Reasoning and

Fallacies
1. Reasoning
A. Definition
B. Two Types (Inductive & Deductive
Reasoning)
2. Fallacies
A. Definition
B. Types of Fallacies:
B.1 Fallacies of Relevance
B.2 Fallacies of Presumption
B.3 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 A. Reasoning
> means inferential thinking and is
classified as the third act of the mind.
> the act of the mind by which, from
truths already known, the mind
proceeds to the knowledge of another
truth by way of inference(process).
it can be expressed through syllogism.
3 Concepts:
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
Argument is a group of statements, one
of which is claimed to follow from the
others.
1.) An argument consists of at least two
statements, one that is claimed to follow,
called the conclusion, and premise that
supports the conclusion.
2.)Every argument involves at least one
inference the inference from the
premise to the conclusion.
3.) An argument involves a claim that one
statement follows from the others, that is
an argument shows that something is
true.
An argument therefore is not a mere
collection of propositions but contains a
premise-conclusion structure. The
simplest kind of argument consists of just
one premise and a conclusion.
 ARGUMENT
The investigation of supernatural
phenomena lies outside the realm of
science. Therefore science can neither
prove nor disprove the existence of God.
In the above example the premise is
stated first and the conclusion second.
But the order in which they are stated is
not significant from the point of view of
logic.
 As a general rule, when someone
gives reasons to support a point of view,
that person is usually offering an
argument. Likewise when reasons are
offered in an effort to persuade us to
perform a specified action, we are
presented with what is in effect an
argument even though the conclusion
may be expressed as an imperative or
command.
 DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE
REASONING (Two basic categories
of human reasoning)
Formal Logic is the science of deductive
reasoning.
Deductive Reasoning- it is a reasoning
from known premises, or premises
presumed to be true, to a certain
conclusion.
Deduction: reasoning from general
premises, which are known or presumed
to be known, to a more specific, certain
conclusions.
 Deduction Vs. Induction

Deduction:
commonly associated with formal
logic.
involves reasoning from known premises,
or premises presumed to be true, to a
certain conclusion.
the conclusions reached are certain,
inevitable, inescapable.
 Deduction Vs. Induction

Induction
commonly known as informal logic, or
everyday argument
involves drawing uncertain inferences,
based on probabalistic reasoning.
the conclusions reached are probable,
reasonable, plausible, believable.
 Sample Deductive and Inductive
Arguments
Example of Deduction
major premise: All turtles are vegetarians
minor premise: Bessie is a turtle
conclusion: Therefore, Bessie is a
vegetarian.
 Sample Deductive and Inductive
Arguments
Example of Induction
Boss to employee: Pedro has a tattoo of
an anchor on his arm. He probably
served in the Navy.
In contrast, most everyday arguments
involve inductive reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning- reasoning from

uncertain premises to probabilistic
conclusions
There is no middle ground. A deductive
argument cant be sort of valid.
Induction: reasoning from specific cases
to more general, but uncertain,
conclusions.
 The form or structure of a deductive
argument determines its validity.
The fundamental property of a valid,
deductive argument is that IF the
premises are true, THEN the conclusion
necessarily follows.
The conclusion is said to be entailed
in, or contained in, the premises.
If all pigs have curly tails
And Oink-oink is a pig
Then Oink-oink has a curly tail.
The terms used in a syllogism must be
clearly defined.
If the meanings of key terms are vague
or ambiguous, or changed during the
course of a deductive argument, then no
valid conclusion may be reached.
Major premise: All pitchers hold water
Minor premise: Sam is a pitcher
Conclusion: Therefore, Sam holds
water.
(the term pitcher has two different meanings in this
argument, so no valid conclusion can be reached)
 Example of a valid deductive
argument
major premise: All cats have 9 lives
minor premise: Meow is a cat
conclusion: Therefore, Meow has 9 lives

(Note: it doesnt matter whether cats

really have 9 lives; the argument is
premised on the assumption that they
do.)
 Validity versus Soundness

An argument is valid if its structure

conforms to the rules of formal logic.
An argument is sound if it is valid, and
its premises are true.
Thus validity is a prerequisite for
soundness, but an argument neednt be
sound to be valid.
If sound, then valid too
If valid, not necessarily sound
 Validity versus soundness
Example of a valid, but unsound
argument
major premise: All cats are pink
minor premise: Felix is a cat
conclusion: Therefore, Felix is pink

