phil fallacies

Ad hominem - abusive

occurs when a respondent uses abusive language against their argumentative opponent.

ex) Trudeau says we should have gun control. But he's a scumbag. Hence. Gun control is not permissible.

Ad hominem - circumstantial

occurs when a respondent accuses their argumentative opponent of having a personal skate in the outcome of the dispute which entails that the latter's argument should not be taken seriously.

ex) Singh supports mandatory union membership. But singh has an interest in courting the union vote. Hence, mandatory union membership is wrong.

Ad hominem - Tu quoque

Occurs when a respondent attempts to make their argumentative opponent appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.

ex) D. Smith says smoking is dangerous, but Dr. Smith smokes. Hence, smoking is not dangerous.

Appeal to force (ad baculum)

occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to a disputant and tells that person wither implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion

ex) My restaurant deserves a AAA health rating. Vito Corleone [the "godfather"] thinks my restaurant is the cleanest hes ever been in

Appeal to pity (ad misericodium)

Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

ex) Freddie Jones and his children would be distraught if Josie McPhee were imprisoned. Moreover, they would lose their home and become impoverished. She really doesn't deserve to go to jail

Bandwagon (ad populum)

occurs when an arguer uses people's desires to be loved, accepted, etc. to get listeners to accept a conclusion.

ex) The Kardashians and their entourage believe that the world is flat. You should too.

Accident

Occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.

ex) Regular exercise is an essential part of a healthy lifestyle. Hence, a diagnosis of pneumonia isn't going to get you out of gym class.

Hasty generalization

Occurs when a too small or unrepresentative sample of a population is used to justify a generalization about all or most members of that population.

ex) Professor Alward's family members think he would make the best Prime Minister. It follows that Trudeau should worry about losing to him in the next election.

Composition

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.

ex) Each of the bricks that wholly constitute the wall can withstand an earthquake of up to 7.5 on the RIchter scale. Therefore, the wall itself can withstand an earthquake of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.

Division

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole onto its parts.

ex) The wall cannot withstand an earthquake of 7.5 on the Richter scale. It follows that none of the bricks that wholly constitute the wall can withstand an earthquake of 7.5 on the Richter scale.

Straw person

Occurs when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.

ex) Professor Alward says that Nova Scotians should be allowed to teach in Saskatchewan classrooms. Clearly, he thinks that Saskatchewan students need to learn about cod fishing from people with funny accents. But that is the last thing students in the prairies need to learn.

Irrelevant conclusion

Occurs when the premises of an argument support on conclusion but a different, vaguely related, conclusion is drawn

ex) Theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate. Hence, we should reinstate the death penalty.

Red herring

Occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by chaning the subject to a different but subtly related one.

ex) The statistics showing seatbelts make you safer are flawed. After all, forcing people to use seatbelts is an infringement of liberty. It's the first step to authoritarian government.

Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantium)

Occurs when the premises of an argument establish that a thesis of some kind has not been proven and, on that basis, it is concluded that the contrary must be correct.

ex) No one has ever proved that ghosts don't exist. We can therefore conclude that they do exist.

Slippery slope

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction when there is not sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will occur.

ex) If i had stolen your identity, I would have emptied your bank account and purchased all of the vintage comic-books in the city. This would have caused outrage among comic-book enthusiasts, which would have led to comic book riots. The result would have been the destruction of all the comic-book stores in the city. But as you well know, there are lots of comic-book stores still open in the city. It follows that I did not steal your identity.

Loaded question

Occurs when a question is posed which contains a controversial presumption.

ex) Are you still plagiarizing your coursework?

False dilemma

Occurs when an either/or premise is deployes which presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available.

ex) Either I deserve the Noble Prize for chemistry or the chemical laws have changed since I published my seminal work. But the laws of nature are static. It follows that I deserve the Noble Prize.

Equivocation (semantic ambiguity)

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different senses in the argument.

ex) Crow's feathers are extremely light. Hence, that black bird crawing in the tree cannot be a crow.

Syntactic ambiguity (amphiboly)

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a premise or conclusion is ambiguous between two or more grammatical structures.

ex) Officer Smith arrested a suspect with an open bottle of whiskey in his hand. It follows that Officer Smith ought to be reprimanded for drinking on the job.