Logical Fallacies

Front 1

Non Causa Pro Causa

Back 1

Mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause

Front 2

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Back 2

confusing "after" with "because"-assuming that because x happens AFTER y, y caused x

Front 3

Unrelated Testimonials

Back 3

authorities in one field are used to endorse products in an other field

Front 4

Questionable Authority

Back 4

"studies show..."; "experts claim..."

Front 5

Non-Sequitur

Back 5

Conclusion does not follow the evidence

Front 6

Begging the Question (or circular reasoning)

Back 6

Beginning with a premise that is acceptable only to anyone who will agree witht he conclusion that is subsequently reached

Front 7

False Premise

Back 7

Beginning with false assumption that the audience is made to believe is true

Front 8

False Generalization

Back 8

Using "all," "everyone," "always," "never," etc.-offering a generalization based on incomplete for nonexistent evidence

Front 9

Fishing for Data (Post-Designation)

Back 9

Draws a conclusion from correlations observed in a sample, but only after the sample has already been drawn

Front 10

Hasty Generalization

Back 10

Draws a conclusion from a sample that is too small, i.e. is made up of too few cases

Front 11

False analogy

Back 11

Using an analogy to make a comparison and then reasoning from comparison as if it were a fact; makes error or assuming because 2 things are alike in one way, they are alike in all ways

Front 12

Reasoning Backward

Back 12

Assumes that because members of a particular group have a characteristic in common, anyone with that characteristic must belong to the group

Front 13

Ambiguous Reference

Back 13

Reference with multiple/unclear meanings ("I shot a panda in my pyjamas")

Front 14

Appeal to Ignorance

Back 14

Argument mistakes lack of evidence for evidence to the contrary ("No one knows it is true. Therefore it is false.")

Front 15

Appeal to Tradition

Back 15

Supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as it the past itself were an authority

Front 16

Black and White Thinking *(or False Dilemma)

Back 16

Leaps from falsity of one position to the truth of its contrary w/o middle ground

Front 17

Dicto Simpliciter

Back 17

Draws conclusion from over-simplistic statement of a rule
Destroying exception by insisting on the rule; or
Destroying rule by insisting on exception

Front 18

Complex Question

Back 18

Rhetorical question that, when answered, is admitting something that should not be admitted

Front 19

Tu Quoque

Back 19

Supports position by showing that its shortcomings are shard by an opposing position ("Mine's bad, but your's is just as bad.")

Front 20

Straw Man

Back 20

Misrepresents position that it seeks to refute

Front 21

Phantom Distinction

Back 21

Appeals to a distinction that ultimately cannot be explained or defended in a meaningful way

Front 22

Speculative Evidence

Back 22

Draws conclusion from an assertion about what the evidence WOULD show if someone were to look at it

Front 23

Inductive Hyperbole

Back 23

Draws a conclusion that is stated more strongly than the evidence actually supports

Front 24

Distributive Fallacy

Back 24

Turns on a confusion of the collective sense of a class with the distributive sense of a class
Composition-moves from parts to whole; or
Division-moves from whole to parts

Front 25

Anecdotal Evidence

Back 25

Draws evidence from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion

Front 26

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Back 26

From a statement of fact, argument draws a counterfactual claim

Front 27

Vacuous Explanation

Back 27

Proposes an explanation w/o clear meaning ("whatever explains the phenomenon...")

Front 28

Ad Hominem-Abusive

Back 28

Attacks a position by appealing to despicable qualities and over-all lowness of people who hole position

Front 29

Ad Hominem-Circumstantial

Back 29

Attacks position by appealing to vested interests of people who hold the position

Front 30

Hitting Below the Belt

Back 30

Attacking opposition's life, family, appearence, etc.

Front 31

Damning with Faint Praise

Back 31

"attacks" a position by complimenting or praising opponent unenthusiastically

Front 32

Jingoism/Appeal to Patriotism

Back 32

Attempts to persuade by calling one's community spirit

Front 33

Appeal to Force

Back 33

Explicit or veiled threat

Front 34

Appeal to Hope/Wishful Thinking

Back 34

Attempts to persuade by invoking hopes and desires

Front 35

Appeal to Pity

Back 35

Attempts to persuade by provoking feelings of sympathy

Front 36

Bandwagon

Back 36

Suggests something is true because everone else believes it is

Front 37

Slippery Slope

Back 37

Says taking one action will inevitably lead to an undesireable conclusion

Front 38

Naturalistic Fallacy

Back 38

Arguing something because it is or isn't "natural"