Ateneo de Zamboanga University

School of Liberal Arts

Learning Packet
Nursing Logic and Critical Thinking
School Year 2021-2022
nd
2 Semester-Sessions 1&2

Learning Packet Activity Sheet No: 5 Date:

Topic: Informal Fallacies Week:5 Session/s: 1-5

Learning Intent

At the end of Week 5, the students can:

● Identify fallacies that we encounter in our daily experience.
● Evaluate the various forms of information they receive everyday thru mass media and social
media
I. Concept Notes

Informal Fallacies are typical errors or mistakes that arise commonly in ordinance discourse. They use
persuasive arguments and so, although invalid, may appeal or come across as correct. They are then to
be treated with caution in order to avoid the traps they set.

Handouts: Language: Basic Concepts (see below)

II. Checking for Understanding

Exercises will be given to identify informal fallacies. Using materials taken from the internet and the
mass media.

III. Analysis

Instructions: Read and answer the exercises. Answers will be provided during the synchronous session to
validate understanding of the logical concepts.

IV. Integration
Instructions: Discussion Topic: Discernment.
Identify some of the informal fallacies that are committed in the mass media and social media.

Resources: History of Logic Handout (Unpublished)

 PART 3
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Informal Fallacies are typical errors or mistakes that arise commonly in ordinance discourse. They use
persuasive arguments and so, although invalid, may appeal or come across as correct. They are then to
be treated with caution in order to avoid the traps they set. We may technically define a fallacy as a type
of an argument that may seem to be correct but proves, on examination, not to be so.

a. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE – when an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion and therefore cannot establish its truth, the connection between the premises and
the conclusion is often emotional. In a good argument, it must be noted, the premises must
provide genuine evidence for the conclusion.

a.1 Argumentum ad Baculum – appeal to force - the use of threat in a form calculated to win
the assent of another person or to cause him to accept a conclusion. It is the discourse of power.
The threat may either be physical so it is an argument based upon a threat. Arguers using this
type of appeal try to persuade you by pointing out their powers over you or by warning you of
the bad consequences of refusing to accept their argument.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you do not bring in a verdict of guilty, you may be
this killer’s next victim.

We cannot have this statement on expenditures coming to the attention of the

president. You have been the accountant here for nearly twenty years. It would be a
shame to ruin all that now. I think it would be wise of you to take another look at the
books.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to force, look for the presence of a threat that is either explicit
or subtly disguised.

a.2 Argumentum ad Misericordiam – appeal to pity – when careful reasoning is replaced by

devices contrived to cause sympathy or to evolve pity from another to get the other to accept
the conclusion. The basic structure of the argument is this you should accept my conclusion out
of pity. The arguer urges you to believe something by arousing your sympathy for him of his
cause.

There is no question that what this young man did is intolerable and repugnant. He
admits it himself. But you are not here to evaluate this man’s conduct morally, you are
here to try him and determine his guilt or innocence. And as you think this over, I want
you to think hard about this young man, his home life and his future, which you now hold
in your hands. Think about his broken home, never knowing his father, being left by his
mother. Think about the poverty he has known, the foster homes, the birthdays going
unnoticed, and the Christmas he has never had. And think hard about what life in prison
will do to him. Think about these things, and I know you will acquit him of his crime.

To recognize the fallacy of pity, look for premises that appeal to sympathy.
a.3 Argumentum ad Populum – appeal to the people or appeal to emotion- careful reasoning is
placed with devices aimed at creating enthusiasm and emotional support.

The basic structure of the argument is this: some statement S is true because most people
believed S. It is, in effect an appeal to commonly or traditionally held beliefs. The main error of
this argument lies in the fact that the popular acceptance of a policy does not show it to be
wise. The fact that a great many people hold it to be true does not prove an opinion to be true.

To legalize jueteng or any other form of gambling because many people are engaging in
it anyway.

To say that the constitution is defective because many people want it to be amended.

Direct: to excite the emotion and enthusiasm of the crowd, to arouse a kind of mob mentality,
not limited to verbal argumentation but also employs emotionally charged phraseology.

Political campaigns, slogans and labels.

Indirect: the appeal is addressed to one or more individuals separately there is the bandwagon,
the vanity – associating a product with a certain celebrity who is admired and pursued, the idea
being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it; and the snobbery type.

