Fallacies

Front 1

ad hominem

Back 1

Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning.

Front 2

appeal to authority

Back 2

To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it.

Front 3

appeal to authority

Back 3

Claiming to speak with the "voice of experience" in support of an argument

Front 4

appeal to fear

Back 4

Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument. This threat can be physical or emotional: the idea is to invoke fear. This is sometimes termed "scare tactics."

Front 5

appeal to popularity/popular to passions

Back 5

Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim. It assumes that any position favored by the larger crowd must be true or worthy.

Front 6

attacking evidence

Back 6

This approach focuses on discrediting the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity.

Front 7

begging the question

Back 7

Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion.

Front 8

denying inconsistenciens

Back 8

Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position.

Front 9

either-or

Back 9

Assuming only two alternatives when,in reality, there are more that two.

Front 10

evading questions

Back 10

Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics,vagueness,or deliberately confusing or complex responses.

Front 11

faulty analogy

Back 11

Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position. A faulty analogy suggests that because two things are alike in some respect, they must be alike in other respects.

Front 12

hard-cruel-world argument

Back 12

Justifying illegal or unethical practices by arguing that they are necessary to confront a greater evil or threat.

Front 13

hasty generalization

Back 13

Inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or an unrepresentative sample.

Front 14

red herring

Back 14

Introducing an irrelevant point or topic to divert attention from the issue at hand. IT is a tactic for confusing the point under debate.

Front 15

search for perfect solution

Back 15

Asserting that a solution is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely.

Front 16

slippery slope

Back 16

To suggest that a step or action, once take, will lead inevitably to similar steps or actions with presumable desirable consequences.

Front 17

straw man

Back 17

Distorting or exaggerating an opponents argument so that it might be more easily attacked.

Front 18

thrown in statistics

Back 18

The use of irrelevant,misleading, or questionable statistics to support an argument or defend a position

Front 19

two wrongs make a right

Back 19

Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else.

Front 20

treating abstracts as reality

Back 20

Citing abstract concepts(freedom,justice,science) to support an argument or to call for action.