(Cats arent pink, which makes the first

premise untrue. Validity, however,
presumes the truth of the premises.)
 Validity versus soundness
E.g. Valid and sound argument
major premise: Anthrax is not a
communicable disease
minor premise: Communicable diseases
pose the greatest threat to public health
conclusion: Therefore, anthrax does not
pose the greatest threat to public health
(The premises are true and the conclusion is valid,
that is, it necessarily follows from the premises)
Syllogism As A Form Of
Deductive Reasoning
 Syllogistic reasoning
The syllogism is a common form of
deductive reasoning.
There are different types of syllogisms
categorical (universal premises)
hypothetical (if-then premises)
disjunctive (either-or premises)
All follow the basic form:
major premise
minor premise
conclusion
 Categorical syllogisms rely on
universal premises
Example of a valid categorical syllogism:
major premise: All Christians believe
Jesus is the son of God.
minor premise: Pedro is a Christian.
conclusion: Pedro believes Jesus is the
son of God.
(Note: validity isnt affected by whether the
premises are true or not. Obviously, other
religions dont accept Jesus as the son of
God.)
 Hypothetical syllogisms use if-
then premises
Example of a valid hypothetical syllogism:

Major premise: If Pedro likes Ana, then

hell ask her to the prom.
Minor premise: Pedro likes Ana,
Conclusion: Therefore, hell ask her to
the prom.
Disjunctive syllogisms use either-
or premises
Example of a valid disjunctive syllogism:

Major premise: Either Ana will get her

navel pierced, or shell get a tongue
stud.
Minor premise: Ana didnt get her navel
pierced.
Conclusion: Therefore, Ana got a
tongue stud.
 Fallacies
What is a fallacy?
Types of Fallacies:
1. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Fallacies of Presumption
3. Fallacies of Ambiguity
A. What is a fallacy?
 A fallacy is an error of reasoning.
These are flawed statements that often
sound true

Logical fallacies are often used to

strengthen an argument, but if the
reader detects them the argument can
backfire, and damage the writers
credibility
 Origin
The word fallacy derived from the
Latin word fallere meaning, to
deceive, to trip, to lead into error or to
trick. The word also derived from the
Greek phelos, meaning deceitful.
 It is important to develop logical fallacy
detection skills in your own writing or
arguments.
Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the
art of intellectual self defense.
Attacking Faulty Reasoning:
There are lots of fallacies that we encounter
daily: ads, TV talk shows, news paper
editorials, political speeches, class
discussions and in ordinary conversations.
Fallacies are deceptive and misleading
since they seem to be correct and
acceptable.
They may not be logically sound but
they are often psychologically persuasive.
Thus, tend to be followed and accepted.
 In order not to be deceived by this
kind of reasoning, there is a need for
us to be aware on the kinds of fallacies
so as to avoid them.
If we do not know our opponents,
we are more likely to be defeated by
them. Same thing goes with fallacies,
knowing them makes it easier for us to
avoid them or attack them, thus, spare
us from being fooled or misled.
1. FALLACIES OF
RELEVANCE
 1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE:
1. Personal Attack (Argumentum ad Hominem)
A. Abusive
B. Circumstantial
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
Misericordiam)
3. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
4. Appeal to Desire
5. Straw Person
6. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
1. Personal Attack (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
Ad Hominem - (Latin: "argument to the
person", "argument against the person")
-consists of replying to an argument or
factual claim by attacking or appealing to
a characteristic or belief of the source
making the argument or claim, rather than
by addressing the substance of the
argument or producing evidence against
the claim.
 - ignores the issue and attacks
the person or an opponent instead.

