False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there
are three options
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be
true, it is assumed to be false
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable
consequences is drawn
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined
as a single proposition
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached
to believing the author
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because
it is widely held to be true
Attacking the Person:
1.the person's character is attacked
2.the person's circumstances are noted
3.the person does not practise what is preached
Appeal to Authority:
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
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not
named
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument
(or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support
an inductive generalization about a population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative
of the sample as a whole
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared
are relevantly dissimilar
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive
argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
Fallacy of Exclusion:evidence which would change the
outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances
suggest that there should be an exception
Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances
where a generalization should apply
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held
to cause the other
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when
in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and
it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect
is reversed
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of
the entire cause of the effect
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed
by the premises
Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one
conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from
(and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different
meanings
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different
interpretations
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning
contrary to what the sentence actually says
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a
whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it
is argued that the parts have that property
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If
A then B, B, therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If
A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory
statements are both true
Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said
to be connected because they share a common property
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks
about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the
term in the predicate
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about
all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term
in the subject
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative
premises
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative
Premise:as the name implies
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn
from universal premises
Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't
exist)
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained
is biased)
Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain
one thing)
Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal
to underlying causes)
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should
not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items
which should be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult
to understand than the word or concept being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term
being defined as a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of a certain proposition. The following fallacies are fallacies of distraction:
False Dilemma (misuse of the "or" operator)
Argument From Ignorance (misuse of the "not" operator)
Slippery Slope (misuse of the "if-then" operator)
Complex Question (misuse of the "and" operator)
The fallacies in this section have in common the practice
of appealing to emotions or other psychological factors. In this way, they
do not provide reasons for belief.
The following fallacies are appeals to motive in place of support:
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Consequences
Prejudicial Language
Appeal to Popularity