Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Logic 3

    Uploaded by

    Kurt Del Rosario
    This document analyzes examples of logical fallacies used by Philippine politicians when running for office. [1] Atty. Larry Gadon commits the "poisoning the well" fallacy by directly attacking the credibility of survey institutions without evidence. [2] Gadon also uses an "ad baculum" fallacy by threatening opponents. [3] Jinggoy Estrada makes an "ad hominem" attack on De Lima. [4] Sara Duterte questions Robredo's integrity with an "ad ignominiam" fallacy. [5] Bong Go appeals to pity with an "ad misericordiam" fallacy. The document proceeds to analyze several other examples

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Logic 3

    Uploaded by

    Kurt Del Rosario
    116 views5 pages
    This document analyzes examples of logical fallacies used by Philippine politicians when running for office. [1] Atty. Larry Gadon commits the "poisoning the well" fallacy by directly attacking the credibility of survey institutions without evidence. [2] Gadon also uses an "ad baculum" fallacy by threatening opponents. [3] Jinggoy Estrada makes an "ad hominem" attack on De Lima. [4] Sara Duterte questions Robredo's integrity with an "ad ignominiam" fallacy. [5] Bong Go appeals to pity with an "ad misericordiam" fallacy. The document proceeds to analyze several other examples

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Logic-3.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document analyzes examples of logical fallacies used by Philippine politicians when running for office. [1] Atty. Larry Gadon commits the "poisoning the well" fallacy by directly attacking the credibility of survey institutions without evidence. [2] Gadon also uses an "ad baculum" fallacy by threatening opponents. [3] Jinggoy Estrada makes an "ad hominem" attack on De Lima. [4] Sara Duterte questions Robredo's integrity with an "ad ignominiam" fallacy. [5] Bong Go appeals to pity with an "ad misericordiam" fallacy. The document proceeds to analyze several other examples

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views5 pages

    Logic 3

    Uploaded by

    Kurt Del Rosario
    This document analyzes examples of logical fallacies used by Philippine politicians when running for office. [1] Atty. Larry Gadon commits the "poisoning the well" fallacy by directly attacking the credibility of survey institutions without evidence. [2] Gadon also uses an "ad baculum" fallacy by threatening opponents. [3] Jinggoy Estrada makes an "ad hominem" attack on De Lima. [4] Sara Duterte questions Robredo's integrity with an "ad ignominiam" fallacy. [5] Bong Go appeals to pity with an "ad misericordiam" fallacy. The document proceeds to analyze several other examples

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Fallacy of Diversion in the words of

    Politicians Running for Office

    1. Atty. Larry Gadon- Argumentum Ad Hominem

    “Kaya yan, kasinungalingan yang Pulse Asia at SWS Survey na yan, mga
    bayaran, mga propagandist at mga cheaters”

    Justification: This statement is a logical fallacy, specifically a type of Fallacy of


    Diversion which is “Poisoning the well” . This is a direct attack of trustworthiness of
    the person making the statement and instead of addressing the problem. Generally,
    this is a fallacy because Atty. Gadon is directly attacking the Survey institutions and
    he creates a misleading information that has no supporting evidence that can prove
    his claim,

    2. Atty. Larry Gadon - Ad Baculum

    "Dun sa nag-oopose, ito lang ang advice ko sa kanila, put up an army and evade
    China if you want, wag niyong idamay ang mga Pilipino dito. kung gusto niyo
    magpakamatay, sige kayo mag giyera doon."

    Justification: This statement is a logical fallacy. Specifically, Ad Baculum.


    Because the statement is using fear and intimidation to force an opponent to concede an
    argument, This was manifested on the line of Gadon whicxh is to “wag niyong idamay
    ang mga Pilipino dito. kung gusto niyo magpakamatay, sige kayo mag giyera doon."

