Fallacies

Front 1

This first fallacy has technical name and you will just have to memorize it. You may have heard the term out there in the world: "You’re just equivocating." This word is used in the sense of going back-and-forth on an issue; not making up your mind. The fallacy of equivocation has some similar features.

Back 1

Equivocation

Front 2

Committing this fallacy occurs when the speaker or writer uses a word with more than one meaning twice (at least; occasionally the word might be used 3-4 times) in an argument, but does not use the word consistently

Back 2

Equivocation

Front 3

the first time the word is used it means one thing (Definition A, for example), but the second time it is used the word means something else (Definition B) while appearing to mean the same thing throughout.

Back 3

Equivocation

Front 4

. The fallacy rests on the deceptive nature of a particular argument: the word seems as though it is being used consistently when it is not

Back 4

Equivocation

Front 5

Once you evaluate the argument you will see that there has been a shift in meaning between the two usages – from Definition A to Definition B.

Back 5

Equivocation

Front 6

Whenever you claim that a particular problem is an example of equivocation, you should be certain that you can identify the term that is used at least twice, has more than one meaning, and is NOT used consistently.

Back 6

Equivocation

Front 7

Strategically, for being able to identify when this fallacy is being committed, you want to be on the look-out for key terms (not "a," "and," "the") that are used more than one time in an argument or passage. Think deductively: if there are no repeated terms in a passage, what can you automatically conclude? It cannot be the fallacy of

Back 7

Equivocation

Front 8

the central element (a word used more than once with a shift in meaning) is missing

Back 8

Equivocation

Front 9

propositions that are confusing or unclear. They are confusing and unclear in a particular way: the proposition as a whole could be "taken" or understood in at least two different ways.

Back 9

"ambiguity"

Front 10

are descriptors; they describe the source of the ambiguity in a passage.

Back 10

semantical and syntactical

Front 11

a term with more than one meaning is used ONCE

Back 11

Semantical Ambiguity

Front 12

The problem is that, being used only once, the listener or reader is unable to decipher the meaning or intention of the speaker or writer because there hasn’t been sufficient context provided.

Back 12

Semantical Ambiguity

Front 13

the proposition could be interpreted in more than one way. If the meaning isn’t clear, the proposition could hardly be acceptable

Back 13

Semantical Ambiguity

Front 14

Today we moved into our new house." Here it is unclear how the term "new" is to be interpreted: as a newly constructed home or a newly purchased or newly owned, home.

Back 14

Semantical Ambiguity

Front 15

"Madonna Loses Appeal." Has she lost her popularity or a court case?

Back 15

Semantical Ambiguity

Front 16

The confusion of interpretation in this fallacy rests on the grammatical construction of a particular proposition

Back 16

Syntactical Ambiguity

Front 17

the way the words are strung together and arranged create a problem with understanding the meaning of the passage

Back 17

Syntactical Ambiguity

Front 18

"Claude never argues with his father when he is drunk."

Back 18

Syntactical Ambiguity

Front 19

Because of the way the sentence is constructed you don’t know which[]the term refers to[]

Back 19

Syntactical Ambiguity

Front 20

addresses how we inappropriately use accenting.

Back 20

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 21

occurs when the emphasis on a term leads a listen or reader to an unwarranted or inappropriate conclusion

Back 21

The first form of improper accent

Front 22

If, because of the accent, a proposition is misleading, it can hardly be acceptable.

Back 22

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 23

Because of that emphasis an inappropriate conclusion might be drawn.

Back 23

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 24

Strategically, you need to be on the look-out for emphasized terms

Back 24

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 25

On my exams they will probably be underlined, in bold, all in caps, or some combination of them all. It will be obvious

Back 25

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 26

in order to identify this form of fallacy you must have an emphasized word present in the passage!

Back 26

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 27

If you have a problem with nothing accented then it will never be this form of this fallacy!

Back 27

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 28

The second form occurs when the speaker or writer takes a word or phrase out of context. That is, only a piece of the entire thought or passage is revealed

Back 28

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 29

Because only a piece or portion of the whole is addressed, this piece is then

Back 29

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 30

By emphasizing just a portion and ignoring the rest the passage (the context) the speaker or writer has "improperly" accented that portion

Back 30

fallacy of misleading accent

Front 31

"Gee, you look terrific tonight!" The girlfriend, though, misinterprets what he has to say and responds: "Oh, so I didn’t look good this morning?"

