Philosophy 110 Fallacies

Front 1

A group of statements, one or more of which, the premises, support or provide evidence for the conclusion.

Back 1

Argument

Front 2

The statements that together constitute the reasons for believing the conclusion to be true.

Back 2

Premises

Front 3

therefore, consequently, ultimately, hence, so, then, it follows that.

Back 3

Conclusion follows words such as

Front 4

In an argument, there can be several statements that are supported by other statements

Back 4

Subpremises

Front 5

Claims are opinions; it is a question in whether our opinions are supported or unsupported.

Back 5

An argument is a supported opinion.
An opinion is an unsupported claim.

Front 6

An argument whose form is such that the conclusion follows with logical necessity from its premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Back 6

Deductive Argument

Front 7

An argument in which the premises are supposed to provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion does not follow with logical necessity from its premises even if the premises are true (goes beyond the evidence provided in the premises).

Back 7

Inductive Argument

Front 8

An argument that will have most or all of the features of an ordinary argument, but it must have a moral premise; which a particular moral judgment is drawn in the conclusion.

Back 8

Moral Argument

Front 9

How to create a moral argument and conclusion

Back 9

A moral premise provides a general principle, rule, or standard for behavior where a moral conclusion can be drawn. Without a strong moral premise, no moral conclusion can be drawn; because it is not logical to move from a factual claim (“is” claim), to a moral claim (“ought” claim). This would be known as committing the is-ought fallacy.

Front 10

An argument that contains a reference to a governing law, legal precedent or procedural standard in at least one premise and in the conclusion.

Back 10

Legal Argument

Front 11

An argument that attempts to lead others to a judgment about beauty or artistic merit. This type of argument occurs every single day of our lives.

Back 11

Aesthetic Argument

Front 12

1. Well-formed Structure
2. Premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion
3. Premises that are acceptable to a reasonable person
4. Premises that together constitute sufficient ground for the truth of the conclusion
5. Premises that provide an effective rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms of the argument.

Back 12

Criteria of a Good Argument

Front 13

A violation of one of the criteria of a good argument.
1. Structural flaw in the argument
2. A Premise that is irrelevant to the conclusion
3. A premise that fails to meet the standards of acceptability
4. A set of premises that together is insufficient to establish the arguments conclusion
5. A failure to give an effective rebuttal to the anticipated criticisms of the argument.

Back 13

Fallacy

Front 14

Structural Fallacy.
Either openly or implicitly asserting, in the premise of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of an argument.

Back 14

Arguing in a Circle

Front 15

Structural Fallacy.
Discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a position on the very question at issue, in such a way as to direct the listener to that same conclusion.

Back 15

Question Begging Language

Front 16

Structural Fallacy.
Formulating a question in a way that inappropriately presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to an unasked question about an open issue or that treats a series of questions as if the same answer will be given to each of the questions in the series.

Back 16

Complex Question

Front 17

Structural Fallacy.
Using highly questionable definition, disguised as an irrefutable premise, which has the effect of making the claim at issue by definition.

Back 17

Question-Begging Definition

Front 18

Structural Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion from inconsistent or incompatible premises.

Back 18

Incompatible Premises

Front 19

Structural Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion that is incompatible with at least one of the premises.

Back 19

Contradiction Between Premise and Conclusion

Front 20

Structural Fallacy.
Denying the predecessor of a conditional statement and then concluding the denial of the consequential.

Back 20

Denying the Antecedent

Front 21

Structural Fallacy.
Affirming the consequent of a conditional statement and then inferring the affirmation of the antecedent.

Back 21

Affirming the Consequent

Front 22

Structural Fallacy.
Reversing the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement (or exchanging the subject and predicate terms in a universal affirmative statement) and then inferring that these converted statements retain their original truth value.

Back 22

False Conversion

Front 23

Structural Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion in a syllogism in which the middle term in the premises is not distributed at least once.

Back 23

Undistributed Middle Term

Front 24

Structural Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion in a syllogism in which a distributed end term in the conclusion is not distributed in the premises.

Back 24

Illicit Distribution of an End Term

Front 25

Relevance Fallacy.
Evaluating a thing in terms of earlier context and then carrying over that evaluation to the thing in the present, while ignoring relevant changes that alter its character in the interim.

Back 25

Genetic Fallacy

Front 26

Relevance Fallacy.
Using plausible-sounding but usually fake reasons to justify a particular position that is held on other, less respectable grounds.

Back 26

Rationalization

Front 27

Relevance Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence presented in the argument.

Back 27

Drawing the Wrong Conclusions

Front 28

Relevance Fallacy.
Attempting to support a claim with reasons other than the reasons appropriate to the claim.

Back 28

Using the Wrong Reason

Front 29

Relevance Fallacy.
Attempting to support claim by appealing to the judgment of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgment of an unidentified authority, or the judgment of an authority who is likely biased.

Back 29

Appeal to Irrelevant Authority

Front 30

Relevance Fallacy.
Urging the acceptance of apposition simply on the grounds that a large number of people accept it urging the rejection of a position on the grounds that very few people accept it.

Back 30

Appeal to Common Opinion

Front 31

Relevance Fallacy.
Attempting to persuade others of a position by threatening them with an undesirable state of affairs instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.

Back 31

Appeal to Force or Threat

Front 32

Relevance Fallacy.
Attempting to persuade others of a point of view by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for a tradition instead of to evidence, especially when a more important principle or issue is at stake.

Back 32

Appeal to Tradition

Front 33

Relevance Fallacy.
Attempting to persuade other to accept a position by exploiting their emotions instead of presenting evidence for the position.

