I. Fallacies of Ambiguity
A. Amphiboly -- Using a premise that is ambiguous because of
faulty sentence structure.
B. Accent -- Using a premise that is ambiguous because:
1. Its intended tone of voice is uncertain.
2. Its stress is unclear.
3. It is torn from context.
C. Hypostatization -- To treat abstract terms like concrete
ones, sometimes ascribing humanlike properties to them.
D. Equivocation -- Using multiple meanings of the same word.
E. Division -- Arguing that the parts of a whole must have a
certain property because the whole has it.
F. Composition -- Arguing that a whole must have a certain
property because the parts have it.
II. Fallacies of Presumption
A. Overlooking the facts
1. Sweeping Generalization (accident) -- Applying a
generalization that is usually true to an exceptional
case by ignoring the peculiarities of the case.
2. Hasty Generalization (converse accident) -- Drawing a
general conclusion from insufficient evidence.
3. False Dilemma -- Presuming that there are fewer
alternatives than there actually are.
B. Evading the Facts
1. Begging the Question (petitio principii)
i. Offering, as a premise, a simple restatement of the
desired conclusion.
ii. A circular argument, more complex than (i) but
eventually justifying the conclusion with itself.
iii. Subsuming a suspect particular under a
generalization that is even more problematic.
2. Question-Begging Epithets -- Using strongly emotional
language to force home an otherwise unsupported
question.
3. Complex Question -- A question that presumes the truth
of certain statements. E.g.: Have you quit smoking?
4. Special Pleading -- Applying a double standard with
your choice of words. E.g.: I'm proud; you're vain.
C. Distorting the Facts
1. False Analogy -- Reaching a conclusion by likening or
comparing two significantly incomparable cases.
2. False Cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) -- Inferring a
causal link between two events when no such causal
connection has been established.
3. Slippery Slope -- Assuming, unjustifiably, that a
proposed step will set off an undesirable and
uncontrollable chain of events.
4. Irrelevant Thesis (ignoratio elenchi) -- Seeking,
perhaps succeeding, to prove a conclusion not at issue.
i. Red Herring -- Introducing an irrelevant subject to
divert attention away from the real issue.
ii. Attacking a Straw Man -- Mispresenting an opposing
view in a way that is easy to refute.
III. Fallacies of Relevance -- These try to support a conclusion
with something other than actual evidence.
A. Personal Attack (argumentum ad hominem)
1. Genetic Fallacy -- Attacking a thesis, institution, or
idea by attacking its background or origin.
2. Abusive ad Hominem -- Attacking the character of the
opposing speaker rather than her thesis.
3. Circumstantial ad Hominem -- Attacking the opposing
speaker by implying vested interests.
4. Tu Quoque -- Attempting to show that an opponent does
not act in accord with her thesis.
5. Poisoning the Well -- Attempting to preclude discussion
by attacking the credibility of an oppoenent.
B. Mob Appeal (argumentum ad populum) -- Using emotion-laden
terminology to sway people *en masse*.
C. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) -- Trying to
persaude by arousing pity.
D. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) -- Trying
to persaude merely by citing an authority.
1. The Authority of the One
2. The Authority of the Many (Bandwagon argument)
3. The Authority of the Select Few
4. The Authority of Tradition
E. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) -- Claiming
a thesis is true because there is no evidence against it.
F. Appeal to Fear (argumentum ad baculum) -- Seeking to
persaude through fear or the threat of force.
Fergus Duniho