Flaw Answer Stems

Front 1

"mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first"

Back 1

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Assuming a causal relationship on the basis of a sequence of events

Front 2

"mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship"

Back 2

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Assuming a causal relationship on the basis of a sequence of events

Front 3

"confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two"

Back 3

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation has been indicated

Front 4

"assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated"

Back 4

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation has been indicated

Front 5

"fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect"

Back 5

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect, or an alternate cause for both the cause and effect

Front 6

"overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute to both education and good health"

Back 6

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect, or an alternate cause for both the cause and effect

Front 7

"the author mistakes an effect for a cause"

Back 7

MISTAKEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

Failure to consider the events may be reversed

Front 8

"it treats something that is necessary for bringing about a state of affairs as something that is sufficient to bring about a state of affairs"

Back 8

Confuses necessary for a sufficient condition

(Mistaken Negation)

Front 9

"from the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized"

Back 9

Confuses necessary for sufficient condition

(Mistaken Negation)

Front 10

"confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition"

Back 10

Confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition

(Mistaken Reversal)

Front 11

"mistakes being sufficient to justify punishment for being required to justify it"

Back 11

Confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition

(Mistaken Reversal)

Front 12

"presumes, without providing justification, that if certain events each produce a particular result, then no other event is sufficient to produce that result"

Back 12

Mistaken Cause and Effect

(Failure to consider an alternative cause for the effect, or an alternate cause for both the cause and effect)

Front 13

"taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist"

Back 13

Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

(Mistaken Negation)

Front 14

"takes for granted that an assumption required to establish the argument's conclusion is sufficient to establish that conclusion"

Back 14

Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition

(Mistaken Negation)

Front 15

"it assumes what it seeks to establish"

"presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove"

Back 15

Circular Reasoning

(Premise supports the conclusion, but the conclusion equally supports the premise)

Front 16

"it takes for granted the very claim it sets out to establish"

Back 16

Circular Reasoning

(Premise supports the conclusion, but the conclusion equally supports the premise)

Front 17

"it is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than against the claim itself"

Back 17

Source Argument

(Ad Hominem)

Front 18

"treats failure to prove a claim as constituting denial of that claim"

Back 18

Error in the use of evidence

Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false (EX white house failed to offer evidence about trade agreement. therefore TA does not exist)

Front 19

"treats lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim"

Back 19

Error in the use of evidence

Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false (EX white house failed to offer evidence about trade agreement. therefore TA does not exist)

Front 20

"treating the failure to establish that a certain claim is false as equivalent to a demonstration that the claim is true"

Back 20

Error in the use of evidence

Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove the position true (EX there has been no evidence against god so therefore god exists)

Front 21

"it confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false"

Back 21

Error in the use of evidence

Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is false (intoduction of evidence only weakens)

Front 22

"the argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true"

Back 22

Error in the Use of Evidence

Some evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is true (EX the defendant was in the vicinity of the robbery. therefore he is guilty)

Front 23

"draws a conclusion that is broader in scope than is warranted by the evidence itself"

Back 23

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

(the author provides irrelevant evidence in an attempt to refute a claim)

Front 24

"it fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches"

Back 24

General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion

(the author provides irrelevant evidence in an attempt to refute a claim)

Front 25

"supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example"

Back 25

Overgeneralization

Takes a small number of instances and treats those instances as if they support a broad, sweeping conclusion (EX my friends were shortchanged therefore everyone is shortchanged)

Front 26

"assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself"

Back 26

Part in Whole

Author attributes a characteristic of part of the group or entity to the group or entity as a whole (Every party I attend is fun and exciting therefore my life is fun and exciting)

Front 27

"presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituent parts"

Back 27

Whole in Part

Author attributes a characteristic of the whole to a part of the group. (EX US is wealthiest country in the world. Thus, every American is wealthy)

Front 28

"uses evidence drawn from a sample that may well be underrepresented"

Back 28

Survey Error

1. The survey uses a biased sample. (EX polling people who live in mansions who theyll vote for)
2.The survey questions are improperly constructed
3. Respondents give inaccurate responses (EX how much do you weigh?)

Front 29

"refutes a distorted version of an opposing position"

"portrays opponents views as more extreme than they really are"

Back 29

Straw Man

distorts and refashions the original argument, in order to make it weaker and easier to tear down.

Front 30

"fails to consider that some may be neither fascinated by nor completely indifferent to the event"

Back 30

False Dilemma

Assumes only two courses of action are available when there may be others

(EX "recent accidents within the industry have made safety a critical safety issue. Because the industry cannot police itself, the government must do it)

Front 31

"it relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways'

Back 31

Uncertain Use of Term or Concept

Author uses a key term in an argument in different ways that is inherently confusing and undermines the integrity of the argument.

Front 32

"the author makes incompatible assumptions"

Back 32

Internal Contradiction

(EX "Everyone should join the country club. After all, it's an exclusive group that links many of the members")

Front 33

"accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification"

Back 33

Appeal Fallacy

Appeal to authority (EX World renowned guy says coke is good for health... so drinking more will make you healthy!!!!)

Front 34

"the judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant"

Back 34

Appeal Fallacy

Appeal to authority (EX World renowned guy says coke is good for health... so drinking more will make you healthy!!!!)

Front 35

"attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment"

Back 35

Appeal Fallacy

Appeal to Popular Opinion/Numbers
(EX states a postion is true because the majority believe it to be true)

Front 36

"it treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim"

Back 36

Appeal Fallacy

Appeal to Popular Opinion/Numbers
(EX states a postion is true because the majority believe it to be true)

Front 37

"uses emotive language in labeling the proposals"

Back 37

Appeal Fallacy

Appeal to emotion
(EX Officer don't give me the ticket I got fired last month. I don't deserve this!)

Front 38

"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect"

Back 38

False Analogy

Author uses an analogy that is too dissimilar to the original to be applicable
(EX Heavy rainfall cleanses and the best approach to maintain a healthy relationship is dump sorrows all at once on each other)

Front 39

"treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ"

Back 39

False Analogy

Author uses an analogy that is too dissimilar to the original to be applicable

Front 40

"uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future"

Back 40

Time Shift Error

Assumes what was the case in the past continues to be in the present and will be in the future.
(EX Company has always reimbursed me, so they will now)

Front 41

"the argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on a program with the overall amount spent on that program"

Back 41

# & % Error

Author improperly equates a percentage with a definite quantity, or when an author uses quantity information to make a judgement about the percentage represented by that quantity.