e.g. The case about Lozada

where he was questioned
about his affair with another
woman.
 Ad Hominem

This fallacy is committed when the

arguer ignores the merits of his
opponent's argument, and rather
makes some reference to the arguer
himself and assumes that this
somehow discredits the argument.
 A. ABUSIVE
> ignoring the issue by attacking the
character or personality of the opponent.
When the arguer verbally abuses his/her
opponent, rather than addressing their
argument.
e.g. Principal Smith: I think your child should
be held back a grade. He is younger than
his classmates, and the material seems to
be a bit too advanced for him.
Parent: You moron!
 Argument against the Person (abusive):
This fallacy occurs when someone tries
to refute an argument by attacking the
arguers personal character instead of
attacking the details of the argument
itself.
This fallacy often occurs in politics.
This is also know as ad hominem
(against the man).
Guilt by association is another form of
this type of fallacy.
(abusive):Example
We can all agree
that the Mayors Substitutes
five-year economic attack on his
plan is worthless. character for
After all, everyone analysis of
knows about his his plan.
affair with his private
secretary right under
his wifes nose.
 Abusive: Here is the position that
the arguer discounts.
How can you
believe
anything that The reason is the
senator has to senators link with a
say about person who is perceived
family values. as unreliable in relation
He has an to the area of the
aide who had argument not the
a homosexual senators position itself.
lover in (Guilt by association)
 B. Circumstantial:(Tu Quoque)
This fallacy occurs when someone tries
to refute an argument by attacking the
arguers circumstances or position instead
of attacking the details of the argument
itself.
This fallacy occurs when someone tries to
refute an argument by saying that the other
arguer does the very thing he or she is
arguing against, instead of attacking the
details of the argument itself.
 Example Here Fr.
Murphys
Father Murphy says that position is
abortion is wrong, but attacked.
we dont have to pay Fr. Murphys
attention to his position is
arguments since hes a being
priest, and they all have dismissed
to say that. because of his
circumstance of
being a priest.
 Example Here is the position
that is being
My dad says that refuted.
I shouldnt drink
beer, but he was
having a Here is the tu
Budweiser at the quoque part--you
picnic last week, do it too!
so theres nothing
wrong with my
Here, then, is the final
having a beer.
conclusion that
drinking is okay
 2. Appeal to Pity
>(argumentum ad misericordiam)
Persuading the people by evoking
feelings of compassion and sympathy
when such feelings, however
understandable, are not logically relevant
to the arguers conclusion.
Be watchful with this kind of fallacy
because it may exploit our emotional
sensitivities which may lead us to
improper course of action.
 3. Appeal to Force
>(argumentum ad baculum)

persuading others to accept a

position by using threat or pressure
instead of presenting evidence for ones
view.
 Argumentum ad baculum
- (appeal to the stick) is an appeal to
physical force or moral pressure
e.g. Sige di mo ko pakopyahin? Pag di
mo ko pakopyahin ng sagot mo
aabangan kita sa me kanto
pagkatapos ng eksam sa ludyik!
Furthermore, Appeal to Force is defined as:

A fallacious appeal to force occurs when

the arguer uses a threat of force instead
of logically relevant reasons to convince
the audience of the conclusion.
Note that the force does not have to be
physical--it may also be psychological,
economic, etc.
This can also take the form of an implied
threat.
 Appeal to Force: Examples
Notice that the
I made him an offer he
Godfather
couldnt refuse threatens the other
The Godfather person to get him
to accept his offer.
If you wouldnt change Here the student is
my grade to an A, youd threatening the
better be careful when teacher physically
you go out at night. if the teacher
--Disgruntled Student doesnt change the
grade.
 Here the threat is
e.g. Appeal to Force two-fold: a physical
If we dont raise $3.2 threat to the
welfare of children
million dollars in new
and an emotional
tax revenue this year, appeal to the fear
the schools and our of falling behind
children will suffer, and and its implied
our country will consequences.
continue to fall behind This is an appeal to
in science and math. an authority with its
vague implied
Your mother wants you threat.
to clean your room.
 NOTE: Not all threats involves fallacies,
however. There are times that it is just right
to point out the dire consequences that a
particular course of action can bring about.
In fact, if certain consequences are a
natural outcome of an action, calling
attention to them might be very much
appreciated.
e.g. You must not stay late at the party.
There is a lot of danger in traveling late at
night. You might get raped or robbed.
 4. Appeal to Desire
Ignoring the issue by appealing to the
desires, interests or passions of the
people to get the conclusion accepted.
Example 1 : The speech of Adolf Hitler
which brought his German listeners to a
state of patriotic frenzy.
> Germans superior race and thus
eradicate the Jewish people. (Holocaust).
Hitlers aim was to exploit the peoples
desire for superiority.
Example 2 : Ads > use this
shampoo and youll have this
hair.
Use this food
supplement and you
will have this body!
enroll in our dance
studio and you will be
as good as them!
5. Straw Person
Misrepresenting an opponents
position or argument usually for the
purpose of making it easier to attack.
An arguer may misrepresent an
opponents argument by reconstructing
the argument in a distorted form. By so
doing, the arguer is said to have set up a
straw person and knocked it down,
concluding that the real person
(opposing argument)
Straw person: > attributes to an opponent
a position that the opponent does not
really hold
What I object most about those
people who oppose the death penalty
is that they believe that the lives of
convicted murderers are more
important than the lives of the innocent
people they have killed.
6. Begging the Question (petitio
principii)

