Fallacy Frenzy amnesia

							       Fallacy
       Frenzy
An alliterative approach to Analysis of Arguments…argh..
                         Important!


                                    *
     *Indicates that this is a major fallacy or term that you need to know
If it doesn’t have an asterisk, then it is a subdivision of a fallacy or a minor
    fallacy, and as long as you recognize there’s a problem, you can just say
     it’s a logical fallacy. You don’t have to memorize everything for the AP
                                         exam.
 What’s it all about, Alfie?
• A fallacy is an error in argument that renders the argument unacceptable
• A material (significant) fallacy may occur for several reasons:
  *how the writer/speaker expresses it
  *the contents of the expression
  *some other reason that doesn’t seem to fit into the other categories (ex:
  the speaker may express it unfairly, or it may shift the grounds of
  evidence)
   Why is all this important?
• It’s more than just a win on Jeopardy!
• If the premise of our text is true and “Everything’s an Argument,” we need
  to approach everything we read, see, and hear with a discerning eye.
• Studying the fallacies helps us make more informed decisions.
     Before you start pointing
             fingers…
• Ask yourself the following questions:
• Do you understand the literal meaning of the message itself, and do you
  recognize the limitations and judgments created by the use of modifying
  words? (denotation)
• Do you understand any hidden implications, metaphors and allusions,
  significance of syntax and diction? Regardless of its literal meaning, what
  impression does the argument give, and what attitudes does it convey?
  (connotation)
• Can you keep your own personal wishes and biases from influencing how
  you understand the message itself? Can you refrain from making too
  many assumptions about what a term or argument must mean?
• If you answer no to any of those questions, you might be letting others do
  your thinking for you…manipulating you!
                         Attention!
• We might argue that constantly staying on guard against manipulation
  constitutes the biggest lesson you can learn from all of this Latin
  menagerie (in some cases) of vocabulary terms.
• Don’t let the arguer (your friends, politicians, employers, advertisers,
  pretty much anybody and everybody out there) put one over on you
  without your realization of it.
            Don’t go overboard
• Sometimes, in studying these errors in analysis, we can go from complete
  oblivion to complete paranoia.
• Don’t throw out good arguments with the bad just because you have a
  tendency to see error in everything…or the baby with the bathwater.
• Oops…was that a fallacy? Who knows?
            Inductive Reasoning
• Inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general.
• Inductive reasoning involves making a conclusion based on a set of
  empirical data. If one observes that something is true many times,
  concluding that it will be true in all instances, he has used inductive
  reasoning. Example:
• All sheep that I've seen are white
• All sheep must be white
• This example makes inductive reasoning seem useless, but a writer can
  make powerful use of it.
• Most scientific discoveries come about through use of inductive
  reasoning. A majority of mathematical discoveries come about from
  conclusions made with inductive reasoning, or observation. But the key
  word is "discovery." With induction something can be discovered but not
  proven.
                               More…
• The general flow of events is like this: a)make observations b)form
  conclusions from empirical data c)prove conclusions with deductive
  reasoning. So if I notice that all triangles I come across have 180 degrees,
  through inductive reasoning I may form a hypothesis that *all* triangles
  have 180 degrees. But now that inductive reasoning has pointed me in the
  right direction, deductive reasoning allows me to prove my hypothesis as
  fact. There is just too much data out there to gather, to just go around
  blindly using deductive reasoning. Induction allows us to mine the data,
  and points out significant bits of information. From there we can prove
  things and form hard facts.
             Deductive reasoning
• Deductive reasoning starts with a general rule, a premise, which we know
  to be true, or we accept it to be true for the circumstances. Then from
  that rule, we make a conclusion about something specific. Example:
• All turtles have shells.
• The animal I have captured is a turtle .
• I conclude that the animal in my bag has a shell.
• A conclusion reached with deductive reasoning is logically sound, and
  airtight, assuming the premise is true. Deductive reasoning is fully
  convincing when it is based on a definition. If “by definition.” a penny is a
  flat disc, copper in color and has a profile of Honest Abe on it, then I can
  be sure the penny in my pocket has those qualities.
• The obvious strength of deductive reasoning is that conclusions derived
  with it are fully certain. The weakness, which was illustrated in the most
  recent example, is that no new information is added. The fact that the
  penny in my pocket is a copper disc with Lincoln on it was clear from the
  initial data, so the conclusion hasn't added any new information.
General Category 1:
Fallacies of Relevance (or Irrelevance)
       *Fallacies of relevance (or
              irrevelance)
• Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with
  information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the
  matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant
  appeal, many different ways of influencing what people think
  without using evidence. Each is a different type of fallacy of
  relevance.
• In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer
  evidence that supports it. These arguments don’t; the
  considerations that they are irrelevant to determining
  whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by
  such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if
  they don’t have any evidential value.
• They often rely on emotion, prejudice, fear, or other irrational
  influences rather than use facts or real reasons as supports.
        A word about analogies…
• Analogies comprise one of the most common and valid teaching methods
  for arguing because they use a known entity to clarify an unknown or
  controversial point.
• George Herbert: “…people by what they understand are best led to what
  they understand not.”
  Samuel Johnson: “To illustrate one thing by its resemblance to another
  has been always the most popular and efficacious art of instruction.”
      Great uses of analogies…
• To clarify or explain ideas, especially when abstract
• They can allow us to see the “form and shape of a thought.”
• To explain a thought process
• To establish the aptness of a conclusion
• A good analogy serves to establish reasonable probability for
  the conclusion or point being compared—never inescapable
  certainty.
• To use one correctly, we must also recognize the essential
  unlikeness between the point at issue and the image of the
  analogy (called the vehicle or sometimes the phoros).
• However like two lines of thought may be, they can never
  actually be the same.
•
                                       pari
                               *A and represent no crime or immorality,
    If circumstances are exactly alike
  comparing one item to another can be a legitimate form of reasoning
  called a pari.
• A pari reasoning makes an inference based on or supported by the same
  evidence which supports an EXACTLY comparable known fact or given
  premise.
• “Since the evidence supports conclusion A, it must in the same way
  support conclusion B, because the two circumstances are equally and
  sufficiently comparable.
           Problems with a pari
• What if the circumstances really AREN’T comparable enough to support
  the inference?
• What if the conclusions are unjust or immoral (a circumstance which
  would create a tu quoque fallacy—you’ll see that in a few minutes).
                       *a fortiori
• This fallacy argues for a conclusion supported by even stronger evidences
  or reasons than those supporting a known or given comparable premise.
• “Since this evidence supports conclusion A, how much more strongly do
  these greater evidences support a similar conclusion (B).
      Examples of a fortiori
• Since we gave an award to the Webster team for
  improving quality by 12%, it is obvious that the Hayes
  team should receive an even bigger award since they
  improved quality by 25%.
• If we are going to increase the penalty for using a
  gun threateningly during a crime, we seem to have
  all the more reason to increase the penalty for
  actually shooting someone during a crime.
• This line of reasoning appears frequently in the
  parables of Jesus: Matthew 6:28-30 and 10:29-31;
  Romans 5:8-10 and 5:15-17; Luke 12:24 and 12:27-
  28.
