

Modern advertisers knew very well our seemingly incurable colonialmentality, and how our people esteem products from the USA assuperior to our local counterparts. Thus, they packaged cigarettes,soap, shirts, as having the spirit of the USA, or have them

recommended by some American doctors, or inform the audience thatsuch products are preferred by most Americans.

Politicians knew too the attitude of Filipinos towards movie stars. Ifthey can afford it, they will certainly bring one or more actors alongtheir campaign trail. Some politicians would even go to the extent ofenlisting actors as their running mates or including them in the list ofcandidates in their party.

5. TOKENISM Tokenism is a favourite ploy among politicians. This fallacy happens when people are misled to see a token

gesture as the real thing. Whenever substantial action is needed but performing it would be too

expensive, time and effort consuming, and even distracting to one'sagenda, politicians resort to tokenism. Here, they will perform a littletoken gesture, dramatize it as much as possible and let the press

shout about it as loud as they can.6. POISONING THE WELL

When one poisons a well all the water that is drawn from it becomespoisoned and unpotable.

The fallacy of poisoning the well works similarly. It happens whenone discounts in advance the opponent's evidence, proof, orcounter argument, thereby preventing him from employing them.

When a biblical fundamentalist says "theories are speculations, andspeculations are always unreliable, now how do you prove your theoryof evolution?," he is already discounting in advance the value of atheory and has prevented his opponent to argue in favour of it. Hence,he has poisoned the well from which his opponent may draw hisevidences, proofs and counter arguments.

When your biology professor exhorts the class that only lazy studentsask for examinations with open notes, then asks later on who wants anexamination with an open notes he is using the same ploy.

7. RATIONALIZING Aesop, a 6th century Greek folk hero and teller of animal fables, had a

story about a fox who felt so bad because he could not grab thehanging bunch of grapes. After some more tries the fox finally gave upand comforted himself, saying, "Anyway, those grapes are sour. Whowould like to eat sour grapes?"

When one's ego is placed in an unpleasant situation one can spinuntrue, but pleasant, reasons to settle things.

Some teachers who were driven into their profession by circumstanceswould rationalize that it is their decision to be in their professionbecause moulding the youth into better citizens is the noblest task aman could ever dream of. If real reasons are not available, pleasantreasons can always be made.

This is the fallacy of rationalization, it makes a clearly delicious bunchof grapes sour, and the obviously sour lemon sweet.

8. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM This fallacy still bears its classical Latin name. Baculum means a club

or staff, and argumentum ad baculum roughly means an argumentaccompanied with a threatening blow of a club.

This fallacy happens when force or the threat of force is usedinstead of proper reason.

A professor who is bombarded with numerous questions regarding acontroversial subject matter can easily control everything by screaming"shut up, or else I'll flunk you all," but he commits this fallacy.

The father who says "you b etter study well, or I'll cut your allowance,"is as guilty as the board room strategist who insists "all executivesshould act in accordance with this proposal, otherwise the CEO willrecall their appointments.

Maybe the most famous and the most dramatic example of this fallacyin modern times is the life of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). With the useof the newly invented telescope, Galileo compiled mathematical and

empirical data supporting the Copernican heliocentric world system,which unfortunately was seemingly in contradiction with the bible.Instead of arguing with him on scientific and mathematical grounds,Rome merely issued an edict condemning Copernicanism in 1616,then tried and sentenced Galileo to life imprisonment for "vehementsuspicion of heresy" in 1633.

9. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM Argumentum ad hominem is another fallacy that still bears its classical

Latin name. It simply means argument against the person. Normally,arguments attack the opponent's arguments and counter-arguments.

The fallacy ofargumentum ad hominem attacks the person of theopponent himself. It wrongly assumes that if you discredit aperson, his argument is also discredited.

Person P claims that C is true.But, Person P has a certain quality.

Therefore, C is false. There are two forms of this fallacy--the abusive form and the

circumstantial form.

The abusive occurs when you claim that what someone says is falsebecause there is something wrong with him or her.

The circumstantial form occurs in a couple of ways. This fallacyoccurs when someone claims that what someone says is false,because of the circumstances of the speaker.