BANDWAGON:

90% are using Zest. You will be left behind or left out of the group if you do not use the
product.

VANITY:

Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of Cindy Crawford. Spectrum
sunglasses – for the beautiful people in the jet set.

SNOBBERY:

A Jaguar is not for everyone. If you think you belong to the select few, this distinguished
classic may be seen and test driven at Ortigas Motor Cars. By appointment only, please!

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to the people, look for an argument in which the conclusion is
based on assertions about commonly or traditionally held beliefs. The observation of Bertrand
Russell is worth noting: In view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is
more likely to be foolish than sensible.

a.4 Argumentum ad Hominem – attack against the person – when an attack is leveled not at
the claim or conclusion of an opponent but at the person of the opponent. It is an attack upon
the person rather than the person’s ideas, on the opponent’s character implying that what he
says should not be believed because of this character flaw. There are three common types of ad
hominem arguments:

Abusive: when the attack is directly against a person seeking to defame or discredit him. It
involves two claims: first, that the opponent possesses a certain undesirable or negative
characteristic and, secondly, that the opponents’ words or abilities are not to be trusted
because of that characteristic. The structure of this fallacy is: whatever anyone with undesirable
characteristic X says is probably true, person A has undesirable characteristic X, therefore,
whatever A says is probably not true.

Well now, you have all heard Professor Clark tell us about the theory of evolution. But I
am not surprised that he neglected to tell you that he is a godless atheist. How can this
man speak the truth, I ask you?

To identify the ad hominem abusive fallacy, look for an attack on the person’s character rather
than the person’s statement.

Circumstantial – when the attack is directly against persons suggesting that they adopt their
view chiefly because of their special circumstances or interests. It implies that the opponent has
special, usually self-interested reasons for his or her claims. The argument attempts to refute
the person’s statement not by offering reasons against it but by suggesting that the person
himself does not have good reasons or honest motives for the position. The structure of this
fallacy may be represented as follows: person A has self-interested reasons for asserting S,
therefore S is probably true.

The auto industry lobbyists have been arguing that tax reform is unnecessary. But just
remember this; it is the auto industry that stands to benefit the most if there is no
change in the current tax laws.

To identify the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy , look for an argument that claims that the
opponent advances his or her argument not because it is true but because the opponent has
some other, usually ulterior, motive for wanting his or her argument accepted.

Tu Quoque – shifting the burden of guilt. It is an argument in which one defends oneself by
accusing one’s attacker, usually of a similar wrongdoing. “Two wrongs do not make right” so
that even if the arguer is right in attacking his accuser, he has not defended himself against the
charge.

Yes, I admit, I did lie to you about last night. But you have lied to me also before.

To identify that tu quoque fallacy, look for an argument that attempts to offer a defense by
accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing.

The character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person
says. Abusive premises may be persuaded by the psychological process of transference. The
field of emotional disapproval, when it is evoked, may be extended so as to include
disagreement with the assertion the person makes. The same is to be said about assigning guilt
by association. The circumstances of one who makes or rejects some claim have no bearing on
the truth of that claim.

a.5 Argumentum ad Verecundiam – appeal to authority- when the premises of an argument

appeal to some party having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. This means,
in other words, that the fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when the authority cited is not
qualified in the relevant matters or, less typically, is not free from adverse influences. The
argument in this case relies upon the assertions of someone who is not fully in a position to
know.

According to my physics professor, Emily Dickinson’s poetry is for the birds. That is good
enough for me.

Marvis Frazier is America’s greatest boxer. I have that on the authority of Marvis’ father,
Joe Frazier.

The underlying idea of such arguments is that some statement S is true because some authority
A has said it is true. The argument’s basis structure is thus – authority A asserts that S.
Therefore, S. Immediately this argument can be seen to be neither valid nor strong, since the
mere fact that someone asserts S neither makes it so or nor makes it probable. Typically,
however, the arguer believes more than the mere fact that A asserts S. The arguer very likely is
assuming such things as that A is someone who knows what he is talking about regarding S, or
that A is speaking without bias or that A is telling the truth. If those similar assumptions are well
founded, the appeal to authority A may constitute good reasoning. Not all appeals to authority
are fallacious. After all, we should accept the testimony of qualified and unbiased experts for we
cannot be experts in every field ourselves.

