Nikki M. Hirai 2013 - 64234
Philosophy 1 Mr. Rubicon R. Soberano
The 24 Common Types of Logical Fallacies
Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin hoc, Latin for for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable the questionable cause variety) that states "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. The form of the t he post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows S
S
A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
‚Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising risi ng over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing, thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.‛
‚Wow, the lights turned on at the same time I came, therefore I caused the lights to light.‛ (Liandro light.‛ (Liandro M. Tenio, cousin, says almost everytime brownout incidents happen) ‚What is wrong with all of this news . . . I just got born into this world and everybody just keeps on dying and get massacred all of a sudden. What did I do wrong?‛ wrong?‛ (Nikki Hirai, on 3 massacre incidents and death of popular people happening on the date of her birthday, July 21, 2013)
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated. The strawman fallacy has the following pattern: S
Person A has position X.
S
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y.
S
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
S
‚After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending.‛
‚Nikki: Do you like our administration in the present? Jessel: Don’t you like our President?‛ (Nikki Hirai & Jessel Ramos, former classmate, on democracy, July 2011) ‚Diannica: Sunny days are good. Fiona: Yeah, right. If the sun would be shining everyday, we’d never have rain, and without rain, we’d have famine and droughts.‛ (Diannica Saja & Fiona Lagunay, former classmates, March 2012)
Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen. In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
‚Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.‛
‚If we allow the distribution of marijuana to be legal, the next thing we know, children would use them instead of drinking milk in their age.‛ (Nikki Hirai, July 2013) ‚If I make an exception for you, I'd have to make an exception for the next person. Pretty soon, the rules would be meaningless.‛ (Ms. Bendijo, high school T.L.E. teacher, March 2013)
Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance. This form of the argument is as follows: S S S
Source S makes claim C. Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C. Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
‚After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.‛
‚Eh, bakit naman ako maniniwala sa ‘yo? Ang pangit mo kaya.‛ (stranger by the streets to a streetchild, May 2013) ‚No, nothing is right when it comes to Hitler—he’s a bad person.‛ (Lloyd Visto, October 2011)
Moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false. Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.
‚Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his ‘abilities’ were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.‛
‚Hannah: I thought you said you we’re coming here already. Where are you? Why aren’t you still here? Mitzi: I didn’t say I was about to be going there, I only said I was going but that was to take a bath.‛ (Hannah Deligero & Mitzi Samaco, former classmates, group project meeting, November 2012) ‚Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.‛ (Justin Yebes, former classmate, February 2013)
Asking a question that has an assumption built into it that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty. It can also be called as complex question fallacy which is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt).
‚Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a drug habit.‛
‚Now, where did you hide my ballpen!‛ (Nikko Hirai, sister, everytime she loses something) ‚Do you now admit that you have started this argument?‛ (Russell Bual, former batchmate, Sept 2013)
Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of arandom process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gambling where such mistakes are common among players. The use of the term Monte Carlo fallacy originates from the most famous example of this phenomenon, which occurred in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
‚Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.‛
‚Siguro naman at papasa na ako sa susunod na exam kasi bumagsak na ako ng tatlong beses.‛ (random student at UP, overheard, August 2013) ‚Hindi na ‘yan tatama bukas, kakatama lang ng bagyo kahapon at ngayon eh bukas na naman? Hindi na ‘yan mangyayari, tiwala lang.‛ (Aldous Siega, former batchmate, July 2007)
Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. A "bandwagon" argument says that because "everyone is doing it (or thinking it or saying it), you also should". It can also be called ad populum. The logical argument here is: S S S
Everyone (the majority) is doing it. The majority is always right. If I do it, I will be in the majority, and therefore right.
‚Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they’re only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.‛
‚Nikki: Hindi kayo gagawa ng assignment? Jessel: Hindi. Hindi naman gumagawa yung iba eh.‛ (Nikki Hirai & Jessel Ramos, former classmate, usual say every uncommon assignment with a specific teacher) ‚Nikki: Akala ko ba ayaw mo ng iPhone? Danica: Eh may ganito rin naman yung iba.‛ (Danica Alvarez, former classmate, June 2012)
Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there i s at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies 2 options (dilemma, dichotomy, black and white) may be substituted with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only 3 options, instead of 2. False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us" ). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.
