5 Fallacies of Context (Manipulated or Missing Information)

Fallacies of Context (Manipulated or Missing Information)

do not attack logic directly. Instead, they manipulate what information is included, omitted, emphasized, or framed in the argument. The truth is distorted by controlling the context

Suppressed Evidence (Cherry-Picking)

presents only the evidence that supports a conclusion while ignoring or hiding relevant opposing information. The argument appears strong only because contradicting facts are excluded

Argument from Silence

draws a conclusion based on someone’s failure to say something, assuming that silence equals agreement, denial, or confirmation. It treats the absence of a statement as meaningful

Burden of Proof Reversal

improperly shifts the obligation to prove a claim from the one asserting it to the one challenging it. It assumes a claim is true unless disproven. The arguer demands disproof instead of offering support

Moving the Goalposts

changes the standard of proof or success after the original criteria have been met. The opponent redefines what counts as acceptable support. It prevents a claim from ever being satisfied.

Special Pleading

creates an unjustified exception to a rule or standard without relevant reason. It demands that one case be treated differently while refusing to apply the same logic

Suppressed Evidence (Stacking the Deck)

presents only favorable information while deliberately excluding anything that contradicts or complicates the claim. It builds a one-sided case to manipulate judgment. The evidence is distorted by omission.

Double Standard

applies a rule or judgment unevenly to different people or cases without a valid reason. The same situation is evaluated differently depending on preference or bias. The inconsistency is not logically justified

Relative Privation (“Not as Bad as...”)

dismisses a problem or argument by comparing it to a worse situation, suggesting it is unimportant by contrast. It shifts focus from the actual issue to something more extreme.

False Balance

treats two opposing views as equally valid, even when one is significantly weaker, unsupported, or discredited. It assumes fairness requires presenting both sides as equivalent.

Continuum Fallacy (Fallacy of the Beard)

rejects a claim by arguing that because there is no clear boundary between two states, no distinction can be made at all. It assumes that gradual change makes difference impossible. The reasoning denies categories due to lack of precise cutoff

Suppressed evidence (Lying by Omission)

misleads by deliberately omitting crucial information while presenting the rest as if it were complete. The partial truth creates a false impression. The audience is left uninformed by design.