Back 33

Manipulation of Emotion

Front 34

Acceptability Fallacy.
Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

Back 34

Equivocation

Front 35

Acceptability Fallacy.
Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by presenting a claim or argument that uses a word, phrase or grammatical construction that can be interpreted in two or more distinctly different ways, without making clear which meaning is intended.

Back 35

Ambiguity

Front 36

Acceptability Fallacy.
Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by placing improper or unusual emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue of claim.

Back 36

Misleading Accent

Front 37

Acceptability Fallacy.
A listener’s inferring from another’s claim a related but unstated contrasting claim by improperly placing unusual emphasis on a word or phrase in the speaker’s or writer’s statement.

Back 37

Illicit Contrast

Front 38

Acceptability Fallacy.
Directing another person toward a particular, usually derogatory, conclusion by a skillful choice of words that implicitly suggests but does not assert that conclusion.

Back 38

Argument of Innuendo

Front 39

Acceptability Fallacy.
Attempting to establish a position by means of a vague expression or drawing an unjustified conclusion as a result of assigning a precise meaning to another’s word or phrase that is imprecise in its meaning or range of application.

Back 39

Misuse of a Vague Expression

Front 40

Acceptability Fallacy.
Attempting to defend an action or position as different from another one, with which it might be confused by means of a careful distinction of language, when the action or position defended is no different in substance from the one from which it is linguistically distinguished.

Back 40

Distinction Without a Difference

Front 41

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that small movements or difference on a continuum between a thing and its contrary have a negligible effect and that to make definite distinctions between points on that line is impossible or at least random.

Back 41

Fallacy of Continuum

Front 42

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that what is true of parts of the whole is therefore true of the whole.

Back 42

Fallacy of Composition

Front 43

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that what is true of the whole is therefore true of each part of the whole.

Back 43

Fallacy of Division

Front 44

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that because something is now the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, assuming that because something is not now the practice, it ought not to be the practice.

Back 44

Is-Ought Fallacy

Front 45

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that because one wants something to be true, it is or will be true. Conversely, assuming that because one does not want something to be true, then it is not or will not be true.

Back 45

Wishful Thinking

Front 46

Acceptability Fallacy.
Misapplying a principle or rule in a particular instance by assuming that is has no exceptions. Conversely, attempting to refute a principle or rule by means of an exceptional case.

Back 46

Misuse of a Principle

Front 47

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it is the middle view.

Back 47

Fallacy of the Mean

Front 48

Acceptability Fallacy.
Assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they necessarily are alike in some other important respect, while failing to recognize the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities.

Back 48

False Analogy

Front 49

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases.

Back 49

Insufficient Sample

Front 50

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Drawing a conclusion based on data from an unrepresentative or biased sample.

Back 50

Unrepresentative Data

Front 51

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Arguing for the truth (or falsity) of a claim because there is no evidence or proof to the contrary or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence to the contrary.

Back 51

Arguing From Ignorance

Front 52

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Treating a hypothetical claim as if it were a statement of fact by making a claim, without sufficient evidence, about what would have happened in the past if other conditions had been present or about an event that will occur in the future.

Back 52

Contrary-To-Fact Hypothesis

Front 53

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Appealing to insights expressed in clichés, folk wisdom, or so-called common sense instead of to relevant evidence for a claim.

Back 53

Fallacy of Popular Wisdom

Front 54

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of personal interest, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception.

Back 54

Special Pleading

Front 55

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Constructing an arguing that fails to include key evidence that is critical to the support of the conclusion.

Back 55

Omission of Key Evidence

Front 56

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Assuming that a necessary condition of an event is also a sufficient one.

Back 56

Confusion of A Necessary with a Sucient.

Front 57

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Oversimplifying the casual antecedents of an event by specifying casual factors that are insufficient to account for the event in question or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of those factors.

Back 57

Casual Oversimplification

Front 58

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Assuming that a particular event, B is caused by another event , A simply because B follows A in time.

Back 58

Post Hoc Fallacy

Front 59

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Confusing the cause with the effect of an event.

Back 59

Confusion of Cause and Effect

Front 60

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Failing to recognize that two seemingly related events may not be casually related at all, but rather are effects of a common cause.

Back 60

Neglect of a Common Cause

Front 61

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to a specific, usually undesirable, consequences.

Back 61

Domino Fallacy

Front 62

Sufficiency Fallacy.
Arguing that because a chance event has had a certain run in the past, the probability of its occurrence in the future is significantly altered.

Back 62

Gambler’s Fallacy

Front 63

Rebuttal Fallacy.Refusing to consider seriously or unfairly minimizing the evidence that is brought against one’s claim.

Back 63

Denying the Counterevidence

Front 64

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Attacking one’s opponent in a personal or abusive way as a means of ignoring or discrediting his or her criticism or argument.

Back 64

Abusive Ad Hominem

Front 65

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Rejecting the criticism or argument presented by another person because of his or her personal circumstances or improper motives.

Back 65

Poisoning the Well

Front 66

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Rejecting a criticism of one’s argument or actions by accusing one’s critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way.

Back 66

Two-Wrongs Fallacy

Front 67

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Misrepresenting an opponent’s position or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack.

Back 67

Attacking the Straw Man

Front 68

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Attacking an opponent’s position by focusing critical attention on a minor point in the argument.

Back 68

Trivial Objections

Front 69

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue.

Back 69

Red Herring

Front 70

Rebuttal Fallacy.
Injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effect to cover up an inability or willingness to respond appropriately to an opponent’s criticism or counterargument.

Back 70

Resort to Humor or Ridicule