‚Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or on the side of the enemy.‛
‚It’s either you are with us, or against us.‛ (Dounee Caores, former classmate, June 2006) ‚Am I right or am I right?‛ (Judy Fernandez, former batchmate, usual question when arguing about something she knows she can’t win)
A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise. Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself. The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it". One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end. It is often called circular reasoning, although sometimes it's considered distinct with the distinction that circular reasoning is: A implies B which implies A Begging the question similarly takes the form: A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed.
‚The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.
‚Something could not come from nothing therefore The Big Bang Theory is entirely false.‛ (Justin Yebes, former classmate, January 2013) ‚Coca-cola has the taste you never get tired of, always refreshing, that’s why things go better with Coke, after Coke, after Coke.‛ (Coca-cola advertisement, 1960’s)
Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument. Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: S S S
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
‚Not able to defend his position that evolution ‚isn’t true‛ Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn’t a primate).
‚Wala nga tayong assignment eh. Tanungin mo pa yung Class Mayor natin.‛ (Fiona Lagunay, former classmate, January 2013) ‚Imaginations are better, even my favourite band, Owl City has said it.‛ (Patrice Felicio, former classmate, October 2012)
Making the argument that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, or ideal.
The naturalistic fallacy is the belief that what is natural is necessarily good (and that what is unnatural is bad). That is, what is is also what ought to be (hence is often called the is-ought fallacy). Creationists often apply the naturalistic fallacy to natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), as part of their continuing campaign of anti-evolutionary propaganda. In nature the weakest (least fit) die, so the naturalistic fallacy says that we should dismantle welfare states and withhold charity and health care, to leave poor and ill people to die, or even to exterminate the weak.
‚The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of ‘artificial’ medicines such as antibiotics.‛
‚Cloning and genetic engineering are wrong because they are unnatural.‛ (Nikko Hirai, sister, December 2012) ‚It’s only natural for men to have many girlfriends in their lives.‛ (Cesar Diaz, former classmate, September 2012)
Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy, or at least a very bad way of making an objective argument, whereby a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is generally considered naive or dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation. An appeal to emotion is a fallacy with the following structure: S
Favorable emotions are associated with X.
S
Therefore, X is true.
‚Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and Brussels sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all.‛
‚Why should we have quizzes and schools when we don’t like it? It’s wrong.‛ (Jared Abella, former classmate, everytime there will be a long quiz) ‚It is right to keep a secret a secret because I approve so.‛ (Liandro Tenio, cousin, everytime being asked about secrets and the like)
Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong. The fallacy fallacy, or argumentum ad logicam, is the informal (and rather counter-intuitive) logical fallacy that if an argument contains a logical fallacy all of the entire proposition is wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between "sound", "valid" (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity ) and "true", instead of taking all of them as synonymous. It takes the following form: S S S
Argument A supports the proposition P Argument A contains a logical fallacy. Therefore, the entirety of P is false
‚Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because it was popular, Alyse resolved to eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.‛
‚No, I’m not going to listen to the rest of what you’ve got to say anymore ‘cause I’m sure there’s another bunch of fallacies going about your whole talk.‛ (Samm Aliñabon, blockmate, September 2013) ‚The argument from design supports the idea that ‚God exists‛. The argument from design is fallacious. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.‛ (Mrs. Fernandez, religion teacher, on examples of counter-argument to the argument from design, July 2011)
Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – answering criticism with criticism. Tu quoque (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. The usual structure of the fallacy is: S S S
Person A makes claim X about Person B. Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A. Therefore, X is is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.
‚The blue candidate accused the red candidate of committing the tu quoque fallacy. The red candidate responded by accusing the blue candidate of the same, after which ensued an hour of back and forth criticism with not much progress.‛
‚Noime: Wow, ba’t gising ka pa? Mitzi: Mukha rin namang di ka pa rin gising, no?‛ (Noime Leopoldo & Mitzi Samaco, former classmates, September 2013) ‚Why is it that I’m the only one accused of this? You also do it, too.‛ (Louween Tenio, cousin, usual say when accused of something)
Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience. The general form of the argument is as follows. S S
S
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so. Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so. Conclusion: Not-P.
