Logic: Informal Fallacies, Logic And Language, Definitions

Front 1

An informal fallacy committed when the support offered for some conclusion is an inappropriate appeal to the emotions--patriotism, pity or the like--of the listeners.

Back 1

Relevance: The Appeal to Emotion (ad populum)

Front 2

An informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead and confuse.

Back 2

Relevance: The Red Herring

Front 3

An informal fallacy committed when some the position of one's opponent is misrepresented and that distorted position is made the object of attack.

Back 3

Relevance: The Straw Man

Front 4

An informal fallacy committed when, rather than attacking the substance of some position, one attacks the person of its advocate, either abusively or as a consequence of his or her special circumstances.

Back 4

Relevance: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem)

Front 5

An informal fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an illegitimate appeal to ignorance, as when it is supposed that something is likely to be true because we cannot prove that it is false.

Back 5

Defective Induction: The Argument from Ignorance (ad ignoratiam)

Front 6

An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate because the authority appealed to has no special claim to expertise on the matter in question.

Back 6

Defective Induction: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)

Front 7

An informal fallacy in which a principle that is true of a particular case is applied, carelessly or deliberately, to the great run of cases.

Back 7

Defective Induction: Hasty Generalization

Front 8

An informal fallacy in which a generalization is applies to individual cases that it does not govern.

Back 8

Presumption: Accident

Front 9

An informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premises.

Back 9

Presumption: Begging the Question (petitio principii)

Front 10

An informal fallacy in which two or more meaning of the same word or phrases have been confused.

Back 10

Ambiguity: Equivocation

Front 11

An informal fallacy committed when a term or phrase had a meaning in the conclusion of an argument different from its meaning in one of the premises, the difference arising chiefly from a change in emphasis given to the words used.

Back 11

Ambiguity: Accent

Front 12

An informal fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself.

Back 12

Ambiguity: Composition

Front 13

An informal fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a while to the attributes of the parts of the whole.

Back 13

Ambiguity: Division

Front 14

deflect the argument by claiming that the other person does the same kind of thing for which one is being criticized. usually used as a defense of one's own position/behavior

Back 14

Relevance: Appeal to Hypocrisy (Tu Quoque)

Front 15

Personal attack based on affiliation; we should take a statement to be false because of the suspected motives or bad faith in the person who proposes it

Back 15

Relevance: Personal Attack/ Poisoning the well (ad hominem circumstantial)

Front 16

use words and positions to try and win by pity points

Back 16

Relevance: Appeal to pity (ad Misericordiam)

Front 17

to falsely assume that there are only 2 options and that if we reject one we MUST embrace the other

Back 17

Presumption: False Dichotomy/dilemma (Bifurcation)

Front 18

uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.

Back 18

Presumption: False Analogy

Front 19

after this, therefore resulting from it: used to indicate that a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one.

Back 19

Presumption: Correlation proves causation (Post-Hoc ergo propter-hoc)

Front 20

a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Back 20

Presumption: Slippery Slope

Front 21

redefining a crucial term in a claim to avoid acknowledging a counterexample that would falsify the claim

Back 21

Ambiguity: Definitional Dodge

Front 22

Adding unnecessary strong descriptions that misguide

Back 22

Presumption: Misleading vividness