Stating or assuming as a premise

the very thing that should be proven in
the conclusion.
This is also called circular
argument.
 Examples:
Murder is morally wrong. This being
the case, it follows that abortion is
morally wrong.

Comment: Ignores the fact that

the argument doesnt prove that
abortion is murder, which is the
real point of controversy.
Gina: This college is very paternalistic
in its student policies.
Marge: What reasons do you have for
saying that?
Gina: Because they treat the students
like children.
 - A form of circular reasoning in
which a conclusion is derived from
premises that presuppose the
conclusion
e.g. A manok ay nagmula sa itlog
kasi ang itlog ay inilalabas
ng manok.
2. FALLACIES OF
PRESUMPTION
1. Appeal to Popularity:((Argumentum ad
Populum)
Assuming that the conclusion is
proven because people in general
believe it to be true.
Often called as a bandwagon fallacy. It
suggests that an idea or action must be
true or good because all or most people
are accepting it or jumping on it as if it
were a wagon full of musicians in a circus
parade.
 Bandwagon Approach
It must be cool because everyone is
doing it
 Examples:
1. This film must be the best film in this
years MMFF. It is the one most watched
by the people as seen in its gross
income in the first three days of the film
fest.
2. Our exam should be postponed, sir! The
majority of the class have agreed to it.
3. Magnum ice cream must be good since
everybody claims it to be as such.
 2. Appeal to Tradition:

Persuading others of a certain belief

by appealing to their feelings of
reverence or respect for some tradition,
instead of giving rational basis for such
belief.
e.g. There is nothing wrong with kaingin.
Our forefathers have practiced it since
time immemorial. Do you mean they were
wrong all the while?
3. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
(Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Persuading others by appealing to

people who command respect or
authority but do not have legitimate
authority in the matter at hand.

e.g. 1 A group of firemen discussing

about the legality of a certain issue.
 The doctrine of biological evolution
can not be true since it contradicts the
biblical accounts of creation; the
church fathers never accepted it and
the fundamentalists explicitly condemn
it
4. Accident

Applying a general rule to a

particular case when circumstances
suggest that an exception to the rule
should apply.
In other words, it unnecessarily
applies a general truth to particular
cases.
e.g. Freedom of speech is a
constitutionally guaranteed right.
Therefore, Leo Beltran should not be
arrested for his speech that incited the
riot last week.
In this argument, the general rule is
that freedom of speech is normally
guaranteed, and the specific case is the
speech made by Leo Beltran. Because
the speech incited a riot, the rule does
not apply.
 The fallacy of accident occurs when:
a rule that is generally applicable
is applied to an exceptional case
and the exceptional character of the
case is ignored.
This fallacy can also be called the
Fallacy of Ignoring the Exception
 Here is the
e.g.
conclusion
We should arrest that is being
that surgeon. He cut asserted.
that person with his Here is the
scalpel, and we all exceptional
know that its against circumstance that
the law to assault is being ignored.
people.
Here is the general
rule that is being
misapplied.
5. Hasty Generalization