                  False Analogy
• A faulty analogy, on the other hand, may have insignificant or
  irrelevant similarities:
• Taking a car out of this whole parking lot is like taking a fish
  out of a whole ocean full of fish.
• Not exactly—by fishing, a person isn’t technically stealing.
  Cars have individual owners; cars are not self-reproducing and
  replenishing; a parking lot doesn’t really resemble an ocean.

• Sometimes, there may be only one similarity and it may be
  more metaphorical than real:
• Copying your term paper from a website is just like an artist
  copying nature onto his canvas; who would object to that?
• Shooting these sick people is like brushing your teeth; it rids
  the world of germs.
         To test an analogy:
• Are the similarities significant? Are they pertinent?
  (as opposed to minor and superficial)
• Are there multiple points of similarity, and are they
  more significant than the points of differentiation?
• Does the analogy argue well for the proposed
  conclusion, or could one use it to argue for another
  or opposite conclusion?
• How much strength does the arguer claim for the
  conclusion? Does he say that it’s possible, probable,
  exactly the same, conclusive?
             Naturalistic Fallacy
•   There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact
    which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe
    the way that the world ought to be.
•   The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter
    (how the world ought to be) kind from a statement of the former (how the world
    actually is) kind.
•   First, arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The
    argument, “(1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a
    philosopher” is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the
    premises. Why? The conclusion contains an idea—that of being a philosopher—
    that isn’t contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a
    philosopher and thus cannot establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.
•   One could say that arguments committing the naturalistic fallacy contain exactly
    the same flaw. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the
    world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be,
    introduces a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above
    example. If the premises merely describe the way that the world is, then they say
    nothing about the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot
    establish any value judgment; you can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”
                            Examples
• (1) Feeling envy is only natural.
  Therefore:
  (2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling envy.
• This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgment and
  therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy. The argument’s premise simply
  describes the way that the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel
  envious. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of
  the way that it ought to be. The argument’s conclusion, then, a value
  judgment, cannot be supported by its premises.
• Important: Much respectable moral argument commits the naturalistic
  fallacy.
                  Appeal to Nature
• Related to the Naturalistic Fallacy.
• This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with
  "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with
  nature is bad. Aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even
  means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong
  are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire
  might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans
  do these things all the time and to great benefit.
• The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of
  naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or
  resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It
  can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases,
  there may be a (possibly unidentifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it
  is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are
  part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks;
  therefore, it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might
  damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this
  approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human
  survival.
                Argumentum ad antiquitatum
                  argumentum ad novitam
• Argument from Age or Argument to Novelty
• The fallacy that very old (or very young) arguments are superior. This is a variation
  of the Genetic Fallacy, but has the psychological appeal of seniority and tradition
  (or innovation). Products labeled "New” and “Improved" appeal to a belief that
  innovation increases the value of such products. It's sometimes true. And then
  there's cans of "Old Fashioned Baked Beans.”
• Also, a fallacy which insists that something is right or which labels ideas from
  other sources (in other words, conceived elsewhere) as unwelcome simply
  because “This is the way we’ve always done it.”
• It gets a psychological boost from feelings that local ways are superior, that local
  identity is worth any cost, or that innovations will upset matters.
• An example of this is the common assertion that America has "the best health
  care system in the world,” an idea that a 2007 New York Times editorial refuted.
• People who use the Not Invented Here argument are sometimes accused of being
  stick-in-the-mud's.
• Conversely, foreign and "imported" things may be held out as superior.
             Moralistic Fallacy
• The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The
  naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to
  statements of how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does
  the reverse.
• The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about how things
  ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that
  the world is as it should be. Doing so, sadly, can be fallacious;
  sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be.
• For example, an individual crosses a one-way street without looking
  in both directions.
• He does so, reasoning that people shouldn’t be driving the wrong
  way up a one way street so there’s no risk of being run over from
  that direction.
• He has committed the moralistic fallacy. Sometimes things aren’t as
  they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in directions that they
  shouldn’t. The rules of the road don’t necessarily describe actual
  driving practices.
               Genetic Fallacy
• This refers to a broad category of fallacies (some of which may
  overlap with others).
• The genetic fallacy occurs when one either accepts or rejects
  because of its source, rather than its merit.
• Even from bad things, good may come; one therefore ought
  not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as
  ad hominem arguments do.
• Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad
  results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its
  source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than
  rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both
  types of argument are fallacious.
                    Examples…
• (1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
  Therefore:
  (2) The tooth fairy is real.
• (1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
  Therefore:
  (2) Eugenics is a bad thing.
• Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy,
  because each judges an idea by the goodness or badness of
  its source, rather than on its own merits.
                Ignoratio elenchi
• Translation: missing the point, irrelevant thesis, ignoring the issue, red
  herring, irrelevant conclusion, diversion, oversimplification, irrelevant
  proof
• If the writer can’t disprove the point, he just shifts it to something that he
  can prove or disprove and implies that he has actually dealt with his
  original premise
• Attraction: it does prove something, and that something may be so
  closely related that the reader accepts it
                            Examples
• We should accept this student to our medical intern program. After all,
  we let his father in, and he did well and brought prestige to our institution.
• What do you mean you don’t think I love you? I’ve been supporting you
  and the kids for twenty years!
• You were wrong; this report says that the pesticide Sevin breaks down in
  just two days; that proves I was right and it’s completely safe to bathe your
  dogs with it.
• This form of dysentery results from amoeba, not bacterium, as you
  thought; therefore, your idea to help prevent it by eating peelable fruit
  and drinking boiled water is useless.
• “So far, nuclear power plants have had a good safety record.” “Tell that to
  the people of Nagasaki—I suppose you want a nuclear missile in every
  backyard, too.”
                        Red Herring
• Also known as the smoke screen or wild goose chase
• The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of
  using smoked herrings, red from the smoking process, to distract hounds
  from the scent of their quarry. (Just as one may prevent a hound from
  catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so may prevent a
  writer/speaker from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential
  issue.)
• A red herring involves introducing an irrelevant topic is to divert attention
  from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading
  attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of
  "reasoning" has the following form:
• Topic A is under discussion.
• Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when
  topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
• Topic A is abandoned.
• Merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument
  against a claim.
                         Examples
• "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter
  for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too.
  After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our
  salaries affected.“
• "You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in Team
  A’s expense cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something
  like it, because If our team is going to survive around here, we
  have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Team A,
  since that seems to be what management wants.“
                Fast Talking…
• Rapid fire delivery--If a speaker goes from one idea to the
  next quickly enough, the audience won't have time to think.
  This concept is connected to Changing The Subject and (to
  some audiences) Argument By Personal Charm.
• Some psychologists say that to understand what you hear, you
  must for a brief moment believe it. If this is true, then rapid
  delivery does not leave people time to reject what they hear.
         Argument by Slogan and
                 Jargon
• Slogan--If it's short, and connects to an argument, it must be an argument.
  (But slogans risk the Reductive Fallacy.) Being short, a slogan increases the
  effectiveness of Argument By Repetition. It also helps Argument By
  Emotive Language (Appeal To The People), since emotional appeals need
  to be punchy. (Also, the gallery can chant a short slogan.) Using an old
  slogan is Cliche Thinking.