To recognize the appeal to authority, look for argument based primarily on the premise that
some person or some publication reports that S is true. The fallacy occurs when the person or
publication is not relevantly qualified or is not speaking without bias, in other words, whenever
the truth of some proposition is asserted on the basis of the authority of one who has no special
competence in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced authority is committed.

a.6 Argumentum ad Ignorantiam – appeal to ignorance – when it is argued that a proposition is

true on the ground that it has not been proved false or vice-versa. The premises tells us that
nothing can be known with certainty one way or the other about a certain subject while the
conclusion states something definite. The two structures of the appeal to ignorance are: We do
not know that S is false. Therefore, S is true or We do not know that S true. Therefore, S is false.

Well, I have examined all the arguments for the existence of God, and I have seen that
none of them proves that God exists. That is reason enough for me: There is no God.

The lack of evidence that S is true (or not true) should not, in most cases be taken as proof that S
is not true (or true). However, there are at least two kinds of cases that resemble the appeal to
ignorance in which a lack of evidence may justify the conclusion that S is true (or not true). In a
court of law the failure to establish that a person has committed a crime is considered sufficient
to allow us to conclude that the person is not guilty. Thus, lawyer may argue that their clients
are innocent because there is no evidence of their guilt. Notice, however, that finding a person
innocent or not guilty in a court of law is not a determination that the person did not commit
the crime; it is a determination that the evidence does not justify a judgment of guilt. But if we
concluded that a defendant did not commit the crime because he was found not guilty, we
would be committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Similarly, in scientific reasoning a failure
to disconfirm or disprove a hypothesis lends support to the hypothesis, although it does not
usually justify concluding that the hypothesis is true. Rather each failure to disconfirm the
hypothesis indicates that it is more probable.

Our ignorance to prove either the truth or falsity of a conclusion primarily signifies our inability
and not the truth or falsity of the very conclusion. The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs
when the lack of evidence or proof is not relevant to the conclusion but the argues believes that
it is.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, look for conclusion based upon an absence of
proof or evidence.

a.7 Accident – committed when a general rule is applied wrongly to a specific case. The general
rule is cited in the premises then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion. Because of the accidental features of the specific case, the general rule does not fit.

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, that radical

communist should not be arrested for this speech that incited that riot last week.

Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken marine soldier who is
having a fight lent you his gun and he wants it back now. Therefore, you should return it
to him now.

a.8 Converse Accident – hasty generalization – committed when a conclusion is drawn about all
the members of a group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample. The fallacy occurs
when there is likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group. Such likelihood may
arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.

I have spoken to the members of the campus Siglakas club, and they prefer to use the
activity fund for a film series on birds. So probably majority of the two thousand students
would prefer a film series on birds.

To identify the fallacy of hasty generalization, look for a conclusion that generalizes over a
group. Notice whether the basis for the generalization is both representative of the group and
sufficiently large to justify the generalization.

a.9 False Cause – committed whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on
some imagined causal connection that does not in fact exist. Any reasoning that relies on
treating as the cause of a thing what is not really its cause is a fallacy – non causa pro cause. The
most common variety of false cause is the error of concluding that an event is caused by
another simply because it follows the other – post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that
black cats are really bad luck.

During the past two months, every time that the cheerleader wore blue ribbons in their
hair, the basketball team was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeat in the future, the
cheerleaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.

There are more laws in the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being
committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crime we must eliminate the laws.
Another type of fallacy of false cause is called oversimplification. This occurs when an arguer
explains the occurrence of some event or phenomenon in terms of one or more of its least
important causes.

I blame the television media for the epidemic of hijackings, kidnappings, and the other
acts of terrorism. If we would stop televising terrorist acts, they would stop.

To identify the fallacy of false cause, look for the claim that one thing or event is caused by or
explained as the results of some other thing or event A. Then consider whether there is any
good evidence that A causes B. The variation called oversimplification can usually be spotted
when an arguer proposes a solution to a problem while at the same time overlooking other
causal factors.

a.10 Ignoratio Elenchi – irrelevant conclusion or missing the point – committed when the
premises of an argument lead up to one particular conclusion, but then a completely different
conclusion is drawn. Ignoratio elenchi means ignorance of the proof. The arguer is ignorant of
the logical implications of his or her premises and, as a result, draws a conclusion that misses
the point entirely.

Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The
conclusion is obvious, we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.

The man is currently suffering from amnesia and has no recollection whatever of the
event of the past two weeks. We can only conclude that he did not commit the crime of
murdering his neighbor, as he has been accused of doing.

a.11 Petitio Principii – begging the questions – assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove, in
the effort to prove it. Phrasing the argument so that the premises and conclusion say the same
thing in two slightly different ways. Another name for this is circular argument. The argument
begs the question at issue because it asks that the statement be proven to be granted
beforehand, it assumes as true the very point in question.

Philosophers are highly intelligent individuals because if they were not highly intelligent
they would not be philosophers.

The Bible asserts that God exists. The Bible is the divine word of God. Therefore, God
exists.

It is plain to see that suicide is morally wrong because, as any thinking person will admit,
no one is ever justified in taking his life or her own life.

To recognize the fallacy of begging the question, look for an argument that assumes already the
very issue under debate. Be aware that a question –begging argument may appear to offer
legitimate, independent support, but on closer examination a premise in fact either itself rests
upon the conclusion or restates the conclusion in different words.

a.12 Complex Question – when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked
and the single answer is then applied to both questions.

Have you stopped cheating on your girlfriend?

If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is put to
them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported by no
evidence at all.

a.13 False Analogy – a fallacy committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the
conclusion that is drawn. It draws a conclusion about something on the basis of an analogy with
or resemblance to some other thing. The assumption is that if two or more things are alike in
some respects, they are alike in some other respect. The structure of the argument is as follows:
A and B are both f,g, and h. A is also j. Therefore, probably B is j.

Harper’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets an excellent mileage.
Crowley’s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably
gets excellent mileage to.

To recognize the fallacy of false analogy, look for an argument that draws a conclusion about
one things, event or practice on the basis of its analogy or resemblance to other. The fallacy
occurs when the analogy or resemblance is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion, as when, for
example, the resemblance is not relevant to the possession of the inferred feature or there are
relevant dissimilarities.

a.14 Slippery Slope – this is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of
an argument rest upon the claim that a certain event will set off a chain reaction, leading in the
end to some undesirable consequences, yet there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain
reaction will actually take place.

Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil rights and should be summarily
abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magazines
is only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political
speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind
control by the central government will be the inevitable result.

You have all heard of grade inflation. Well, I want to speak to you about grade
depression: the serious harm we do to students by grading them too hard rather than
too easily. What does it do to students to measure them by too strict a standard? It
frustrates them. It conditions them to expect failure. They recoil from responsibility,
always taking the easy route rather than learning to challenge and hence improve
themselves. They develop habits of dependency and many develop the symptoms of
neurosis and other psychological disorders. Can we afford a generation of weak,
dependent people unsuited for the demands of contemporary society?

To recognize the slippery slope fallacy, look for an argument claiming that a certain practice or
event will initiate a series of events ultimately leading to some undesirable consequences.

a.15 Red Herring – a fallacy that is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the
reader or listener by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends by presuming that
some conclusion has been established. The fallacy got its name from the practice of using a
herring, a particularly smelly fish when cooked, to divert hunting dogs from the scent of a fox.
To commit the fallacy of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by
 raising some other, seemingly related issues. In so doing, the arguer attempts to sidetrack the
opponent’s argument.

Friends and neighbors, I urge you to defeat the proposal to make jail sentences
mandatory for drunk drivers. My opponent claims that it will reduce the number of
accidents caused by drunk drivers. But if we really want to reduce the traffic accidents,
then we should stand behind those men and women whose chief responsibility is our
safety. I am referring of course, to our valiant police officers, what we need to do is
increase their salaries, beef up the police force, and, most importantly, stop butting into
their business with troublesome people.