A special type of circumstantial ad hominem argument is called the tuquoque ("you too") fallacy. It occurs when someone claims that thespeaker is mistaken because the speaker does not "practice whathe/she preaches."

However, in court adjudications argumentum ad hominem may bereasonably used. Lawyers may attack the testimony of witnesses byfocusing on their character, credibility and expertise becausewitnesses and experts like doctors, and psychologists often presentopinions which we cannot argue with directly. The next best way thenis to evaluate their credibility, integrity, and judgment. (ex. The movie,Enemy of the State.)

10. Fallacy of CONFIDENT MANNER When reasons, evidences, proofs and answers are unavailable, one

can still fool others by using proper gestures, well calculatedintonations and positive language.

The fallacy of confident manner is saying too little or nothing atall in so much impressive words and body language.

This fallacy is not only useful to politicians, who are forced to makestands and comments about so many things, but also to students whoare taking oral examinations and graded recitations.

When accompanied by the fallacy of prestige jargon, the one we havementioned previously, or by the fallacy of diversion, which we aregoing to discuss in the following section under logical maneuvers, the

fallacy of confident manner can be very effective. ...you know.

LOGICAL MANEUVERSThese groups of fallacies are more subtle than the fallacies under psychologicalwarfare, for here they will confront the critical and analytical aspect of the humanmind.

The next group of fallacies aims to fool the cognitive andintellectual aspect of the human mind itself.

Hence, this group of fallacies require some degree of rhetorical skilland a certain competence in logical procedures.

These groups of fallacies are more subtle than the fallacies underpsychological warfare, for here they will confront the critical andanalytical aspect of the human mind.

1. Fallacy of COMPOSITION The fallacy of composition behaves like an inductive argument. From

the observation of each particular member of an organized whole itmoves to the whole itself.

This fallacy points out that if each of the members of a givengroup has a particular characteristic feature, then the group as awhole has this same characteristic feature.

2. Fallacy of DIVISION An exact opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division,

and this fallacy behaves like a deductive categorical argument. From the observation of the organized whole it moves to each

particular member. This fallacy points out that if a given group asa whole has a particular characteristic feature, then each of itsmembers has this same characteristic feature.

3. Fallacy of FALSE DILEMNA or BLACK & WHITE Fallacy The fallacy of false dilemma, or the black and white fallacy,

operates in the following manner.

First, it effaces the various alternatives in between twoextreme alternatives in a particular issue . Thus, thevarious gradation of gray in between black and white areconcealed giving us only two alternatives, black and white.

8/3/2019 Logic Module 1

3/4

Second, it makes us choose what alternative to takeknowing in advance that whatever we choose it will be toour disadvantage.

When we tend to think in terms of extreme points, we becomevulnerable to this fallacy. When a thing is not white, it is wrong to makethe conclusion that it is black; or when a certain deed is not good, itdoes not mean that it is evil.

We should not overlook the basic fact that aside from the oppositeextremes there are most often intermediate positions, neutral shades,or several other alternative courses of action.

Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, used this fallacywhen he said "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." Hedisregarded the other learning alternatives in between formaleducation and ignorance.

When the secretary of defense argues for a higher military allocationsaying, "An increase in military budget means an increase in safety,and a decrease in military budget means a decrease in safety. Hence,we have to make a choice in between a higher military allocation andbeing unsafe," he is likewise using the fallacy.

4. Argument of the Beard The fallacy of the argument of the beard does the opposite thing by

capitalizing the various shades in the middle ground andconcealing the differences of the two opposite extremes in theend.

The name of this fallacy can be traced back to the ancient question ofhow many whiskers will make a beard. Certainly, one whisker will notmake a beard, and neither will ten or twenty. Perhaps five hundredwhiskers will make a beard. But how about 499 whiskers, will one

whisker less make a difference? Certainly not, 499 whiskers is still abeard. How about 498, will another whisker less make a difference?

The name of this fallacy can be traced back to the ancient question ofhow many whiskers will make a beard. Certainly, one whisker will notmake a beard, and neither will ten or twenty. Perhaps five hundredwhiskers will make a beard. But how about 499 whiskers, will onewhisker less make a difference? Certainly not, 499 whiskers is still abeard. How about 498, will another whisker less make a difference?