    3. Jinggoy Estrada - Argumentum Ad Hominem


    “Weather weather lang yan, kita mo ang nagpakulong saamin ni Bong Revilla, ayun
    init na init na dun sa kulungan”

    Justification: This statement is also ad hominem, Estrada is personally attacking De


    lima who previously lead the imprisonment of Estrada and Revilla. The statement is
    fallacious because the answer of Estrada was not direct and he ratified de lima
    instead

    4. Sara Duterte- Ad Ignominiam

    “Leni Robredo should avoid commenting about honesty and integrity. Her honesty has
    been questioned since day one of her term as vice president,

    Justification: This fallacious statement is under “Ad Ignominiam”, This becomes Ad


    Ignominiam because her statement can be described as “shameful” and also the
    statement in a way becomes a diversion from objective truth,facts,and evidence. In
    addition, instead of saying that statement, she could something which is more proper
    and with factual evidences.

    5. Bong Go- Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

    “Nandito na si Bong Go, tulungan natin dahil mahal niya tayo”

    Justification: The statement is a form of fallacy specifically, Appeal to Pity or AD Misicordiam.


    because the statement tries to distract the audience from the truth and use pity or to make any
    feelings of sympathy so that the audience can accept the conclusion. In this statement, we can
    observe that the campaign says that we should help him to win the election because he loves us.
    However, it is a fallacy because it is not true that Bong Go loves us, it is impossible because he
    cannot give love to us because he don’t know about us and the campaign line is so vague and
    there is no substantive or practical reason to suffice the claim.
    6. Sara Duterte- An Ignominiam

    "Kung ang mga HNP-supported senators ay ang sun, ang HNP ay ang moon, sila po
    ay parang black hole. Very depressing, dark and very disorganized,"

    Justification: The statement is an example of Ad Ignominiam, This is an appeal to


    shame because Sara Duterte is telling about that their party which is HNP is better
    compared to the opposition. Duterte also said that the

    opposition is like the blackhole that they become so depressing, dark and very
    disorganized. This is a fallacy also because it is shameful and also the statement is not
    factual because there are some good and organized leader kn the opposition.

    7. Sen. KoKo Pimentel - Poisoning the well

    “Let us not compete sa Paramihan ng naFile. Ang iba po jan Nagkokopyahan lang!.

    Hindi po ako ganyan.”

    Justification: This is a Fallacy because He is trying to directly attack the opponent by his

    statement “Ang iba po jan nagkokopyahan lang!” and trying to distract the listeners that he is
    not

    like that by also stating that “hindi po ako ganyan” he was able to discount the credibility of his

    opponent.

    8. . Gen. Ronald Dela Rosa- Argumentum Ad Misericordiam

    “Ang aking pananagutan jan ay consensya lamang. Ako’y nakokonsensya dahil nangyari

    yan during my time”

    Justification: This statement is a Fallacy because he’s trying to distract the audience with the
    truth claiming that he is only at fault due to his conscience and avoiding the accusations against

    him. He is using sympathy in a way that he is trying to use his conscience of feeling guilty that it

    happened during his time.

    9. Sen. KoKo Pimentel - Ad Populum (bandwagon)

    “Ang aking binigyan po ng priority ay yung Pangako Campaign Promises ni President

    Duterte. Kaya nga ang mga Pangako ni President Duterte ay hindi napako.”

    Justification: This is a fallacy because it attracts the people to believe that the Pangako

    Campaign Promises of President Duterte is effective because of his statement saying that “lahat

    ng pangako ni President Duterte ay hindi napako”. He’s trying to create Bandwagon to attract

    people to believe in his statement.

    10. Gen. Ronald Dela Rosa - To Quo Que

    Opponent: bakit nyo po ginamit ang salitang Neutralize na ang masamang ibig sabihin nyan ay

    pumatay

    Gen. Dela Rosa: Ang masama jan, kasi kayo nagbigay ng masamang meaning ng Neutralize!.

    Justification: This is a fallacy because he defended himself by the criticism that was put against

    him by accusing the critic of the same thing that the critic accuses him. He was able to divert the

    accusations against him by his statement.

    Group 2 - Fallacy of Diversion

    PAIR : Shenna Grace Dialogo


    Kurt Del Rosario AC16

    You might also like