Drawing a general or a universal

conclusion from insufficient particular
cases.
This fallacy is also known as
CONVERSE ACCIDENT because its
reasoning is the opposite of the fallacy of
accident- we take a particular case
(which may be an exception) and make a
general rule or truth out of it.
E.g.
All of the five Malaysians I met in
Boracay last week do not speak English
well. Thus most Malaysians do not speak
English well.
 The basis for explaining that most
Malasians do not speak English well is
not adequate to support this claim. It is
possible that most Malaysians speak
English well and the 5 Malaysians were
exceptional case for they may not have
finished schooling. However; it is still
possible that most Malaysians do not
speak English well. Thus, the sample is
not enough to arrive to such conclusion.
 Consists in making a generalization on
insufficient evidence.
e.g. Siya ay bukas ang siper,
kayat siya ay manyakis!
 6. Division
Wrongly assuming that what is true in
general is true in particular.
(This is quite related to accident since
it proceeds from general to particular.)
e.g.
PNP is one of the most corrupt
agencies of the government. Therefore,
these three policemen can not be
trusted.
 Occurs 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).
 Division: Example
America is a wealthy country. Bill Smith
is an American; therefore, he is wealthy.

Comment: Even though it is true that

the country as a whole is wealthy, it
doesnt follow that each individual in
the country is a wealthy individual.
7. Composition
Wrongly inferring that what holds true
of the individuals automatically holds true
of the group made up of those
individuals.
(This has resemblance with hasty
generalization because it proceeds from
particular to general.)
e.g. Because every part of this machine is
light in weight, the whole machine is light
in weight.
Composition:
This fallacy occurs when the
conclusion of an argument depends
on the erroneous transference of an
attribute from the part of something
to the whole.
Composition: Example
Each sentence in this composition
is well-written. Therefore, the whole
essay is well-written.

Comment: It doesnt follow from

the fact that each individual
sentence is well written that the
whole essay is well written.
 8. Appeal to Ignorance
(Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)
Assuming that the conclusion is true
because its opposite can not be proven.
e.g.
I believe that there are living creatures
in Mars called Martians. Nobody can
furnish evidence to disprove my
contention, so it must be true.
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes
in two forms:
1. Not knowing that a certain statement is
true is taken to be a proof that it is false.
2. Not knowing that a statement is false is
taken to be a proof that it is true. The
fallacy occurs in cases where absence
of evidence is not good enough
evidence of absence.
e.g. Nobody has ever proved to me
there's a God, so I know there is no
God.
 9. False Cause
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this,
therefore because of this)
Mistaking a Purely temporal
sequence for a causal connection.
e.g.
After he broke the bedroom mirror
yesterday morning, he had a car
accident that afternoon. Indeed breaking
a mirror is bad luck.
- improperly concluding that one thing is
a cause of another
e.g. Night comes before day
Therefore night causes
day.
e.g. 2 ( chain letters)
 10. Complex Question
Asking a question in which some
presuppositions are buried in that
question.
e.g.
Have you already stopped gambling?
Where did you hide the money that
you stole from me?
Comment: In the first place did I do it?
 This fallacy occurs when a single
question that is really two (or more)
questions is asked and a single answer
is then applied to both questions
 Complex Question: Examples
Do you still beat your wife?
Comment: However you answer this
question, it commits you to saying that
you engaged in this behavior in the
past.
Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Comment: Supposes that you have
cheated in the past.
11. False Dilemma

Arises when the premise of an

argument presents us with a choice
between two alternatives and assumes
that they are the only alternatives
when in fact they are not.
e.g.
Rina: Still looking for a valentines date?
Ill introduce to you my cousin.
Alice: Really? Is he handsome?
Rina: Oh hes smart! Well what do you
want A handsome guy but stupid or
not good-looking but smart?
Alice: Huh????
 This fallacy occurs when the arguer
assumes there are only two
alternatives when in fact there are
more than two.
This is often referred to as the
either or fallacy.
 Either you buy only American-made
products or you dont deserve to be
called a loyal America. Yesterday you
bought a new Toyota. Its clear you
dont deserve to be called a loyal
American.

Comment: The person may still be a

very loyal citizen.
 12. False Analogy
Drawing a comparison between two or
more things where a significant difference
exists between them.
e.g. We allow physicians to look up a
difficult case in medical books. We agree
that lawyers can consult law books when
dealing with a legal problem. Students,
therefore, who are taking a difficult
examination should also be allowed to
use their textbooks.
A fallacy is a mistake or error in thinking
and reasoning. Fallacies can be divided
into two main groups: formal and
informal fallacies.
Formal fallacies are errors in the form or
structure of an argument while informal
fallacies are errors or reasoning found
in the content of an argument.
3. Fallacies of
Ambiguity
1. EQUIVOCATION: using a term in its
different senses/meanings and making
it appear to have only one meaning.
This fallacy is committed when a key
word or phrase is used with two or more
different meanings in the same
argument. The following arguments are
guilty of committing this fallacy:
e.g. 1
(I) "Since a criminal is a law breaker, a
criminal lawyer too is a law breaker."