• Jargon—This fallacy involves using language specifically associated with a
  particular field of occupation or study or using big, complicated words
  (sesquipedalianism) so that the writer will appear expert.
• For example, why do people use utilize when they could simply utilize use?
• In an instance from a particular field of study, some scientists used to
  claim they had a Unified Field Theory (after Einstein). Next, the word
  Quantum was popular. Lately, scientists prefer Zero Point Fields.
• More on both in the Sentence Style Slide Show!
        Argument by Prestigious
•
                             Jargon doublethink).
   Also known as doublespeak (from Orwell, originally
• This is the extreme version of Argument By Prestigious Jargon. An invented
  vocabulary helps the effect, and some use lots of CAPitaLIZation. However,
  a writer can use perfectly ordinary words to baffle.
• For example, "Omniscience is greater than omnipotence, and the
  difference is two. Omnipotence plus two equals omniscience. META = 2."
  [From R. Buckminster Fuller's No More Secondhand God.]
• Gibberish may come from people who can't find meaning in technical
  jargon, so they think they should copy style instead of meaning.
• It can also be a "snow job,” AKA "baffle them with BS,” by someone
  actually familiar with the jargon.
• Or it could be Argument By Poetic Language.
• An example of poetic gibberish: "Each autonomous individual emerges
  holographically within egoless ontological consciousness as a non-
  dimensional geometric point within the transcendental thought-wave
  matrix."
• Again, more of this in the Sentence Style Slide Show!
          Suppressed Evidence
• A fallacy in which the writer doesn’t present the whole story.
  This fallacy is a subcategory that may involve either or both
  the one-sided argument and ambiguity.
• This is hard to detect, of course. You have to ask questions.
  For example, an amazingly accurate "prophecy" of the
  assassination attempt on President Reagan was shown on TV.
  But was the tape recorded before or after the event ? Many
  stations did not ask this question. (It was recorded
  afterwards.)
• A book on "sea mysteries" or the "Bermuda Triangle" might
  tell us that the yacht Connemara IV was found drifting
  crewless, southeast of Bermuda, on September 26, 1955.
  None of these books mention that the yacht had been directly
  in the path of Hurricane Iona, with 180 mph winds and 40-
  foot waves.
                Special Pleading
• AKA stacking the deck, failing to recognize the counterargument, or
  biased argumentation
• Using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow
  disallowing the arguments against.
• Uri Geller used special pleading when he claimed that the presence of
  unbelievers (such as stage magicians) made him unable to demonstrate
  his psychic powers.
       NCTE Doublespeak Awards
• All of the above examples might constitute Doublespeak in one way or
  another.
• For more info, see Sentence Style Slide Show!
             Argument from Final
                Consequences
• Also called teleological
• based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that
  something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is
  serves.
• For example: God must exist, because otherwise, life would have no
  meaning.
                    Examples…
• Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often
  overemphasize how much we do not know about the human
  brain.
• UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the
  sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
      Argumentum ad Vericundiam
• Translation: Appeal to Prestige/Authority
• This fallacy associates an argument or conclusion with the fame,
  reputation, or prestige of some person or institution.
• Makes an equation between some sort of status and proof
• Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of
  experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a
  specific claim.
• "Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (But a
  statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or
  perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his
  statement in some specific context. And so on.)
• To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact
  quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, and if
  the arguer can produce the source of his quote.
                    More info…
• ***NOTE: IT CAN be reasonably grounded when the person
  or institution involved has some set of associated credentials.
• For example, it is reasonable to give more credence to the
  claims of those with the proper background, education, and
  credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone
  making authoritative statements in an area for which they
  cannot demonstrate expertise.
• But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and
  evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
           Appeal to Anonymous
                Authority
• The writer makes an appeal to authority but either fails or
  refuses to name the source.
• For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even
  "they say ..".
• This qualifier makes the information impossible to verify and
  brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself
  doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just
  be spreading a rumor.
• The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor.
    Appeal to False Authority
• In this case, the authority speaks outside his area of expertise.
  For example, "Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller
  extensively and found no evidence of trickery or fraud in his
  feats." Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of
  the kind used by stage magicians. Taylor later admitted Geller
  had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how.
• A variation is to appeal to a non-existent authority. For
  example, someone reading an article by Creationist Dmitri
  Kuznetsov tried to look up the referenced articles. Some of
  the articles turned out to be in non-existent journals.
                          More…
• Another variation is to misquote a real authority. There are
  several kinds of misquotation.
• A quote can be inexact or have been edited.
• It can be taken out of context. (Chevy Chase: "Yes, I said that,
  but I was singing a song written by someone else at the
  time.")
• The quote can be separate quotes which the arguer glued
  together. Or, bits might have gone missing.
• For example, it's easy to prove that Mick Jagger is an assassin.
  In "Sympathy For The Devil" he sang: "I shouted out, who
  killed the Kennedys, When after all, it was ... me."
        Argumentum ad Hominem
• Tranalation: “to the man”
• attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.
• For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts
  are worthless because he is a convicted forger and
  embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're
  worthless.)
• A common form is an attack on the speaker’s sincerity. For
  example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you
  wear leather shoes?" This overlaps with the tu quoque
  fallacy.
               More examples…
• A variation which combines the ad hominem attack with the
  hasty generalization is to attack a whole class of people.
• For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the
  materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism.“
• Similarly, a writer might try to eliminate an entire category of
  evidence in an opponent’s argument by announcing "All the
  scientists were drunk."
• Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists
  tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"
• There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In
  order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my
  opponent's drinking problem."
• Or "I don't care if other people say you're
  [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."
        Techniques of the ad hominem
• Attacks don't have to be strong or direct.
• The writer can merely show disrespect or cut down the
  opponent’s stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a
  lot (or showing some other sign of nervous apprehension) or
  that he has forgotten a previously held position.
• Some examples:
• "I used to think that way when I was your age."
• "You're new here, aren't you ?"
• "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you ?"
• "What drives you to make such a statement ?"
• "If you'd just listen.."
• "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have
  been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to
  be heard.)
             A few more tidbits…
• Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence.
• For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no
  problem seeing my point of view."
• "Even you should understand my next point."

• Oddly, the stupidity attack is sometimes reversed.
• For example, dismissing a comment with "Well, you're just
  smarter than the rest of us." This is Dismissal By Differentness.

• Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility
  of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its
  presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is
  undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this
  category of attacks.
                Poisoning the well…
• A variation of the ad hominem attack, this fallacy discredits the other person or his
  argument before he has a chance to present it.
• The writer can discredit his opponent in many ways. Name calling, slander,
  defamation, attack on intelligent, mental state, etc. He can discredit the argument
  by indicating how it is patently absurd, proven to be false or that only supported by
  the ignorant/uninformed.
• Tony will tell you something else, but then he always lived on the other side of the
  tracks.
• Mike doesn't have a degree, but he does speak nicely, doesn't he?
• Only an idiot would consider Didactus to have any useful opinion.
• Everybody knows that cold fusion is a proven impossibility. Jack: did you have
  something to say on this?
