Report Outline: Red- Ayn

Blue- Dailyn

A. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING (Introduction of the Topic) 1. Deductive Reasoning (defined) 1.1 Categorical Syllogism a. Categorical Propositions and Classes b. Four Standard Forms of Categorical Propositions c. Categorical Propositions: Quality and Quantity d. Categorical Propositions: Distribution e. Distributed-Undistributed Terms: Universal-Particular Propositions 1.2 Enthymemes 1.3 Evaluating a Proposed Inference 1.4 Polysyllogisms 1.5 Value Judgments-Choice of Premises 1.6 Premises Validity and Soundness (68-92) 1.7 Rules of the Categorical Syllogism f. Rule One: A valid categorical syllogism must contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument. g. Rule Two: In a valid categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one premise. h. Rule Three: In a valid categorical syllogism, no term can be distributed in the conclusion which is not distributed in the premise. i. Rule Four: No categorical syllogism is valid which has two negative premises. j. Rule Five: If either premise of a valid categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must be negative. k. Rule Six: No valid categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion can have two universal premises. 1.8 (Optional) Locate the Syllogisms in the ff. cases: 2. Inductive Reasoning (defined) 2.1 Inductive Generalization B. ANALOGY 1. Main Concept (93-102) 2. Understanding Inductive Reasoning (103-115) C. FALLACIES 1. Definition, Types (Formal or Informal) 2. Formal Fallacy Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism a. Four terms instead of three

b. c. d. e.

Undistributed middle term Illicit major term Illicit minor term Negative premises

Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogisms Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogisms

3. Informal (Material) Fallacies Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence Fallacy of Irrelevance (Ignoratio elenchi) Fallacies of Distraction a. Argumentum ad misericordiam b. Argumentum ad verecundiam c. Argumentum ad hominem d. Argumentum ad populum e. Argumentum ad antiquitam f. Argumentum ad terrorem g. Argumentum ad ignorantiam Miscellaneous Informal Fallacies a. Dicto Simpliciter b. Hasty Generalizations c. False Cause d. Non sequitor e. Compound (Complex) Questions f. Petitio principia g. Tu quoque Linguisitic Fallacies a. Equivocation b. Amphibology c. Composition d. Division e. Vicious abstraction f. Argumentum ad nauseum

Fallacies. Now, we are to continue with our discussion on fallacies and we shall focus with the other type which is Informal Fallacies or those that can only be detected through analysis of the content of the argument. They are also known as material or contextual fallacies. It is important that we study fallacies because through it, we will know how to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning, enable ourselves to think critically, open ourselves to the truth, and free ourselves from the manipulation of those skilled in the art of rhetoric. It is good for us to identify the name of each fallacy, understand their respective mechanics and examples so that when confronted with some erroneous reasoning, we are most confident that we can outsmart our opponents and eventually win in debate exercises.