It can be noticed that the term

'criminal' has been used in two different
senses in the argument. A criminal
lawyer is not a criminal.
e.g. 2
The signboard says "fine for parking
here". A driver notices the signboard and
reasons as follows: "Since it is fine. I will
park my vehicle here.
This surely is a misinterpretation. The
word 'fine' has been used in two different
senses here. In the signboard 'fine'
means penalty. But the driver thinks that
it means 'all right'.
e.g. 3
"Nature is governed by laws. Laws are
the work of law makers. So, laws of
nature are the work of some law maker.
In this argument the term 'law' has
been used ambiguously. It means
descriptive law in the first premise but
used in the sense of prescriptive law in
the second. Only prescriptive laws are
the work of law makers. Laws of nature
are descriptive laws and not prescriptive.
e.g. 4
Really exciting novels are rare. But
rare books are expensive. So, really
exciting novels are expensive.

Here the word 'rare' is used in

different ways in the two premises of the
argument. In the first premise 'rare'
means extraordinary, whereas in the
second it means novels that are scarce.
2. Amphiboly
The construction of a sentence
sometimes allows it to have two different
meanings or interpretations. Amphiboly
occurs when an arguer misinterprets a
sentence that is syntactically or
grammatically ambiguous and goes on
to draw a conclusion on this faulty
interpretation. This fallacy can also occur
when someone is quoted out of context.
Examples:
1. Last night I shot a burglar in my
pajamas.
2. Take this newspaper classified ad that
appears under Furnished Apartments
for Rent:
3 rooms, river view, private phone,
bath, kitchen, utilities included
 An amphiboly can occur even when
every term in an argument is univocal, if
the grammatical construction of a
sentence creates its own ambiguity.

A reckless motorist struck and injured a

student who was jogging through the
campus in his pickup truck.
Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup
truck.
 In this example, the premise (actually
heard on a radio broadcast) could be
interpreted in different ways, creating the
possibility of a fallacious inference to the
conclusion.
3. Improper Accent
The fallacy of accent occurs when
emphasis is used to suggest a meaning
different from the actual content of the
proposition. For examples, if a teacher
remarks, "Ravi has done the homework
today" with undue emphasis on 'today',
that might suggest that Ravi normally
comes to school without doing
homework.
 The fallacy of improper accent arises
from an ambiguity produced by a shift of
spoken or written emphasis.

Thus, for example:

Jorge turned in his assignment on time
today.
Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his
assignments late.
 Here the premise may be true if read
without inflection, but if it is read with
heavy stress on the last word seems to
imply the truth of the conclusion.
Improper Accent a fallacy that arises
from the mistaken interpretation of a
statement but the mistake is due to the
ambiguity in the way the statement is
spoken. It occurs when the arguer
illegitimately stresses one or more
words in the given statement and then
proceeds to draw a conclusion based on
the resultant interpretation.
4. Vicious Abstraction

> misleading the people by using

vague or abstract terms.
e.g.
Vote Perado for Mayor! > The
Peoples choice.
 In this political campaign, the term
people was used to make things that I
am supported by a lot of people, or by
the masses (another potential fallacy-
bandwagon). But it is possible that only
a few people supports me relatives and
friends. But since they are people, the ad
simply used the term PEOPLE to make
it appear that he is the popular choice.
END
 1 - 2. False -straw 15. Circumstantial or
person Tu Quoque
3 - 4. False Abusive 16. Syllogism
/ ad hominem 17. Argument
5 - 6. True 18. Personal Attack or
Argumentum ad
7 - 8. False valid
Hominem
9 -10. True
19. Appeal to
11-12. False - pity/argumentum ad
Inductive Reasoning misericordiam
13-14. False fallacy 20. Fallacy/fallare /
of desire phelos