This subtraction of one whisker at a time with the reason that onewhisker less will not make a difference may go on until you will haveone whisker left and you say a single whisker is a beard after all. Ourinability to pinpoint the exact minimum number of whiskers making abeard does not mean that there is no difference between a whiskerand a beard.

A person uses the argument of the beard when he argues that if a carcan accommodate five persons, why can't it accommodate one more?

And if it can accommodate six, why can't it accommodate one more,after all one additional load will not make much difference. And if it canaccommodate seven, why can't it accommodate one more? And ofcourse this argument can go on until you will have twenty-five or thirty-five persons seated snugly inside the car, because one moreadditional load will not make a big difference.

5. The STRAWMAN The fallacy of the strawman is basically a counterargument. Here, the arguer misrepresents or misinterprets the opponent's

position by exaggeration or dis tortion with the view of an easierattack.

Mother to teen age daughter: "No, you can't go out tonight. It's aschool night and you have a big test tomorrow."

Daughter: "You never want me to have any fun at all! If you had yourway, I'd be locked in my room, chained to my desk 24 hours a day!"

6. SLIPPERY SLOPE

The fallacy of slippery slope happens when one objects to andcriticizes a particular action with the reason that once such anaction is performed, it will simply lead unavoidably to a similaryet unpleasant action, which again will lead to an even moreundesirable action, and so on, sliding down the slippery slopeuntil unknown horrors lurking at the bottom will be the ultimatefate.

This fallacy is also known as the grand domino theory, in allusion toa carefully arranged box of dominoes which tumbles one after anotherwhen the first domino in line is toppled down.

There was a time in our history when colonial officials were debatingwhether the Filipinos should be taught the Spanish language. FrayFrancisco Gainza, O.P., presented the famous argument that once theCastillian language was given to the masses they would gain accessto the Enlightened and liberal (which for the friars meant immoral andanti-clerical) ideas from Europe. This would ensure the masses' loss offaith in the Church and loss of loyalty to the Crown. That was a perfecthistorical example of this fallacy.

It has been said that once upon a time Aesop defended a corruptpolitician in front of a jury with another story about fox and thehedgehog. The fox was irritated by the fleas, and the hedgehogoffered to remove them from the fox's back. But the fox replied "No,these fleas are full and no longer suck much blood. If you take themaway, new, hungry fleas will come." Then, Aesop addressed the jury,"if you put my client to death, others will come along who are not richand will rob you completely."

7. DIVERSION Perhaps the fallacy of diversion is not a totally strange operation for

students. Perhaps all high school and college students have done thisfallacy in one of their essay tests or graded recitations before. This iswhat they do when their professor asks them a question whoseanswer they do not know, and start to reply lengthily regarding somerelated things that they know.

Diversion means wandering from the main point, or going awayfrom the subject matter.

Rhetorics, and the skill to move from one topic to another are the keyto a persuasive fallacy of diversion.

Hence, if your physics professor asks you about the theory of relativity,try talking about the life story of Albert Einstein, or of the invention ofthe atomic bomb. But, no matter how nicely you have proven a relatedissue, and no matter how close this related issue may be to the mainpoint, still you have not proven the main point.

Politicians resort to the fallacy of diversion when during a politicalcampaign instead of proving to the people his capabilities, his integrityand sense of leadership, he spends his time talking about what hethinks the people would like to hear: promises, smear campaign, talesabout the movie stars, sentimental or flattering stories, and even avocal duet with his wife.

8. BEGGING THE QUESTION When a person runs short of reasons for his claims he may resort to

the fallacy of begging the question, and if he has the rhetorical skill hecan appear as persuasive all the same.

This fallacy happens when the argument assumes that which it istrying to prove.

When you base your argument on something which itself is notsecured, your argument will not be sound.

It is like the three moron cowboys who when entering into the countysaloon and seeing no hitching post around, tied the first horse to the

second, the second to the third, and the third to the first, and thoughttheir horses are well-secured.

For this fallacy, the wider you make the circle, the more chances youget of being effective.