Back 31

Illicit Contrast

Front 32

The commission of this fallacy rests on a mistake that the listener makes

Back 32

Illicit Contrast

Front 33

The mistake is that the listener perceives or imagines or hears the speaker accent or emphasize a certain word

Back 33

Illicit Contrast

Front 34

the mistake because there is no emphasized word! But the listener thinks there is and THEN commits the fallacy by drawing a conclusion that contrasts (or is opposite to) what they thought they heard.

Back 34

Illicit Contrast

Front 35

conclusion does not follow from the information given – it follows from the information he/she imagined or thought she/heheard

Back 35

Illicit Contrast

Front 36

This is the fallacy – drawing a conclusion that contrasts a supposed emphasis made by a speaker.

Back 36

Illicit Contrast

Front 37

refers to the mistaken belief that a speaker has emphasized a word.

Back 37

"Illicit"

Front 38

refers to the nature of the conclusion drawn on the basis of the mistake.

Back 38

"Contrast"

Front 39

The content of the conclusion is opposite to the meaning of the supposed emphasized word.

Back 39

Illicit Contrast

Front 40

: for the most part this fallacy will be presented as a dialogue since you need to have a listener and a speaker for the fallacy to be committed

Back 40

Illicit Contrast

Front 41

At the very least you need a situation where one person is speaking and another is responding.

Back 41

Illicit Contrast

Front 42

that the conclusion you cite is opposite to the imagined emphasized word!

Back 42

Illicit Contrast

Front 43

This is the only fallacy where it is important to understand who is committing the fallacy – the listener.

Back 43

Illicit Contrast

Front 44

happens in this fallacy is that a speaker or writer will suggest a particular conclusion but NOT assert it directly.

Back 44

Argument by Innuendo

Front 45

The person committing this fallacy will lay the groundwork or plant the idea or hint about a certain position, but does not come right out and make the claim

Back 45

Argument by Innuendo

Front 46

the conclusion is suggested rather than asserted. Most examples of this fallacy are derogatory or negative

Back 46

Argument by Innuendo

Front 47

"a skillful choice of words or the careful arrangement of sentences"

Back 47

Argument by Innuendo

Front 48

the speaker brings up the idea of illegal contributions and then in the next sentence he/she refers to their political opponent thereby linking the two ideas in the minds of the listeners/readers

Back 48

Argument by Innuendo

Front 49

. The fallacy is committed when we misuse our vague language.

Back 49

Misuse of a Vague Expression

Front 50

"misuse" in this context: assigning, without reason, a very precise definition or description to language that is, in fact, very imprecise or general.

Back 50

Misuse of a Vague Expression

Front 51

This fallacy revolves around two equivalent statements

Back 51

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 52

The commission of this fallacy involves the attempt to convince someone that two equivalent statements or ideas are NOT equivalent

Back 52

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 53

1) "bad driver," and 2) "don’t pay attention to the road."

Back 53

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 54

the meaning of the two is the same

Back 54

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 55

The structure of this fallacy is very specific. The "attempt" mentioned above takes a certain form: denying or rejecting one version of the statement in order to accept or embrace the other, presumably different (though it’s not)

Back 55

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 56

Not A, but A (where A is the equivalent statement) OR
A, but not A

Back 56

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 57

I’m not a bad driver (A), I’m just a bad driver (A)

Back 57

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 58

the first part is a rejection or denial and the second part is the version that is accepted, but, of course, the two versions express the exact same idea.

Back 58

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 59

In order to identify this fallacy you must have two equivalent statements present in the passage where one version is denied in order to accept the other one.

Back 59

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 60

Using the language of arguments, the word "question" refers to the conclusion of an argument. So these fallacies involve someone "begging" you to accept their conclusion.

Back 60

Begging the Question Fallacies

Front 61

there is no evidence being presented in the passage. Even though there is no evidence, the speaker or writer wants you to accept their conclusion anyway

Back 61

Begging the Question Fallacies

Front 62

You do not want to separate these two propositions and call one a premise and the other a conclusion.

Back 62

Arguing in a Circle

Front 63

this fallacy is committed by saying the same thing in a conclusion as has been stated in the premise.

Back 63

Arguing in a Circle

Front 64

you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Back 64

Arguing in a Circle

Front 65

A, because A. or
Because A, I conclude A.

Back 65

Arguing in a Circle

Front 66

Because this is an orange (A), I conclude that this is an orange (A).

Back 66

Arguing in a Circle

Front 67

the circularity does not lie in the repetitious language
The circularity lies with

Back 67

the verbs

Front 68

In order to appropriately identify this fallacy there should be equivalent statements present in the passage where one supports the other.

Back 68

Arguing in a Circle

Front 69

to convince you that the two equivalent statements are different.

Back 69

distinction without a difference

Front 70

the two statements are presented as if they actually are different.

Back 70

circular argument

Front 71

The kind of language that is at fault is called slanted or loaded language

Back 71

Question-Begging Language

Front 72

This fallacy is committed when we use language that implies a position on some issue that has yet to be decided or has not been finished.

Back 72

Question-Begging Language

Front 73

: some issue is "going to be" discussed, "will be" decided, "will be" voted upon, etc.

Back 73

Question-Begging Language

Front 74

Notice the future-perfect form of the verbs: nothing has been decided as yet

Back 74

Question-Begging Language

Front 75

using certain language the speaker or writer implies what the outcome of the decision or vote or discussion will be.

Back 75

Question-Begging Language

Front 76

This issue has not been decided as yet. However, look at how the speaker characterizes the recommendations: "ridiculous." Now, what is this speaker trying to convey to the listeners about how the decision should go

Back 76

Question-Begging Language

Front 77

The speaker is implying that the recommendations will be rejected. But remember, the issue has not even been considered as yet

Back 77

Question-Begging Language

Front 78

In order to properly identify this fallacy the specific context needs to be present ("ridiculous." )

Back 78

Question-Begging Language

Front 79

. In this fallacy the term_____means multiple rather than simply complicated.

Back 79

"complex"

Front 80

. In both forms of this fallacy you will be dealing with multiple questions that only look like or appear to be single or simple questions.

Back 80

"complex"

Front 81

when this first form of_______question is committed is that a person assumes the answer to a question that is unasked and then uses that assumed answer as the basis for a question that they do ask

Back 81

"complex"

Front 82

In order to properly identify this fallacy you will need to identify the unasked question.

Back 82

"complex"

Front 83

The second form of______question occurs when a speaker or writer poses a series of questions in such a way as to expect a simple answer or that appear to be only one question

Back 83

"complex"

Front 84

if you break that question down you are really asking a number of questions. The questioner, however, seems to expect a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Back 84

"complex"

Front 85

The question posed is very______because there are so many questions really being asked while the speaker seems to expect a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Back 85

"complex"

Front 86

a rhetorical question gives information rather than gathers it; it is not an inquiry. This is true of

Back 86

Leading Question

Front 87

; there is no answer expected and the speaker is basically making an assertion.

Back 87

Leading Question

Front 88

The most common structure or presentation of this fallacy shows clearly the assertive nature of

Back 88

Leading Question

Front 89

"You will support me in my effort to get this judgeship, won’t you?"

Back 89

Leading Question

Front 90

You will support me in my effort to get this judgeship, won’t you?"
Now, if you crossed out the underlined text and replaced the comma with a period, what would you have?

Back 90

A proposition.

Front 91

So basically, the____________ is composed of a proposition (an assertion), followed by a comma, with the "query" part tacked on to the end

Back 91

Leading Question

Front 92

"Complex Question," and "Leading Question." What do they have in common?

Back 92

They both are questions

Front 93

there must be a question mark in the passage that is identified as committing either of these two fallacies

Back 93

"Complex Question," and "Leading Question."

Front 94

if there is no question mark, you cannot commit these fallacies

Back 94

"Complex Question," and "Leading Question."

Front 95

This is a fallacy that mimics good reasoning. Many times we build and argument by citing a definition in the premise and then drawing a conclusion based on this definition

Back 95

Question-Begging Definition

Front 96

The problem with this fallacy,_____________ , is that the speaker or writer attempts to draw a conclusion on the basis of a faulty definition

Back 96

question-begging definition

Front 97

the grounds for rejecting any claims that counter or challenge it.

Back 97

question-begging definition

Front 98

the person will present the term, the definition will be challenged, and the challenge will be defeated because it "doesn’t meet_______

Back 98

question-begging definition

Front 99

There is an effort to make this argument look like a deductive argument: here is what true love is, this example is not that, so the example is not true love. The problem is that starting________ is faulty.

Back 99

question-begging definition

Front 100

the three pieces will be present if the fallacy has been committed: definition, challenge to the definition, rejection of the challenge

Back 100

question-begging definition

Front 101

This fallacy consists in attacking one's opponent in a personal and abusive way as a means of ignoring or discrediting his or her criticism or argument

Back 101

Ad Hominem, Abusive

Front 102

No wonder you think promiscuity is all right. You know you've never had a really good relationship with a woman. So it's not strange that you'd resort to recreational sex."