• By discrediting the other person, the writer/speaker also effectively discredits any
  of his ideas. If the opponent is present, public attack forces them onto the
  defensive by socially obliging them to respond first to the attack and hence
  distracting them from their main argument. If the other person is not there, then
  he cannot defend himself at all.
• Personal attack always has its hazards; others may well leap to his defense.
               Reductio ad absurdum
• This fallacy, a form of ad hominem attack, involves mocking, making fun of, or
  getting people to laugh at the opponent’s claim.
• X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.
• Alternatively, a writer might mock the alternatives his opponent might choose
  and allow the opponent only one option that he has not mocked.
• Ex: Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!
• Ex: Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here.
• Ex: Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey.
• Ridiculing something involves placing it on a lower social position. If a person is
  associated with that thing, then he, too, descends to that lower position. When
  others see a person in a lower social position, they will not associate
  themselves with that person, for fear of being dragged down to similar status,
  as well. The original person knows this and will seek to avoid loss of social
  status.
• The ridiculed thing is thus poisoned and made undesirable, and people will
  distance themselves from it.
                    Argumentum ad Baculum
• Translation—Appeal to Force, Ad Metum, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
• The writer presents X. It causes fear. Therefore Y (which has some relationship to X)
  is true.
• Usually, the writer issues some form of threat, which may aim at the person or may
  aim at something/someone about which they care. The threat may be physical,
  emotional or spiritual.
• This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because creating fear in people does not
  constitute evidence for a claim.
• We must distinguish between a rational reason to believe (evidence) and a
  prudential reason to believe (motivation). A rational reason involves evidence that
  objectively and logically supports the claim. A prudential reason is a reason to
  accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a
  benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) relevant to what a person values
  but irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.
• For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your department
  chairperson because you fear he will make life tough for you. However, this does
  not provide evidence for the claim that the son deserves to pass the class.
                More examples…
• "You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this
  class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to
  discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyway, visiting my
  father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
• "I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present
  for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out.
  Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift
  idea?"
• You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not
  accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of
  hell."
• "You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the
  chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive
  tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply
  wrong to speak out against it."
                   Appeal to Consequences
• An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal
  either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of
  disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments
  are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is
  the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is
  best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be
  false as true.
• Ex: Appeal to Good Consequences:
• (1) If believe in God then you’ll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you’ve never
  felt before.
  Therefore:
  (2) God exists.
• Ex: Appeal to Bad Consequences:
• (1’) If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life
  doesn’t have any meaning.
  Therefore:
  (2) God exists.
                         More info…
• Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence
  for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in
  God. In the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief
  in God are cited as evidence that God exists. In the case of the second
  argument, the negative consequences of disbelief in God are cited as
  evidence that God exists. Neither argument, though, provides any
  evidence for Santa’s existence. The consequences of a belief are rarely a
  good guide to its truth. Both arguments are therefore fallacious.
• Each of the arguments above features in real-world discussions of God’s
  existence. In fact, they have been developed into an argument called
  Pascal’s Wager, which openly advocates belief in God based on its good
  consequences, rather than on evidence that it is true.
• Another example occurs in the film The Matrix. There Neo is asked
  whether he believes in fate; he says that he doesn’t. He is then asked why,
  and replies, “I don’t like the thought that I’m not in control.” This is not an
  appeal to evidence, but to the unpleasantness of believing in fate: Fate
  would imply that the world is a way that I don’t want it to be, therefore
  there is no such thing.
  Argumentum ad Misericordiam
• An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a
  claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument.
  The form of the "argument" is as follows:
• P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
• Therefore claim C is true.
• This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because pity does not
  serve as evidence for a claim. This is extremely clear in the
  following case: "You must accept that 1+1=46, after all I'm
  dying..." While you may pity me because I am dying, it would
  hardly make my claim true.
• In the Appeal to Pity, the feelings of pity or sympathy
  substitute for evidence.
                       Examples
• "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe ! Please
  don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an
  orphan."
• Some authors want you to know they're suffering for their
  beliefs.
• For example, "Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo;
  they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my
  ideas a fair hearing, either.”
• A writer may refuse to answer questions about his or her
  claims, on the grounds that the inquirer intends to be hurtful
  or cruel or on the basis that the questions are too personal.
         Loaded words (Appeal to the People)
• In an offshoot of the ad misericordiam argument, this fallacy
  emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments
  instead of their minds. Many emotions can prove useful: anger,
  spite, envy, condescension, etc.
• A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative
  meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When
  language is "loaded,” it is loaded with its evaluative meaning.
• A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is
  the bullet.
• Example: Plant/Weed
• While few words have no evaluative overtones, plant is a
  primarily descriptive term. Weed, in contrast, has essentially the
  same descriptive meaning as plant, but a negative evaluative
  meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
                              More…
• Example: Animal/Beast Similarly, the mere word animal may connote a
  variety of images, many of which, such as little animal or baby animal,
  seem not only innocuous but appealing. On the contrary, the word beast
  may bring any number of images involving power, wildness, and
  destruction, to mind.
• NOTE: Loaded language is not inherently fallacious; otherwise, most
  poetry would commit this fallacy.
• However, it is often a logical trap, which may cause one to leap to an
  unwarranted evaluative conclusion.
• This fallacy occurs either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in
  place of an argument, or when an reader/listener makes an evaluation
  based on the colorful language in which an argument comes clothed,
  rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
             Argumentum ad Nauseam
• Translation—argument by repetition
• A fallacy based on the premise that if the writer or speaker
  says something often enough, some people will begin to
  believe it.
• Cliche Thinking and Argument By Slogan are useful adjuncts,
  particularly if you can get the audience to chant the slogan.
  People who rely on this argument may seed the audience
  with supporters or "shills,” who laugh, applaud or chant at
  proper moments. This is the live-audience equivalent of
  adding a laugh track or music track. Now that many venues
  have video equipment, some speakers give part of their
  speech by playing a prepared video. These videos offer an
  opportunity to show a supportive audience, use emotional
  music, show emotionally charged images, and the like. The
  idea is old: there used to be professional cheering sections.
                    More info…
• if it's short, and connects to an argument, it must be an
  argument.
• Being short, a slogan increases the effectiveness of Argument
  By Repetition. It also helps Argument By Emotive Language
  (Appeal To The People), since emotional appeals need to be
  punchy. (Also, the gallery can chant a short slogan.) Using an
  old slogan is Cliche Thinking.
          Argument by Dismissal
• The speaker dismisses every argument made without really saying why.
• Dismissals usually have overtones.
• For example, "If you don't like it, leave the country" implies that your
  cause is hopeless, or that you are unpatriotic, or that your ideas are
  foreign, or maybe all three. "If you don't like it, live in a Communist
  country" adds an emotive element.
            Fallacists’ Fallacy
• The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the
  argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a
  particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to
  conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would involve going
  beyond the evidence.
• It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including
  those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal
  to authority: “Simon Singh says that 2+2=4″. Or one could argue that
  taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: “I took the
  paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!”
• Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition
  therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its
  favour is faulty.
• Example
• “People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t
  accept that when we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences;
  therefore there is no life after death.”
               Fallacy of Composition
• The fallacy of composition involves inferring from the fact that every part
  of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property.
  This pattern of argument reverses of that of the fallacy of division. It is not
  always fallacious, but one must use caution in making inferences of this
  form.
• Examples
• (1) Every song on the album lasts less than an hour.
  Therefore:
  (2) The album lasts less than an hour.
• Obviously, an album consisting of many short tracks may itself be very
  long.
• Not all arguments of this form are fallacious, however. Whether or not
  they are depends on the property involved. Some properties, such as
  lasting less than an hour, may be possessed by every part of something
  but not by the thing itself. Others, such as being bigger than a bus, must
  be possessed by the whole if possessed by each part.
                Another example…
• One case where it is difficult to decide whether the fallacy of composition
  is committed concerns the cosmological argument for the existence of
  God. This argument takes the contingency of the universe (i.e. the alleged
  fact that the universe might not have come into being) as implying the
  existence of a God who brought it into being. The simplest way to argue
  for the contingency of the universe is to argue from the contingency of
  each of its parts, as follows:
• (1) Everything in the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed
  to exist).
  Therefore:
  (2) The universe as a whole is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to
  exist.
• It is clear that this argument has the form of the fallacy of composition;
  what is less clear is whether it really is fallacious. Must something
  composed of contingent parts itself be contingent? Or might it be that the
  universe is necessarily existent even though each of its parts is not?
•
                     And another… explanations of
    Another controversial example concerns materialistic
  consciousness. Is consciousness just electrical activity in the brain, as
  mind-brain identity theory suggests, or something more? Opponents of
  mind-brain identity theory sometimes argue as follows:
• (1) The brain is composed of unconscious neurons.
  Therefore:
  (2) The brain itself is not conscious.
• It is certainly difficult to see how consciousness can emerge from purely
  material processes, but the mere fact that each part of the brain is
  unconscious does not necessarily entail that the whole brain is the same.
             Fallacy of Division
• The fallacy of division reverses the fallacy of composition. It results from
  inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that
  a part of the whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition,
  this is only a fallacy for some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form
  of inference.
• Example
• An example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of
  division is this:
• (1) Water is liquid.
  Therefore:
  (2) H2O molecules are liquid.
• This argument, in attributing a macro-property of water, liquidity, to its
  constituent parts, commits the fallacy of division. Though water is liquid,
  individual molecules are not.
• Note, however, that an argument with the same logical form but inferring
  from the fact that a computer is smaller than a car that every part of the
  computer is smaller than a car would not be fallacious; arguments with
  this logical form need not be problematic.
                 Gambler’s Fallacy
•   The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from
    probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that
    are statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up,
    it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of
    results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes
    of the next coin toss.
•   Example
•   (1) This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row.
    Therefore:
    (2) It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed.
•   This inference is an example of the gambler’s fallacy. When a fair coin is tossed,
    the probability of it landing heads-up is 50%, and the probability of it landing tails-
    up is 50%. These probabilities are unaffected by the results of previous tosses.
•   The gambler’s fallacy appears to be a reasonable way of thinking because we know
    that a coin tossed ten times is very unlikely to land heads-up every time. If we
    observe a tossed coin landing heads-up nine times in a row, we therefore infer that
    the unlikely sequence will not be continued--that next time the coin will land tails-
    up.
•   In fact, though, the probability of the coin landing heads-up on the tenth toss is
    exactly the same as it was on the first toss. Past results don’t bear on what will
    happen next.
                Argumentum ad Populum
• Translation—Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice
• Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it
  is widely held.
• It involves claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or
  used to believe it, or do it. If the discussion is about social conventions,
  such as "good manners.” then this is a reasonable line of argument.
• This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is,
  mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: at one point, the majority of the
  population believed that the Earth was the still centre of the universe, and
  that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true,
  despite its popularity.
• In the 1800's people held a widespread belief that bloodletting cured
  sickness. All of these people were not just wrong, but horribly wrong,
  because in fact, it made people sicker. Clearly, the popularity of an idea is
  no guarantee that it's right.
• Similarly, a common justification for bribery is that "Everybody does it.”
• And in the past, this fallacy served as a justification for slavery.
                   Bandwagon argument
• This fallacy closely relates to the ad populum fallacy.
• Arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for
  accepting it as true commit the bandwagon fallacy. They take the mere
  fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for people to
  join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea themselves.
• Doing so constitutes a fallacy because many other features of ideas than
  truth can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible
  benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted
  by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, does not
  guarantee its truth.
• The basis for an ad populum appeal may be true (that is, it could be based
  on a genuine majority opinion) or it may be simply wishful thinking by the
  arguer. But whether the claim is true or false, the appeal is designed to
  create the urge to "jump on the bandwagon." (The propaganda analysts, in
  fact, call this the bandwagon appeal.)
• Ex: All the others in the class want the party in the gym, so don't you think
  we should have it there, too?
•
                         Examples… the latest style, and
    Ex: You really must buy one of these new coats--it's
    everybody's wearing them. You don't want to be left out, do you?
•   Ex: Psychology must be the best major because twice as many people
    major in it as in any other field.
•   Ex: A million people have bought Burnit Toasters, so you know they must
    be good.
•   Ex: Virtually the whole country now believes in flying saucers, so they
    must exist.
•   Ex: According to a recent survey, 88% of those asked believe Breen is
    guilty. That shows what a crook he is.
•   Ex: You're behind the times. Taking things from the office is now accepted
    by almost everyone.
•   Ex: Come on, Sally. Everybody's doing it.
•   Ex: More people own Kuttchu razors than any other brand.
•   Ex: Come on, get with it.
               Argumentum ad Numerum
• This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many
  people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe
  something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At
  least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."
  Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
• Variation of ad populum
             Appeal to Individualism
• By a paradox of human nature, man has, along with desire to belong, an
  equally strong desire to be independent and unique. He wants to be like
  some people so that he will not feel alienated, but he want to be different
  from nearly everybody else. Such a situation makes possible a "mass
  appeal to individualism," in which an advertiser, for example, will attempt
  to sell a product to a considerable number of people by telling them that it
  will make them different or that it is a product for only a select few. The
  same kind of appeal, coupled with the adolescent flock urge in young
  people, can create a trend of major proportions in records, clothes, and
  even behavior, which then becomes almost a prerequisite for social
  acceptance in that group: as we have witnessed in the "individualistic"
  fads and styles of our younger days, a mass desire to be "different" (from
  another group or generation) often leads to a slavish conformity of the
  most absurd and bizarre kind.
                        More info…
• Actually, the appeal to individualism divides into three often interrelated
  forms.
• The first is an appeal to be different simply for the sake of being different.
  It is an appeal against tradition and the common; whatever is common,
  standard, ordinary should be rejected because it is common, standard, and
  ordinary--qualities the "individualist" defines as dull and unthinking. But
  this, of course, is no less reactionary than its ad populum counterpart.
• Arguers often exploit this desire for a different drummer by calling upon it
  and then presenting their own position as that of the true independent
  thinker. "You should think for yourself," they say, and then, "Here's what
  you should think." Or, "You know, people who don't follow the mob think
  this way." The appeal is useful for arguers who find themselves in a
  minority position.
• If only a handful of people are buying a particular model of car, the
  advertiser can appeal to prospects to "be different." A small political
  faction can gain adherents by telling others not to be "pressed into a
  mold" or not to imitate those whose ideas have been "stamped out by a
  cookie cutter."
                And still more…
• Advertisers easily characterize the common or majority as humdrum and
  boring while presenting the alternative as new, different, and original.
  (Remember the "it's different--I like it" soft drink advertisements?)
• Ex: The anarchist underground is looking for someone who isn't afraid to
  have his own ideas.
• Ex: This isn't for everybody.
• Ex: Ever get tired of the crowd?
• Ex: They have 31 flavors here, and you want chocolate? Everybody eats
  chocolate. Why not have something different?
• Ex: Are you going to let other people think for you? Make your own
  decision and support the Flotsam Bill.
   The second type of individualistic appeal
• The second form of this fallacy occurs as flattery or as a direct appeal to
  the individual ego: "You're pretty special, and this product is for special
  people," or "I know you will agree with me because you are so intelligent
  and well-informed." Sometimes this form uses a challenge: "Are you brave
  and rugged enough to join our group?"
• You deserve it. You owe it to yourself.
• We do it all for you.
• What's good enough for other folks just isn't good enough for me. --RC
  Cola ad
• [Contraceptive ad in teen magazine:] You're old enough to make your own
  decisions. --S. C. Johnson Co.
• Children should be told that smoking is for adults. --R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
  Co.
• You've got the look. --Jordache
                      And the third…
• The last form of the appeal to individualism might be characterized as an appeal
  to personal prestige--to social class, status, or self-importance. There is a certain
  amount of anti-egalitarianism in many people; even in a two-hundred-year-old
  plus democracy, the feeling that some people are naturally "more equal" than
  others is still prominent. An appeal to this sense of snobbery or exclusivity can be
  very effective and has become a major method of selling expensive ("upper
  class") goods to the aspiring and upwardly mobile middle class.
• Ex: So strong is this sense of snobbery that a bottle of perfume costing five
  dollars to make sells for forty dollars rather than ten or twelve because people
  will not buy "cheap" perfume.
• Ex: One condominium developer, who had sold only two units in many months,
  was told the units were too cheap for the prospective clientele. He doubled the
  price and sold the whole project in two weeks.
• Ex: This is the car for the man in charge.
• Ex: Your friends will really respect you for joining our exclusive club.
• Ex: I think the better people will support my idea.
• Ex: This new suit will tell others that you have really arrived.
                  Appeal to Poverty
• The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position
  is correct because it is held by the poor. The opposite of the appeal to poverty
  is the appeal to wealth.
• There is sometimes a temptation to contrast the excesses, greed, and
  immorality of the rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of the poor. This
  can give rise to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy.
• The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that
  the view is true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs.
• Example
• (1) The working classes respect family and community ties.
  Therefore:
  (2) Respect for family and community ties is virtuous.
• This argument is an appeal to poverty because it takes the association
  between a position and poverty as evidence of the goodness of that position.
  There is, however, no necessary connection between a position being
  associated with poverty and its being true, and so the argument is fallacious.
                      Appeal to Wealth
• The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that
  someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more
  expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.
• In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to
  which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated
  with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than
  poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less
  expensive goods solely because of their price.Wealth need not be associated with
  all that is good, and all that is good need not be associated with wealth.
• Examples
• (1) My computer cost more than yours.
  Therefore:
  (2) My computer is better than yours.
• (1) Warren is richer than Wayne.
  Therefore:
  (2) Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne.
• Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of
  superiority. They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy.
               Fallacy of Association
• Translation—Transference, Guilt by Association Fallacy; Company That You
  Keep Fallacy;
• External/internal equation—the whitewashed wall fallacy
• Close connection (associating something with either good or bad)
• Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply
  because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This
  sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
• It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
• Therefore P is false
• It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is
  obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf
  Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that
  1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
• The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be
  associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person
  shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into
  rejecting that belief
                               More…
•  In such cases the person will rejct the claim based on how he thinks or
  feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be
  associated with such people.
• Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with
  people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For
  example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves
  around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person
  would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the
  company of people they dislike (or even hate).
• Scenario:Libard and Ferris are discussing who should next chair the
  philosophy department. Libard, a feminist, and she despises Wayne and
  Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department. Ferris: "So, who are
  you going to vote for?"
  Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since there has never
  been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job.
  He has a lot of clout in the university, and he is a decent person."
  Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. I never thought I'd
  see you and those two pigs on the same side."
  Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair."
General Category 2:
    Fallacies of Ambiguity
         Fallacies of Ambiguity
• Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only due to
  their imprecise use of language. Once terms are clarified, fallacies of
  ambiguity are exposed. It is to avoid fallacies of this type that philosophers
  often carefully define their terms before launching into an argument.
              Amphiboly, amphibole
• As with other forms of ambiguity, amphiboly can cause confusion and hence
  puts the other person into a state where they are open to different ideas.
• Amphiboly may be deliberate or accidental. Where it is deliberate, it may be
  used to confuse or make subconscious suggestions. This is particularly effective
  where the second meaning of the sentence may take a few moments to sink in.
  Thus, the obvious meaning is stated with the intent that the secondary
  meaning is interpreted only at the subconscious level.
• A common form of amphiboly occurs when an adjective is used with two nouns
  (e.g. “Good boys and girls”) because the reader cannot ascertain whether the
  adjective applies to the second noun.
         Amphibole: Ambiguous
           pronoun reference
• The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some
  native women, but they weren't developed. Source: Marilyn vos Savant,
  The Power of Logical Thinking (St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 76.
• In this example, the pronoun "they" is ambiguous between the
  photographs and the native women, though presumably it was intended
  to refer to the former.
          Amphibole: Misplaced
                modifier
• One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my
  pajamas I'll never know. Source: Morrie Ryskind, spoken by Groucho Marx
  in the movie Animal Crackers.
• In the set-up of this joke, it's ambiguous whether the modifying phrase "in
  my pajamas" modifies "I" or "an elephant", though common sense
  suggests the former. Then, the amphiboly is exploited for humor in the
  punch line.
• Helicopter Powered by Human Flies
• Source: Jay Leno (compiler), More Headlines: Real but Ridiculous
  Samplings from America's Newspapers (Warner Books, 1990), p. 56.
• This headline has a misplaced modifier. Presumably, the headline writer
  meant: "Human-powered helicopter flies.”
•
                    Amphibole: scope
   "Scope" is a technical notion; consider the famous saying:
• All that glitters is not gold.
• This proposition is ambiguous because the scope of the negation—"not"—is
  ambiguous. There are two possible scopes, and thus two possible interpretations of
  the saying:
• Narrow scope: The not negates the predicate “is gold,” so that the saying is
  equivalent to: All that glitters is non-gold.
• This is the most literal interpretation of the proposition, since the negation actually
  occurs in the middle of the predicate: "is not gold.” However, since gold does glitter,
  this interpretation makes the saying into a false proposition.
• Broad scope: The not negates the entire rest of the sentence, that is: "all that
  glitters is gold.” In other words, the proposition is equivalent to: Not all that glitters
  is gold.
• This, of course, is the correct interpretation, meaning that some things which glitter
  are non-gold, for instance, fool's gold. Or, in another cliché, don't judge a book by
  its cover.
• Logical terms such as not have a scope, a part of the proposition in which they
  occur that they affect logically. For example, not logically negates some part of the
  proposition, or the proposition taken as a whole, and this is its scope.
                        Equivocation
• The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more
  different senses within a single argument.
• For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they
  appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different
  meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in
  meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the
  conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are
  about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.
• Ex: (1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
  (2) Faith is irrational; it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
  Therefore:
  (3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.
• This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two
  different meanings of “faith.” The kind of faith that Christianity holds is
  necessary for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that
  belief. It does not matter where the belief and the response come from;
  someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas)
  still gets to heaven, according to Christianity.
                                  More…
• (1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
  (2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
  Therefore:
  (3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.
• This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two
  different meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary
  for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does
  not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts
  the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven,
  according to Christianity.
                         Examples…
• The flip-flops of presidential candidates echo on YouTube while two non-
  candidates rise to the top of their parties' polls. A good time, perhaps, for
  a lesson in rhetoric and a bit of comic relief.
• One of the craftiest orations in the history of American politics was the
  "Whiskey Speech," delivered in April 1952 by a young Mississippi legislator
  named Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.
• The House had been debating whether finally to pop the cork on
  Prohibition when Sweat (later a circuit court judge and a college professor)
  decided to demonstrate his prowess for talking out of both sides of his
  mouth. The occasion was a banquet at the old King Edward Hotel in
  Jackson.
• http://www.bettertransportation.org/2004_retreat/whiskey_speech.pdf
               About Soggy and his
                   techniques
• The classical figure underlying the speech is distinctio--making explicit
  references to various meanings of a word. (Bill Clinton used the same device a
  decade ago when he told a Grand Jury, "It depends on what the meaning of
  the word 'is' is.") But whereas the customary aim of distinctio is to remove
  ambiguities, Sweat's intention, of course, was to exploit them.
• His initial characterization of whiskey, addressed to the teetotalers in the
  crowd, employs a series of dysphemisms-disagreeable and offensive
  impressions of the demon drink. In the next paragraph he shifts his appeal to
  the wets in his audience through a far more agreeable list of euphemisms.
  Thus he takes a firm stand--on both sides of the issue.
                    Accent Fallacy
• Accent fallacies are fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a
  word or sentence. The meaning of a set of words may be dramatically
  changed by the way they are spoken, without changing any of the words
  themselves. Accent fallacies are a type of equivocation.
• For example: Suppose that two people are debating whether a rumour
  about the actions of a third person is true. The first says, “I can imagine
  him doing that; it’s possible.”
• The second replies, “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This
  looks like agreement.
• If however, the second person stresses the word imagine, then this
  appearance vanishes; “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This
  now sounds like a pointed comment meaning that though it may just
  about be possible to imagine him doing that, there’s no way that he would
  actually do it.
  Argument by Emotive Language, or
        Appeal to the People
• This fallacy has many divisions.
• It usually involves using emotionally loaded words to sway the
  audience's sentiments instead of their minds.
• Warning—writers and speakers often use this technique
  deliberately.
• Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, envy,
  condescension, etc.
                              Straw Man
•   This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's
    argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.
•   Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've
    made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man
    argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. (Argumentum ad logicam
    is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or
    argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious
    because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the
    proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. )
•   A straw man misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it
    actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that
    it has refuted the real position. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position
    the writer claims to have refuted is different from that which he has actually
    refuted; he has actually left the real target of the argument untouched.
                             Examples
• One example of a straw man argument might involve saying, "Mr. Jones
  thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth
  they have, but this idea is clearly false because many people just inherit
  their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings"
  argument and had instead argued that capitalism gives most people an
  incentive to work and save.
• Ex: (1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
  (2) Three does not equal one.
  Therefore:
  (3) Trinitarianism is false.
• This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise
  misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this
  misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that
  trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three
  equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its
  truth.
                        strategies
• That some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the
  policy itself is wrong.
• A good debater can make effective and strategic use of the straw man. A
  carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting
  opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to
  defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too
  different from the arguments one’s opponent has actually made because a
  really outrageous straw man will appear as just that.
• The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical
  extension or amplification of an argument an opponent has made.
General Category 3
   Fallacies of Presumption
      Fallacies of Presumption
• Fallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical
  errors, but are nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of
  presumption begin with a false (or at least unwarranted) assumption, and
  so fail to establish their conclusion.
             Argumentum ad ignorantiam
• Nothing is known about A. Yet the writer makes a conclusion about A.
• Facts may be give all around a particular area, yet nothing specific is said
  about the area. Based on this circumstantial evidence, it is assumed that
  something may be known about A.
• A variant is where there lack of evidence is assumed to be proof, for example
  when a murder suspect does not have an alibi.
• Example: You live on Sunny Street. You have a gun. Nobody else on Sunny
  Street has a gun. There was a murder on Sunny Street last night. You were
  involved.
• You live on Sunny Street. You have a gun. The person was knifed. You were not
  involved.
            Affirming the Consequent
• Logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned
  into "Q therefore P.”
• Example: "All cats die; Socrates died; therefore Socrates was a cat." 
  (And one could do worse than be a cat…)
• Another example: "If the earth orbits the sun, then the nearer stars will
  show an apparent annual shift in position relative to more distant stars
  (stellar parallax). Observations show conclusively that this parallax shift
  does occur. This proves that the earth orbits the sun." In reality, it proves
  that Q [the parallax] is consistent with P [orbiting the sun]. But it might
  also be consistent with some other theory. (Other theories did exist. They
  are now dead, because although they were consistent with a few facts,
  they were not consistent with all the facts.)
• Another example: "If space creatures were kidnapping people and
  examining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase
  the memories of the people they examined. These people would thus
  suffer from amnesia. But in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. This
  tends to prove they were kidnapped and examined by space creatures."
  This is also a Least Plausible Hypothesis explanation.
               Denying the antecedent
• If A is true then B is true. A is not true, therefore B is not true.
• To disprove something, show how it can be caused by something else. Then
  show that the cause does not happen (then assume that this proves the
  antecedent is also false).
• If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has no gun, then he will not
  kill anyone.
• If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not work hard you will not get
  a good job.
• I am in London, England. I am not in London, therefore I am not in England.
• In an “If A then B” statement, A is the antecedent and B is the consequent.
• When you know that “If A is true then B is true.” this statement is only valid for
  truth of A and B.
• If A is false, then it does not necessarily follow that B is also false.
• A place where this is true is in Boolean logic, where A and B are binary variables
  and can only be true or false. In life, there are often situations where A and B
  can have many other states.
                      Non sequitur
• Translation—”It does not follow.”
• This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does
  not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong.
  Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one
  missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not
  imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such
  as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There
  are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).
                   Secundum quid
                   et simpliciter
• Translation—In a certain respect and simply
• This is a form of non sequitur.
• A is an attribute of B. Therefore, A is also an attribute of C.
• The writer takes an attribute bound to a certain area and assumes that he
  can apply it to a wider domain than originally intended.
• Ex: A dog has white teeth, so the dog is white.
• Ex: There is money in my pocket, so there is always money in my pocket.
• When a writer discusses an attribute of something or somebody, he
  implicitly assumes some constraining contextual factors. When he carries
  the assumption too far in this context, then this fallacy may result.
   Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
• Translation--“After this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy
  assumesthat because one thing occurred after another, it must have
  occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not
  entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not
  mean that it was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum hoc
  fallacy.
• Example
• (1) Most people who are read the last rites die shortly afterwards.
  Therefore:
  (2) Priests are going around killing people with magic words!
• This argument commits the post hoc fallacy because it infers a causal
  connection based solely on temporal order.
                              Cum hoc
• Also known as questionable cause, false cause, confusing association with
  causality
• The cum hoc fallacy occurs when the writer assumes that because two
  things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does
  not follow; correlation is possible without causation. This fallacy is closely
  related to the post hoc fallacy.
• A causes B (without real proof that this causal relationship actually exists).
• This causal relationship is often claimed when there is correlation
  between A and B (that they vary together) or a relatively distant causal
  connection.
• Ex: It is dark now, which makes it very dangerous. [It is not the dark that
  causes danger].
• Ex: Drinking fresh water will keep you well. [It may contribute, but it is not
  the only or sufficient cause].
• Ex: Money makes people arrogant. [Not all people, and not always just
  money]
                                  More…
• often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation.
• For example, during the 1990's both religious attendance and illegal drug use
  have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that, therefore,
  religious attendance causes illegal drug use.
• It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or
  that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable,
  such as an increase in societal unrest.
• It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it
  is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.
• A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an
  association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that
  correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple
  independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable
  line of argument.
                         And more…
• Cause-and-effect reasoning can be a valid form of rational logic, but only if
  the writer firmly and effectively establishes a valid causal relationship One
  may easily find that two things vary together and assume cause-and-
  effect, but that type of relationship only proves correlation.
• It may be, for example, that both are effects of a prior common cause.
• Causal arguments is often wishful thinking, where the speaker is seeking
  to prove their case, and hopes (as with other fallacies) that their causal
  assertion is not challenged.
              Non Causa pro causa
• Translation—False effect.
• X apparently causes Y. Y is wrong. So X is wrong.
• If you want to prove something wrong, find something that it appears to
  cause and prove that second things wrong. You can also do the reverse to
  show something to be right.
• Ex: I pulled on the string and the kite fell to ground. Pulling on the string is
  therefore ineffective.
• Ex: Loud music leads to deafness. Turn that music down!
• Ex: Eating sweets makes you happy. You should thus eat sweets.
• This works because it distracts attention from the (incorrect) assumption
  that X causes Y to the question of whether or not X is right or wrong
  (which usually cannot be questioned).
             Bifurcation Fallacy
• Translation—false dilemma, either/or,
• This fallacy rests on the assumption that the choices offered constitute the
  only choices. By focusing on the choice, the decision to be made, the other
  person is distracted from the fact that there may be other alternatives.
• This fallacy usually appears with two choices, although the writer may
  sometimes use more.
•
               Dicto simpliciter
• Translation—Hasty or sweeping generalization.A fallacy that draws
  a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps
  unrepresentative cases. (The cases may be unrepresentative
  because of Selective Observation.)
• For example, "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is
  this possible ? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is
  Chinese." So, by generalization, there aren't any Chinese
  anywhere.
• Similarly, "Because we allow terminally ill patients to use
  narcotics, we should allow everyone to use narcotics."
• It is also possible to under-generalize.
• For example, "A man who had killed both of his grandmothers
  declared himself rehabilitated, on the grounds that he could not
  conceivably repeat his offense in the absence of any further
  grandmothers."
  -- "Ports Of Call" by Jack Vance
            More examples…
• "I've thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can't
  lose." This is Argument By Generalization, but it
  assumes that small numbers are the same as big
  numbers. (Three sevens is actually a common
  occurrence. Thirty three sevens is not.) Or: "After
  treatment with the drug, one-third of the mice were
  cured, one-third died, and the third mouse escaped."
  Does this mean that if we treated a thousand mice,
  333 would be cured? Well, no.
                 Fallacy of accident
•   Very similar to the hasty generalization/dicto simpliciter.
•   X is explained by rule Y. But X does not fall under Y.
•   A general rule is used to explain a specific case that does not fall under its rule.
•   Rich people like to receive good service. You therefore must like good service.
•   You can't go there, Mr. President. Nobody is allowed in.
•   It is wrong to hurt people. You should not have hit that person who was
    attacking you.
•   Often, the general rule used is either assumed to have a wider scope (being
    more general) than is reasonable, or that it is simply mismatched with the case
    for which the author uses it.
•   Accident often appears to be using deductive reasoning and hence seems to
    carry reasonable logic.
•   We have a deep need to explain things that happen, which leads to many
    people’s accepting a general rule as explanation for a specific case, even when
    that rule clearly does not apply.
•   Even good writers will sometimes deliberately use a convenient accident when
    he can’t really find a general rule that applies.
                  False Continuum
• The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two
  extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or
  meaningful.
• Ex: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion; therefore, they are
  really the same thing.
• Ex: There’s a thin line between love and hate; i.e., they are one.
             Least Plausible Hypothesis
• ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired
  explanation into the only one.
• For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the
  milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
• There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It
  is most often called "Occam's Razor,” and it basically says that the simplest
  is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation
  should be "the most parsimonious,” meaning that it should not introduce
  new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will
  do.
• On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure
  explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them
  "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras.”
          Circulus in demonstrando
• Translation--Circular argument, tautology
• The writers uses what he is trying to prove as part of the proof
  of that thing. In other words, the writer tries to argue that X
  is true because X is true, but does not explain WHY X is true.
• For example, “Marijuana use is illegal in every state in the
  nation. Most people would accept that citizens should not
  violate the law. Since marijuana use is illegal, citizens should
  not use marijuana; since citizens shouldn’t use marijuana, it is
  the duty of the government to stop people from using it, a
  duty which illustrates why citizens should not use marijuana.”
• To spot them, make sure you can clearly state the proposition
  being proven and then pinpoint where that proposition
  appears in the proof.
               Petitio principii
• Translation--Begging the question
• Pretty much indistinguishable from circulus in demonstrando
• For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime".
  (This assumes it discourages crime.)
• Or "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an
  "adjustment" just a stock market fall ?)
                    Slippery slope
• Translation—Camel’s noseThere is an old saying about how if you allow a
  camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow.
• The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is
  right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide
  towards something that is wrong.
• For example, "Allowing abortion in the first week of pregnancy would lead
  to allowing it in the ninth month." Or, "If we legalize marijuana, then more
  people will try heroin." Or, "If I make an exception for you then I'll have to
  make an exception for everyone."
                      *Tu Quoque
• Translation--you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action
  because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be
  invalid, but so is yours."
• a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that
  others have sinned, or might have sinned.
• For example, Bill borrows Jane's expensive pen, and later finds
  he hasn't returned it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it,
  since she would have taken his.
• War atrocities and terrorism are often defended in this way.
• Similarly, some people defend capital punishment on the
  grounds that the state is killing people who have killed.