If your professor in ethics asks you what an honest person is and youanswer "an honest person is a person who is honest," you areassuming the idea that you were asked to define and for that you areguilty of the fallacy of begging the question.

The old folks also fall into this fallacy when they say: "The youth oftoday are not as well-behaved as the youth of the olden times. Youknow why? Well in our times we were always well-behaved.

One political cartoon in the eighties used this fallacy as its punchingline. The cartoon character in a pensive mood starts his soliloquy:"Government teachers are not well-paid. This is because the personsresponsible for our national budget are not competent. They are notcompetent because they were not properly educated. They were notproperly educated because their teachers were not enthusiastic. Theywere not enthusiastic because they were not well-compensated. Thus,government teachers are not well-paid". Notice that this can berepeated on and on without actually proving why the governmentteachers are not well-paid.

9. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE The fallacy of the appeal to ignorance occurs when we assume that

in a certain dispute, the failure to prove one side is a ground toconclude the truth of the other side.

The fact that we cannot prove that creatures from the outer space donot exist, clearly does not mean that we can logically conclude thatthey exist.

Theologians and scientist cannot prove that there is God, yet such afailure does not mean that we can say there is no God.

10. CONTRADICTORY ASSUMPTIONAs suggested by the name itself, this fallacy happens whenever one presents an

argument that contains two assumptions which simultaneously cannot betrue.

This is much like saying "I never borrowed his car, and it already hadthat dent when I got it."

When your physics professor asks you what happens if an irresistibleforce collides with an immovable object, he has assumed two thingsthat are contradictory: the force is not irresistible if there is animmovable object, just as the object is not immovable if there is anirresistible force.

Politicians use this fallacy when they promise the people that they willcut the taxes in half and double all government services. But how canthey reduce the government's source of income if they are planning toincrease its budget, and how can they increase the budget if they areplanning to reduce the governments source of income.

11. TWO WRONGS MAKE RIGHT

This fallacy is committed whenever one tries to justify anadmittedly faulty action by charging whoever accuses him with asimilar wrong.

The fallacy of two wrongs make a right is based on the assumptionthat if others are doing a similar thing, our wrong deeds are justified ormade tolerable.

If Americans accuse us of the countless human rights violation in thecountry, we think the counter-accusation "How about you? Don't youpractice abortion?" settles the issue.

White South Africans did the same thing. When the Americanscriticized their apartheid system, they hurled back the comment "theUnited States was the last major nation to abolish legal slavery."

12. LIFTING OUT OF CONTEXT It is true that words have their own proper meanings, yet when used in

language, their intended meanings do not only depend on each of

them. In language meaning is not determined only by each of themeanings of each particular word. In language, the meaning of a wordis modified by the neighbouring words, and the sense of a sentence ismodified by the neighbouring sentences and paragraphs.

8/3/2019 Logic Module 1

4/4

When one indiscriminately cuts a word or groups of words awayfrom their original context, there is a possibility that you will endup distorting its meaning or sense.

A pro-gun leaflet cites a Metro Manila mayor as making a statement"citizens keeping guns and defending themselves is a must." But inreality the mayor was saying "citizens keeping guns and defendingthemselves is a must if what we envisioned is a society infested withanarchy and vigilantism."

In their effort to sensationalize trivial things, tabloids are notorious ofthis. In one issue, a tabloid flashes a headline in blaring red letters"Actress Rosanna was raped," of course when you read further youwill know that the actress had a rape scene in her forth coming movie.

SUMMARY LIST OF FALLACIESA. LINGUISTIC MANIPULATIONS1.Prestige Jargon - when maliciously used for an audience who are not expertsor who belong to other fields of practice in order to sound impressive andintimidating2. Emotional Words - when one carefully employs words and images that areheavy with emotional connotations in order to secure the sympathies of others.3. Double Talking or Euphemism - whenever we carefully package ourunpleasant ideas in nice sounding words. Here, words are used to hide, to maskand to mislead others.

B. PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE4.Meaning from Association - the advertised products are put side by side withlogically unrelated things and ideas, to suggest that if you purchase this or thatproduct you too get the associated things and ideas.