Back 102

Ad Hominem, Abusive

Front 103

This fallacy consists in rejecting a criticism or argument presented by another person because of that person's special circumstances or improper motives.

Back 103

Poisoning the Well

Front 104

"You're not a woman, so anything you might say about abortion is of no significance."

Back 104

Poisoning the Well

Front 105

This fallacy consists in rejecting a criticism of one's argument or actions by accusing one's critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way.

Back 105

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Front 106

Dad: Owen, I really don't think that you should be drinking. Alcohol tends to dull your senses, reduces you physical control, and may even become psychologically addicting.

Son: That's not a very convincing argument, Dad, when you're standing there with that bourbon in your hand.

Back 106

Tu Quoque Fallacy
The father's failure to practice what he preaches does not neutralize that argument.

Front 107

This fallacy consists in misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack.

Back 107

Attacking a Straw Man

Front 108

Debra: There is no logical, moral, or legal justification for discriminating against a person on the basis of gender. Yet there is still legally sanctioned sex discrimination in many areas of our culture. So, yes, I think there still may be a need for something like an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Joe: Look, if you want men and women to have to use the same public restrooms, you go right ahead and support it. The way I see it, you women just don't want to do house work anymore.

Joe's representation of Debra's argument is surely a perverted one. He has not only drawn an unwarranted inference from it, he has oversimplified it beyond recognition.

Back 108

Attacking a Straw Man

Front 109

To criticize the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

Back 109

Ad Hominem

Front 110

To hold that a belief is true solely because no one has shown it to be false.

Back 110

Appeal to Ignorance

Front 111

a violation of one of the criteria of a good argument

Back 111

fallacy

Front 112

Any argument that fails to satisfy one or more of the four criteria is

Back 112

fallacy

Front 113

To distort someone's words, position, or argument to make it easy to criticize.

Back 113

Straw Man

Front 114

Slippery slope

Back 114

we must continue a certain course of action since we have already begun that course.

Front 115

attacks the arguer instead of the argument.

Back 115

Ad hominem

Front 116

When analyzing an argument, the internal claims;premises;are fair game for attack. The qualities of the person making the argument are not fair game because they aren't pertinent to the argument itself.

Back 116

Ad hominem

Front 117

unfairly places the onus of providing evidence for a position on the wrong side of an issue.

Back 117

Burden of proof

Front 118

the burden may be intentionally placed on the person making the accusation).

Back 118

Burden of proof

Front 119

ignores an opponent's actual position and instead presents and attacks a distorted, oversimplified, or misrepresented version of that position.

Back 119

Straw man

Front 120

limits consideration to only two alternatives when there are, in fact, more than two.

Back 120

False dilemma

Front 121

If the flight attendant told you that you could have cream or sugar in your tea, when there was also milk and honey available, then s/he'd be presenting you with

Back 121

a false dilemma.

Front 122

tempts us to believe there is a necessary connection between one thing happening and some other thing happening when, in fact, there is no such necessary connection.

Back 122

Slippery slope

Front 123

asks us to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion being argued for and which are controversial on the same grounds.

Back 123

Begging the question

Front 124

'God exists because God exists' is logically valid, however it is

Back 124

circular

Front 125

Either join in political life or resign yourself to a lonely and meaningless existence.

Back 125

False dilemma

Front 126

You have to discount Mr. McGill's views on abortion. As a member of the Pre-Natal Liberation Organization, he can't help being prejudiced.

Back 126

Circumstantial ad hominem

Front 127

You should bathe three times a day in a tub of whole milk to keep your skin looking young. No one has ever proved that it doesn't work.

Back 127

Appeal to ignorance

Front 128

Defense lawyer Robert Baker at O. J. Simpson's civil trial: This isn't a fight for justice, it's a fight for money

Back 128

False dilemma

Front 129

Now the Dallas Police have dismissed the rape charges against Michael Irvin and Erik Williams. Excuse me if I'm suspicious of the Dallas Police Department. I'm old enough to remember Lee Harvey Oswald being shot to death with the Dallas Police escorting him.

Back 129

Poisoning the well

Front 130

Before you go getting all excited about the ancient Greek ideal of leisure and learning, remember that it was built on the backs of slaves. How do you think they liked the sight of all those philosophers? Not much.

Back 130

Genetic fallacy

Front 131

Once your kids are watching cartoons, they're also watching those toy commercials. If they see the commercials they'll want the toys; before you know it, they're obsessed with the toys and you've lost all control over them. So don't let children watch cartoons.

Back 131

Slippery slope