Informal Fallacies

Front 1

Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion

Back 1

the arguer tries to take advantage of another's emotions in order to have their argument accepted. The arguer appeals to the listener's emotions to divert attention away from the facts of the argument.

Front 2

Red Herring Fallacy

Back 2

the arguer tries to divert the attention of the listener from the argument at hand by introducing a different, but deceptively similar topic. He or she then draws a conclusions based on the new, deceptive topic.

Front 3

The Straw Person Fallacy

Back 3

fallacy involves misrepresenting an argument in a way that makes it easier to refute. This might be done by mischaracterizing the argument so that it appears weaker than it is or by depicting the argument as saying something else entirely.

Front 4

Fallacy of Argument Against the Person (indirect, abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque)

Back 4

can appear in a few different forms, but in each of these forms we see a person who, upon hearing another's argument, directs their response at the person putting forth the argument and not that person's argument itself. This diversion, or attack against the person, can be done directly or abusively, indirectly, based on the circumstances of that person, or by telling him or her that they have no right to argue their point because they, too, have done the very same thing. We call this the tu quoque ("you too") version.

Front 5

Fallacy of Appeal to the people

Back 5

fallacy occurs when someone argues that a statement must be true because it is popular or supported by a lot of people.

Front 6

Fallacy of Accident

Back 6

The error of reasoning a general rule into a specific case which does not apply to that case.

Front 7

Fallacy of Missing the point

Back 7

An arguer uses the premises of their argument to support a conclusion and then suddenly draws another conclusion unrelated to the original conclusion.

Front 8

Fallacy of Complex Question

Back 8

the arguer attempts to trap the listener by asking a question loaded with an assumption. By responding to the question, the listener inadvertently accepts the argument's conclusion.

Front 9

Fallacy of Begging the Question

Back 9

When an arguer presents the same statement as both a premise and conclusion to an argument, they are begging the question. The arguer doesn't provide any rationally convincing support for the conclusion.

Front 10

Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

Back 10

the arguer ignores stronger evidence that may support a different conclusion, if applied to the argument's premises.

Front 11

Fallacy of False Dichotomy

Back 11

fallacy presents a pair of alternatives as the only alternatives when in fact additional alternatives exist.

Front 12

Fallacy of Amphiboly

Back 12

Fallacy occurs when a sentence in an argument lacks clarity because it either has more than one interpretation or because its structure is grammatically confusing.

Front 13

Fallacy of Equivocation

Back 13

Fallacy occurs when the meaning of a phrase or word changes within the context of an argument, but the arguer presents the phrase or word as having a static meaning.

Front 14

Fallacy of Division

Back 14

fallacy occurs when a property of a whole thing is incorrectly attributed to all the parts of that thing.

Front 15

Fallacy of Composition

Back 15

fallacy occurs when a property belonging to all the parts of a thing is incorrectly attributed to the whole thing.