‚Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.‛
‚Weh? May pasok bukas? Ayokong maniwala, mali ‘yan.‛ (Laurenz de Leon, Chem 16 classmate, August 2013) ‚I don’t think it’s really that scary to watch that movie, Insidious, although I have never seen one. People are just overreacting.‛ (Carmina Gonzaga, Chem 16 classmate, August 2013)
Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: S
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
‚Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore a valid one.‛
‚Justin: Animals have souls. Mark: No, they don’t have any. Justin: Now prove to me that they don’t have souls.‛ (Justin Yebes & Mark Aguelo, former classmates, June 2009) ‚I believe that there is God. If you don’t believe so, then prove it to me that there isn’t.‛ (Joshua Lagunay, former classmate, January 2013)
Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). It is often confused with amphibology (amphiboly) (ambiguous sentences.); however, equivocation is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word and amphiboly is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of punctuation or syntax.
‚When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to pay them because the sign said ‚Fine for parking here‛ and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.‛
"Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?" (Jared Abella, former classmate, July 2013) ‚All jackasses have long ears. Carl is a jackass. Therefore, Carl has long ears.‛ (Justin Yebes, former classmate, February 2009)
Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts,
of it. The logical fallacies of composition and division are a pair of fallacies which are based on a confusion between what is true of the part and what is true of the whole. The fallacy of composition is an incorrect inference from what is known of the parts to asserting the same of the whole; and the fallacy of division is the reverse, from the whole to the part. Comparing the fallacy to the figures of speech called synecdoche (as when one says "wheels" to refer to an auto), one might say that the fallacy consists of taking the figure of speech literally.
‚Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.
‚I think that the film casted by all-stars and famous ones would also become a huge hit.‛ (Hannah Deligero, former classmate, March 2013) ‚This machine sucks. I think every part of this thing is broken.‛ (Fiona Lagunay, former classmate, October 2012)
Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics. The main flaw in anecdotal evidence is that there is no guarantee that it is not handpicked. But even if you take care to avoid dismissing contrary evidence, you accept evidence from a single source or from a sample that is too small to prove that the evidence holds true in general. In accepting and using anecdotal evidence, you are making an unjustified generalization.
‚Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 – so don’t believe everything you read about meta analyses of sound studies showing proven causal relationships.‛
‚Mahaba pa ang buhay mo. Tingnan mo naman ang tenga mo, malaki siya parang sa lolo’t lola ko rin. Mga malalaki tenga nila. Namatay sila sa edad na 95 at 96.‛ (Nikki Hirai, April 2013) ‚Hindi siya babagsak sa pasulit na ‘yun. Eh ako nga ‘di nag-aral pumasa pa.‛ (Zymer Timtim, Chem 16 classmate, August 2013)
Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument. No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.
‚Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.‛
‚No man can ever be opposed to Christianity who knows what it really is.‛ (quote, Henry Drummond) ‚’Maybe I should sleep now, it’s getting late,’ said no gamer ever.‛ (Internet Jokes and Memes)
Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.
‚The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.‛
‚We sold a lot today. We were complimented by our sold goods by our customers unlike the rest. We also got the most convenient venue for our stall. Therefore, we are so lucky and they aren’t.‛ (Roma Tayros, former classmate, July 2012) ‚Beethoven was deaf. Helen Keller was deaf, mute and blind. They were very talented and are geniuses. Therefore, I’m also very talented and a genius because I’m deaf.‛ (Mark Aguelo, former classmates, on mock philosophy, March 2012)
Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes. The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. S S S
The origin of a claim or thing is presented. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited). It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious.
‚Accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.‛
‚Seriously, guys, this product is ‘made in China’. It’s easily broken.‛ (Danielle Ochaque, former classmate, everytime she sees a product with a ‘made in China’ label on it) ‚Huwag kayong maniwala sa mga sinasabi niyan. Anak ‘yan ng isang Arabo.‛ (dialogue from our high school play, 2009)
Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth. Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam; also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma. S
S
There is a choice to make between doing X or doing Y. Therefore, the answer is a compromise between X and Y. The problem is that it's possible that either X or Y is entirely true, meaning that only partially doing the right thing makes little sense.
‚Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromsise that vaccinations cause some autism.‛
‚Para walang away kung sino man sa inyo ang may mas mataas na marka, ako na lang ang pinakamataas.‛ (Jared Abella, former classmate, July 2013) ‚Nikki: 6 cm yung readings ko dito eh. Andrew: Eh ba’t 7 cm sakin? Jonas: Eh di 6.5 cm na lang isulat natin sa data sheet.‛ (Nikki Hirai, Andrew Erni, Jonas Datu, Chem 16 classmates, August 2013)