I agree with my opponent that pornography is a national problem, and I am almost

persuaded by his argument that women are being degraded and victimized by
pornography. I say, almost persuaded…until I remember the facts that my opponent
obviously overlooks: namely, that the people of South Africa are not merely degraded
and victimized, they are deprived of every right due a human being. And what I do not
understand is how we convince ourselves that our so called national problem takes
precedence over genuine oppression and suffering.

To recognize the fallacy of red herring, look for an argument in which the speaker responds by
directing attention away from the issue to other seemingly related issues.

a.16 Suppressed Evidence – a fallacy committed when an arguer ignores evidences that would
tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or
uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the
question. As such, its occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and
conclusion but rather the alleged truths of the premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what
are at best half-truths as if they were the whole truth, thus making what is actually a defective
argument appear to be good. It is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest
in the situation to which the argument pertains.

The second amendment to the constitution states that the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe on
the rights to keep and bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling hand guns would be
unconstitutional.

b. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY – these fallacies, also called fallacies of clearness occur in

arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases whose meanings shift and
change more or less subtly in the course of the argument and thus render it fallacious.

b.1 Equivocation – a fallacy committed when the conclusion of the argument depends on the
fact that one or more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the
argument.

A law can be repealed by legislative authority. The law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the
law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.
To identify the fallacy of equivocation, look for reasoning that involves a shift between two or
more senses of a key word or phrase in the argument.

b.2 Amphiboly – this fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is
ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on this
faulty interpretation.

John had told Bob that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the
courage to admit his own mistakes.

Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart failure in the biology
lecture hall. It must be the case that a number of heart failures have occurred there
recently.

Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways: 1) the former involves a structural
defect in a statement while the latter is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of one or
more words; 2) the former involves a mistake made by the arguer in interpreting an ambiguous
statement made by someone else, whereas in the latter the ambiguity is typically the arguer’s
own creation.

b.3 Composition – a fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
enormous transference of a characteristic from the parts of something onto the whole. In other
words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it
follows that the whole has that characteristic, too, and the situation is such that the
characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole.

It is sometimes called the part/whole fallacy because the arguer mistakenly concludes that the
whole must have some characteristic because each part or member has that characteristic. The
structure of this fallacy is: each member of W is f. Therefore, W is f. The assumption of the
argument is that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. This is often false especially in
those cases in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

A feather is light. Therefore, a plastic containing a billions of feathers is light.

Each member of the orchestra is excellent, so the orchestra is excellent.

Each player on this basketball team is an excellent athlete. Therefore, the team as a
whole is excellent.
To recognize the fallacy of composition, look for an argument that moves from a claim about the
parts or members of a group to a conclusion about the whole. Consider then whether it is
justifiable to attribute what is true of the parts to the whole.

b.4 Division – a fallacy that is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts
to whole, division goes from whole to parts. This fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of a characteristic from a whole onto its
parts. Its structure is: W is f. Therefore, each member of W is f.

Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its compound elements, sodium and

chlorine are not poisonous.

The union voted to strike. Therefore, every member of the union voted to strike.

Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical thinking. Thus, every person is
capable of philosophical thinking.

To recognize the fallacy of division, look for an argument that moves from a claim about a whole
or a group to a conclusion about one or all of the members of the whole. Then consider whether
it is justifiable to attribute what is true of the whole to its parts.

b.5 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.

Catherine said (she) did not (drive) (her) (car) (today). Therefore: 1. Somebody else must
have driven it; 2. She may have washed it; 3. She must have driven someone else’s; 4.
She must have driven her truck; 5. She must have driven it yesterday.

A variation of the fallacy of accent occurs when the person who makes the original statement
entices the arguer into a certain misinterpretation and thereby tricks him into constructing a
fallacious argument.

[The chief mate did not drink yesterday] [The captain is sober today]
EXERCISE 6: INFORMAL FALLACIES
IDENTIFY WHETHER THE FOLLOWING IS A GOOD ARGUMENT OR A FALLACY. IF IT IS A FALLACY.
INDICATE WHAT KIND OF FALLACY IS COMMITTED.

