1-IS-3

Section:
1-IS-3

Course:
PHL 2

Description:
Logic

Faculty:
Diego A. Odchimar III

Schedule:
Tuesday, 3:00 -4:00 PM, 5th Floor, Room 55
Thursday, Saturday, 1:00 – 2:00 PM, 5th Floor, Room 55

Class List:

1. ABIQUE, Charmaine M.
2. ANUBA, Krizia Bernadette C.
3. ARADA, Judd Kevin M.
4. ASINAS, Nathaniel C.
5. BANTANG, Joriza M.
6. BOCADO, Michael Angelo L.
7. CABARIOS, Jan Mari Christhopher C.
8. CAGUIMBAL, Kim JOhn Carlo V.
9. CALASIN, Armando Jose V.
10. CO, Kennard James M.
11. CRUZ, Jared R.
12. CRUZ, Louis Albert B.
13. CRUZ, Victor Jr. S.
14. DE LEON, Valerie Y.
15. DE LUNA, Edsel Christian S.
16. DE VILLA, Michael Louie P.
17. DEL MONTE, Juleus Paolo H.
18. DEL MUNDO, Darrel D.
19. DIMAPILIS, John Marc T.
20. DIZON, Reuben John Marc T.
21. DOMINGO, Jaybee T.
22. ENDOZO, Jean Carolline P.
23. ESCALANTE, Robert Marc R.
24. FAVIS, Emmanuel Carlos B.
25. GONZALBO, Nikko T.
26. GUARIN, Jerome T.
27. GUEVARA, Martin Daniel C.
28. HIPOLITO, Joren O.
29. IBASCO, Geebee L.
30. LOPEZ, Mark Kelvin J.
31. MANAHAN, Eric A.
32. MANGUIAT, Karl Ervin J.
33. MARQUEZ, Adan T.
34. MEDINA, Lloyd Levin B.
35. NEPOMUCENO, Arden Kervin G.
36. NGO, Mark S.
37. PADUA, Thimothy Joseph A.
38. RAITAN, Darelle Anne E.
39. REYES, Jeffrey T.
40. RIVERA, Hazel Anne C.
41. TORRES, Maria Xina Rae G.
42. UMALI, Jeffrey Jr. M.
43. UY, Cana Melvin M.
44. VARGAS, Cristina C.
45. VELAS, Jethro
46. VILLALUZ, Shiela marie B.
47. WAMBANGCO, Kim Christian A.
48. YU, Alvin R.

One Response

  1. 1.) Hasty Generalization- Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate
    “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!”
    Two people’s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.
    2.) Missing the Point- The premises of an argument does support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
    “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.”
    The argument actually supports several conclusions—”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular—but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
    3.) Post Hoc – also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
    “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”
    The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.
    4.) Slippery Slope – The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that assumption.
    “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now.”
    Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.
    5.) Weak Analogy – Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
    “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.”
    While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it’d be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
    6.) Appeal to Authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
    “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.”
    While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.
    7.) Ad Populum – the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
    “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!”
    While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: There was a time where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.
    8.) Ad Hominem – attacking the personal instead of the argument.
    “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn’t listen to her.”
    Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
    9.)tu quoque – the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to.
    Parents: “You should not smoke. It can just damage your health and it is very expensive.”
    Daughter: “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!”
    The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.
    10.) Appeal to Pity – The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
    “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!”
    The conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the information isn’t logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious.
    11.) Appeal to Ignorance – The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true.
    “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.”
    Opposing argument: “People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists.”
    In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn’t exist.
    12.) Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty – is the logical fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor.
    “The jobless tell us it’s hard to find jobs. Thus it must be.”
    – In this statement, it became true if the speaker is a poor person. Being true of a statement is in the speaker who says it, according to his status in life. So in this, it can be concluded that the statement is fallacious. Having difficulty in finding job is for the jobless only and not for all.
    13.) Red herring – the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
    “Grading this exam on a curve would be the fairest thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.”
    It’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it fairer; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.
    14.) False Dichotomy – the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
    “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.”
    The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.
    15.) Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)- conclude that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich (or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor).
    “Carmen is the smartest among their group, therefore Carmen must be the richest one among their group.”
    In this argument, it is not necessary that if you are smart, it means that you are rich. That is the wrong notion of some people. Smartness is not always followed by richness and therefore the argument is fallacious.
    16.) Spotlight fallacy – is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media.
    “When I grow up I want to be an actor. I want to be rich as the stars I see in the television.”
    The only conclusion in here is, the speaker wants to be rich. He said that not because he is talented in acting or likes to act but the main reason is getting rich like the celebrities that become successful with different purposes.
    17.) Straw Man – the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents’ argument isn’t very impressive either.
    “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers should be left in peace.”
    The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated—in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on porn or any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages. So the arguer hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.

    18.) Misleading Vividness – involves describing some occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
    Student1: “I will cheat to my seatmate if I don’t know the answer that the test will have.”
    Student2: “I will not do that. Remember the student that cheated last year? He received a punishment by the principal. He became suspended for 5 days and his parents were called for a conference. I will just study hard so I can answer the questions in the test.
    – in this argument, Student 2 gave a vivid idea to Student 1. Student 2 just convincing Student1 so Student1 will not make it a habit. Student2 used statements that can make Student 1 be convinced.
    19.) Begging the Question – the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
    “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.”
    The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is, evades) the real question.

    20.) Equivocation – is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.
    “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money.”
    The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding.

    🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: