Logical Fallacies

Front 1

Too Narrow

Back 1

The definition does not include all the items which should be included

Front 2

Non-support

Back 2

Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased

Front 3

Subverted Support

Back 3

The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist

Front 4

Existential Fallacy

Back 4

a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Front 5

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise:

Back 5

as the name implies

Front 6

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises

Back 6

a syllogism has two negative premises

Front 7

Illicit Minor

Back 7

the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject

Front 8

Illicit Major

Back 8

the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate

Front 9

Undistributed Middle

Back 9

two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property

Front 10

Fallacy of Four Terms

Back 10

a syllogism has four terms

Front 11

Inconsistency

Back 11

asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Front 12

Denying the Antecedent

Back 12

any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B

Front 13

Affirming the Consequent

Back 13

any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

Front 14

Division

Back 14

because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Front 15

Composition

Back 15

because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

Front 16

Accent

Back 16

the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Front 17

Amphiboly

Back 17

the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations

Front 18

Equivocation

Back 18

the same term is used with two different meanings

Front 19

Straw Man

Back 19

the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Front 20

Irrelevant Conclusion

Back 20

an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion

Front 21

Begging the Question

Back 21

the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Front 22

Complex Cause

Back 22

the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Front 23

Wrong Direction

Back 23

the direction between cause and effect is reversed

Front 24

Insignificant

Back 24

one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect

Front 25

Joint effect

Back 25

one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause

Front 26

Post Hoc

Back 26

because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other

Front 27

Converse Accident

Back 27

an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Front 28

Accident

Back 28

a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception

Front 29

Fallacy of Exclusion

Back 29

evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Front 30

Slothful Induction

Back 30

the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary

Front 31

False Analogy

Back 31

the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Front 32

Unrepresentative Sample

Back 32

the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole

Front 33

Hasty Generalization

Back 33

the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population

Front 34

Style Over Substance

Back 34

the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion

Front 35

Anonymous Authority

Back 35

the authority in question is not named

Front 36

Appeal to Authority

Back 36

1. the authority is not an expert in the field; 2. experts in the field disagree; 3. the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

Front 37

Attacking the Person:

Back 37

1. the person's character is attacked; 2. the person's circumstances are noted; 3. the person does not practise what is preached

Front 38

Popularity

Back 38

a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

Front 39

Prejudicial Language

Back 39

value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author

Front 40

Consequences

Back 40

the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences

Front 41

Appeal to Pity

Back 41

the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy

Front 42

Appeal to Force

Back 42

the reader is persuaded to agree by force

Front 43

Complex Question

Back 43

two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Front 44

Slippery Slope

Back 44

a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn

Front 45

From Ignorance

Back 45

because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

Front 46

False Dilemma

Back 46

two choices are given when in fact there are three options

Front 47

Conflicting Conditions

Back 47

The definition is self-contradictory

Front 48

Circular Definition

Back 48

The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition

Front 49

Failure to Elucidate

Back 49

The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined

Front 50

Too Broad

Back 50

The definition includes items which should not be included

Front 51

Limited Depth

Back 51

The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes

Front 52

Limited Scope

Back 52

The theory which explains can only explain one thing

Front 53

Untestability

Back 53

The theory which explains cannot be tested