_______________ 1. You can increase taxes and decrease spending if that is what you really think we
should do, but do not count on our votes if you decide to do such a thing.
_______________ 2. Perhaps the most powerful argument for communism is the continued plight of the
world’s poorest classes: children born to poverty, children without education, without future, without
food, without hope. Any man of heart must feel their misery and must take on their cause, that is, must
fight for the revolution!
_______________ 3. The theory about the origin of Martian craters is undoubtedly true. President
Clinton announced his support for the theory in the newspapers today.
_______________ 4. The golden rule is basic to the moral code of every human society; everyone
accepts it in some form or other. It is therefore an undeniably sound moral principle.
_______________ 5. Of course unidentified flying objects are visitors from outer space. No one has ever
been able to offer a shred of evidence to the contrary.
_______________ 6. There really must be something true about this idea of human mortality. For it is
an idea that has arisen in every time and country and religion and culture.
_______________ 7. Take out a subscription to the Investigator, the leading news weekly in the nation,
and be as well informed as your neighbors.
_______________ 8. You should certainly start wearing slippers to class. I mean, several million African
students do every day. And several million Africans cannot be wrong.
_______________ 9. I think immortality must be true. For, without it, think how hopeless human life
would be, how wretched people would feel, with no ultimate goal to strive for.
_______________ 10. Of course you realize that if you fail to vote against the gun control bill, our
organization will not support your next election bid with a donation as it has done so in the past.
_______________ 11. Communism is an immoral theory. Its advocates are by no means exemplary men.
Marx himself never worked in a factory. Engels was actually bourgeois. Lenin was an adulterer. Stalin
was a common thug.
_______________ 12. Please, sir, how about an easy test? Just think of how hard we students have it: all
those difficult courses, all those sadistic teachers, all those late nights studying, all that pressure…
_______________ 13. Professor May’s book questioning the heroism of Andres Bonifacio should be
taken with a grain of salt; after all, he is an American bigot who looks down on Filipinos.
_______________ 14. We have to judge her ideas with a little bit of charity. Think of how hard the
woman works, how much responsibility she carries; think of how overwhelmed she must be. I mean we
have to give her a break and not judge what she says so critically anymore.
_______________ 15. People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of astrology without
success. It is all right therefore to continue believing in horoscopes.
_______________ 16. It is financially advisable for you to join our protective organization. Think of the
money you will lose in broken windows, overturned trucks, and damaged merchandize in the event of
your not joining.
_______________ 17. The doctor has no right to tell me to quit smoking. He himself consumes more
than a pack daily.
_______________ 18. As an academic, professor Kervliet has given himself away as biased and
unscientific. It is pathetic to see him, a non Filipino, deploring political and social conditions in a foreign
country like the Philippines when his own country calls for social and moral regeneration.
_______________ 19. The Inquisition must have been justified and beneficial, if whole peoples invoked
and defended it, if men of the loftiest souls founded and created it severally and impartially, and its very
adversaries applied it on their own account, pyre answering to pyre.
_______________ 20. Agatha Christie’s second husband, Max Mallowan, was a distinguished
archaeologist. Christie was once asked how she felt about being married to a man whose primary
interest lay in antiquities. "An archaeologist is the best husband a woman can have," she said. "The
older she gets, the more interested he is in her."
_______________ 21. There will be a meteoric rise in food price by the end of the year. I know this
through a man who is a well-known meteorologist.
_______________ 22. Of course God exists. For, despite all their efforts, the atheists have never been
able to prove otherwise.
_______________ 23. What good can this Jesus of Nazareth, a mere carpenter’s son, do?
_______________ 24. The advice of her dentist to have extensive work done on her teeth is something
that Susan should not take seriously. It is obvious that she has recommended this treatment because
she will be paid handsomely.
_______________ 25. The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says that the world was created
in seven days.
_______________ 26. There is no such thing as a leaderless group. Though the style and function of
leadership will differ with each group and situation, a leader or leaders will always emerge in a task-
oriented group or the task is simply never accomplished.
_______________ 27. I have looked everywhere in this area for an instruction book on how to play the
piano without success.
_______________ 28. Miracles are occurrences that cannot be accepted as true for no evidence can be
presented to substantiate them.
_______________ 29. I think that liquor is actually a good thing. People all over the world make and
desire it. The Russians make vodka, the British gin, the Japanese sake, the Mexicans tequila, and the
Germans beer.
_______________ 30. Thomas Carlyle said of Walt Whitman that he thinks he is a big poet because he
comes from a big country.