Fallacies

Front 1

Irrelevant reason

Back 1

the premise is unrelated to the conclusion

Front 2

Bandwagon

Back 2

basing opinions, desires, goals, on what other people think

Front 3

Appeals to tradition

Back 3

we’ve always done it this way; therefore, this way is the best. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

Front 4

Faulty, weak, or inappropriate analogies

Back 4

a comparison is made between one situation or concept and another without regard for differences that make the comparison invalid.

Front 5

Poisoning the well

Back 5

belittle the opposition, tries to make them feel stupid, appeal to emotion. Broad because this talks about the whole position

Front 6

Virtue by association

Back 6

when a connection is made by one concept or person of unknown value or virtue and another of presumably virtuous character

Front 7

Guilt by association

Back 7

when a connection is made between someone and something that, heretofore, has not had a judgmental label and someone or something that is thought to be undesirable, bad, or evil. The purpose is to make one think that because one is undesirable so is the other.

Front 8

Arguments against the person

Back 8

the person who is making the argument is attacked on a personal quality that is irrelevant to the topic of the argument.

Front 9

Two wrongs make a right

Back 9

excusing a wrongdoing by pointing out that others have done something equally as bad

Front 10

Appeals to pity

Back 10

the reason given for accepting the conclusion is that the person should be accepted because to do otherwise would be mean-spirited.

Front 11

Begging the question

Back 11

placing the burden of proving the argument incorrect on the listener

Front 12

False dichotomy

Back 12

assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two

Front 13

Slippery slope (domino effect)

Back 13

assuming that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of uncontrollable events.

Front 14

Appeals to ignorance

Back 14

a. if you cannot prove something it is not the case
b. ex. This house is haunted. If you cannot prove it is not haunted, then it is haunted.
c. If you cannot collect the evidence it must be the case
d. Why is it atypical case given the conclusion?

Front 15

Hasty generalization

Back 15

a. you’re coming to a conclusion too fast.
b. Your sample size is too small
c. You did not have enough experience to draw your conclusion
d. When a generalization or moral principle is drawn on the basis of too small a sample or an atypical case

Front 16

Incomplete comparison

Back 16

it is not clear what comparison is being made

Front 17

Appeal to questionable authority

Back 17

a. improper
b. If a pediatrician tells you to brush your teeth so you don’t get health related diseases you will do so.
c. When an appeal to an authority to support to a position, but the person is not a credible expert on the topic.
d. James bond drives an Aston Martin. Therefore, they must be cool cars.

Front 18

False cause

Back 18

a. You think there is a cause in the relationship, but there is not
b. Identify what two factors you are linking together as one causes the other one
c. Ex. Diet pills cause weight loss.

Front 19

Complex question (loaded question)

Back 19

a. takes the form of a question in which two questions are rolled into one.
B. Ex. Do you eat junk food for breakfast?
c. You have to identify what the two questions are
d. The other question is hidden
e. Lawyers, detectives use this a lot.

Front 20

Special pleading

Back 20

setting a double standard, one for ourselves and another for others

Front 21

Appeal to fear

Back 21

a. When force, threat of force, or coercion is used to persuade. This includes blackmail or extortion etc.
red herring: a. When an irrelevant line of reasoning is intentionally used to divert people away from the topic at hand.
b. We change the topic

Front 22

Searching for the perfect solution

Back 22

assuming that because part of a problem remains after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted

Front 23

Equivocation

Back 23

a. Occurs when different meanings of a word or phrase are used in an argument
b. The resulting ambiguity leads to an incorrect conclusion being drawn
c. Ex. “cooks are so MEAN!”, “why do you say that?” “Because they always beat the eggs!”

Front 24

Straw man

Back 24

a. Making something weaker. Distorting the opponents POV so that it is easy to attack

Front 25

Explaining by naming

Back 25

assuming that because you have provided a name for some event/behavior, you have also adequately explained the event

Front 26

Glittering generality

Back 26

vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons