Logical Fallacies

• A specific kind of appeal to emotion in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.

 whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.

This is a logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word several times, but giving the particular word a different meaning each time.

This infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. The reverse of this fallacy is division. (General to specific)

One reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. (Specific to general)

This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. However, in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc. Are legitimate if relevant to the issue.

An argument where force, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.

An argument that appeals to or exploits people’s vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on popularity.

Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one. This fallacy is also referred to as coincidental correlation, or correlation, not causation.

One commits errors if one reaches an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. Example: Mabaho ka, ang tae ay mahabo, therefore tae ka.