Fallacy

Front 1

Ad Hoc

Back 1

difference between argument and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations.

Front 2

Ad Hominem

Back 2

a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Front 3

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Back 3

when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.

Front 4

Appeal to Authority

Back 4

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Front 5

Appeal to Belief

Back 5

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Front 6

Appeal to Common Practice

Back 6

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

Front 7

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Back 7

the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

Front 8

Appeal to Emotion

Back 8

when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.

Front 9

Appeal to Fear

Back 9

creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

Front 10

Appeal to Tradition

Back 10

when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done."

Front 11

Bandwagon

Back 11

a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Front 12

Begging the Question

Back 12

the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

Front 13

Biased Sample

Back 13

a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

Front 14

Burden of Proof

Back 14

the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Front 15

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Back 15

one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.

Front 16

Composition

Back 16

a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.

Front 17

Confusing Cause and Effect

Back 17

a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B).

Front 18

Division

Back 18

a person infers that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that inference is not provided.

Front 19

False Dilemma

Back 19

both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.

Front 20

Gambler's Fallacy

Back 20

a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term.