5. Misuse of Authority - whenever we cite an authority in one given fieldregarding an issue that is outside his/her field of competence.6. Repeated Assertion - This fallacy repeats or multiplies essentially the sameassertion with the aim that sooner or later people will accept it as true.7. Attitude Fitting it is done through inserting into the argument persons,objects, situations or ideas that are known in advance to be positively or negativelyregarded by the intended audience.8. Tokenism - This fallacy happens when people are misled to see a token gestureas the real thing. Whenever substantial action is needed but performing it would betoo expensive, time and effort consuming, and even distracting to one's agenda,politicians resort to this fallacy.9.Poisoning the Well - It happens when one discounts in advance the opponent'sevidence, proof, or counter argument, thereby preventing him from employingthem.10. Rationalizing - When one's ego is placed in an unpleasant situation one can

spin untrue, but pleasant, reasons to settle things.11. Argumentum Ad Baculum - This fallacy happens when force or the threat offorce is used instead of proper reason.12. Argumentum Ad Hominem This fallacy attacks the person of the opponenthimself. It wrongly assumes that if you discredit a person, his argument is alsodiscredited.13. Confident Manner - The fallacy of confident manner is saying too little ornothing at all in so much impressive words and body language.

C. LOGICAL MANEUVERS14. Fallacy of Composition - This fallacy points out that if each of the membersof a given group has a particular characteristic feature, then the group as a wholehas this same characteristic feature.15. Fallacy of Division - This fallacy points out that if a given group as a wholehas a particular characteristic feature, then each of its members has this same

characteristic feature.16. Fallacy of false dilemma, or the black and white fallacy, operates in thefollowing manner.

First, it effaces the various alternatives in between twoextreme alternatives in a particular issue.

Second, it makes us choose what alternative to takeknowing in advance that whatever we choose it will be toour disadvantage.

17. Argument of the Beard - the fallacy of the argument of the beard does theopposite thing by capitalizing the various shades in the middle ground andconcealing the differences of the two opposite extremes in the end.18. The Strawman - Here, the arguer misrepresents or misinterprets theopponent's position by exaggeration or distortion with the view of an easierattack.19. Slippery Slope - happens when one objects to and criticizes a particular

action with the reason that once such an action is performed, it will simply leadunavoidably to a similar yet unpleasant action, which again will lead to an evenmore undesirable action, and so on, sliding down the slippery slope until unknownhorrors lurking at the bottom will be the ultimate fate. This fallacy is also known asthe grand domino theory.20. Diversion - means wandering from the main point, or going away from thesubject matter.21. Begging the Question - This fallacy happens when the argument assumesthat which it is trying to prove.22. Appeal to Ignorance - when we assume that in a certain dispute, the failureto prove one side is a ground to conclude the truth of the other side.23. Contradictory Assumption - whenever one presents an argument thatcontains two assumptions which simultaneously cannot be true.24. Two Wrongs Make a Right - whenever one tries to justify an admittedlyfaulty action by charging whoever accuses him with a similar wrong.

25. Lifting out of context - When one indiscriminately cuts a word or groups ofwords away from their original context, there is a possibility that you will end updistorting its meaning or sense.

SUMMARY Before finally closing this discussion, we first make some brief

retrospect on the important points that we have covered:1) We traced the art of conjuring tricky arguments back to

the Sophist of ancient Greece, thereby also tracing theexplanation why Aristotle included them in his studies inlogic.

2) We defined the fallacies as lies and incorrect argumentsthat are subjectively convincing, and justified that theyrightly belonged in the philosophical study of systematicthinking and argumentation, just as the study of diseasesalso rightly belonged to the medical concern for good

health.3) We examined the three types of fallacies of content, the

linguistic manipulation, the psychological warfare, andlogical manoeuvres. We learned that their being fallaciousis based on their anomalous contents. Linguisticmanipulation exploits the nature of language,psychological warfare targets man's sensuousness,emotions and sub-conscious, and logical manoeuvres aimto fool the intellect itself.

Though we have not covered all the fallacies, definitely we haveexamined and studied the most common and widely used ones,thereby forewarning us and arming us with the basic knowledgeso that we will not be victimized again by their tricks.