Fallacies

Front 1

Casual Fallacies Group 1

Back 1

errors in the establishment of cause and effect relationships

Front 2

Insufficient Cause

Back 2

In seeking to establish a cause-effect relationship, an advocate may settle on a “cause” which, by itself, does not have the potency or power to produce the alleged “effect.” error of distance, error of conjunction and or inappropriateness

Front 3

Multiple Causation

Back 3

an advocate asserts that a partial cause is the cause or (b) an advocate asserts that modification of a partial cause will in any way modify the effect (or problem)

Front 4

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Back 4

After the fact, therefore because of the fact.a cause-and-effect relationship is said to exist between two phenomena simply because they occur sequentially in time

Front 5

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Back 5

reduction to the absurd.an advocate attempts to push the logic of another’s claims to its most absurd conclusions. sarcastic refutation. mockery of cause and effect

Front 6

Substitution of Sign for Cause

Back 6

asserting that A causes B, even though it could just be a sign. correlation is NOT causation.

Front 7

Argumentum Ad Baculcum

Back 7

appeal to the stick/force.explicit threat of either physical or psychological violence that will befall those who do not accept an advocate’s proposition or conclusion

Front 8

Circumstantial Fallacies Group 2

Back 8

making judgements on what you know, when you do not know all of the facts

Front 9

Hasty Generalization

Back 9

when he or she draws a conclusion from one, or just a few, fallible signs without diligently searching for additional corroboration

Front 10

Fallacy of Composition

Back 10

assuming that what is true of the “parts” is true of a “whole."

Front 11

Fallacy of Division

Back 11

assumes that what is true of a “whole” is also true of the “parts.”an advocate divides a whole into parts and apportions equal judgments across the board.

Front 12

Equivocal Sign

Back 12

arguing without adequate evidence, that a sign which could be associated with several different things signifies one particular thing.

Front 13

Mystic Sign

Back 13

arguing that a signal relationship exists between two phenomena A and B on no other basis than common belief or partisan value judgments. imposes signal relationship with nothing over than faith.

Front 14

Synthetic Fallacies Group 3

Back 14

statistical knowledge is synthetic insofar as it is fabricated; it is made—specifically from matters of numbers, not just matters of words.

Front 15

Unnamed Base

Back 15

base= population.cites percentages without identifying the population from which they are drawn

Front 16

Inadequate Sample

Back 16

a) he or she gives the impression of having taken a survey when in fact he or she has only looked at a sample, and when (b) the sample is not large enough to be representative or typical of the population to which an advocate’s generalization applies

Front 17

Faulty Sample

Back 17

accurately identifies a population, indicates the statistics’ basis on sampling, reports on a sample which is large enough, but fails to account for all groups to which a generalization applies.

Front 18

Formal Fallacies Group 4

Back 18

mistakes in the form of a unit of reasoning

Front 19

Affirming the Consequent

Back 19

consequent” is that which follows as a result of something else (2nd part of if,then statement). One affirms the consequent when he or she declares as true the “then.”if x is true, then y is true,” the advocate reasons that “if y is true, then x is true.”

Front 20

Denying the Antecedent

Back 20

denying the “if” and reasons as though such a denial also entails the rejection of the “then.” In other words, if the “if” is denied, the “then” follows suit

Front 21

Unstated Assumption (Faulty Enthymeme)

Back 21

if the missing information is highly debatable and the advocate does not state the assumption the audience can not question/reject it

Front 22

Begging the Question

Back 22

"assuming the principle". an advocate attempts to “prove” an assertion with the assertion itself (or a variant of it) A is true because B is true, and we all know that B is true because A is true.

Front 23

Faulty Dilemma

Back 23

reduces logical alternatives in an argument to only two: the advocate’s way and the wrong way. doesn't take into account ALL possibilities

Front 24

False Continuum

Back 24

reduces the problem of complexity to a blending of difference.argues that two sides which appear to be distinct are actually not; they are simply two opposite extremes of a continuum.

Front 25

Propaganda Devices Group 5

Back 25

recognized as common, repetitive, psychological appeals that resemble reason, but which do not possess even the basic requirements of rationality in order that one might call them “fallacies.”

Front 26

Argumentum Ad Nauseam

Back 26

repeats the same argument over and over again in an attempt to convince an audience of its veracity

Front 27

Glittering Generality

Back 27

attempt to advance an argument by way of rousing affect.unproven proposition is couched in heavily emotional, highly evaluative language, relying on the force of words to push an audience along

Front 28

Bandwagon

Back 28

asserts that an audience should accept a proposition because “everyone else” does

Front 29

Plain Folks

Back 29

asks an audience to accept an argument solely on the basis of blind faith in their membership in that audience

Front 30

Ethical Appeals Group 6

Back 30

attempts to make one’s opponent appear to be a bad fellow—one who should not be followed

Front 31

Argumentum Ad Hominem

Back 31

attacks the character of an opponent rather than the substance of his or her argument

Front 32

Argumentum Ad Populam

Back 32

intentionally avoids what an opponent says by asking the audience to make an immediate emotional decision regarding the subject of argument.

Front 33

Tu Quoque

Back 33

uggesting that because someone else did something, he or she should be justified in doing so

Front 34

Ignoratio Elenchi

Back 34

misinterprets what his or her opponent says and constructs an argument in terms of this misinterpretation

Front 35

Faulty Definition

Back 35

advocates employ definitions of terms more to confuse the opposition or to obfuscate their position than to lend clarity

Front 36

Red Harring

Back 36

entices an opponent to divert his or her attention to an irrelevant or purposefully contentious point or issue.

Front 37

Slippery Slope

Back 37

attempting to divert attention away from a question at issue, an advocate claims without specific evidence that a certain decision, if made, will set in motion a series of increasingly severe consequences

Front 38

Argumentum Ad Ignorantum

Back 38

“appeal to ignorance,” which attempts to establish that a proposition is true insofar as it has not been proven false

Front 39

Straw Person

Back 39

A straw person is an opponent that does not exist. An advocate who advances a straw person argument purposefully misrepresents the position of his or her opponent (or creates one), argues against that position, and then claims his or her disproof of that position as an argumentative triumph

Front 40

Galileo Gambit

Back 40

an advocate will argue that, because his or her ideas are widely criticized, the ideas must be right

Front 41

Strategic Fallacies Group 7

Back 41

(begins with faulty definition) This group is distinct from all others except the propaganda devices in that the advocate knowingly and purposefully commits the fallacies within it