Fallacies - Ap Lang

**Red Herring**

Redirects the argument or point of discussion away from the original purpose or proposition when you do this you are focusing on an issue that doesn't dive in as deeply to the first issue at hand.

**Argument from Consequences**

 Speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences it would have if it was actually true. Basically, in your argument, you are saying that something cannot be true because of its unacceptable consequences.

**Straw Man**

When in an argument, you exaggerate or dramatically change the other person’s point, and you attack that excessive point you altered instead of the original one made by the opposing person, when you do this you are arguing a false claim.

**Appeal to Irrelevant Authority**

When someone is trying to persuade their audience or another person to follow a certain point or to do a certain action and not giving evidence to support their claim but instead they appeal to a famous person who isnt an expert at the topic at hand but it's someone that an audience may respect .

***Appeal to Vague Authority***

This follows the same idea as appealing to irrelevant authority but here, you are claiming that something is true or should be followed based on the fact that another figure made it and it could be anyone not related to the topic at hand such as an author or an academic.

***Appeal to ancient wisdom***

A belief, or a topic being argued about has to be true according to the speaker or audience because it was said a long time ago in ancient history just because it was stated a long time ago.

**Equivocation**

This fallacy depends on the double meaning of the word used in an argument, furthermore its saying that when a phrase or word is used in an argument purposely in an ambiguous manner to mean two different things for each side or portion of the argument. 

**False Dilemma**

This fallacy presents two absolute solutions or pathways in an argument presented by the speaker that only gives two mutually exclusive solutions to an issue and disregards other possibilities that could also work or be tried out.

**Not a Cause for Cause**

Assumes that there is a cause for an event without there being any evidence of its existence. There is general confusion about the cause of an argument or event. There are two types:

***Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc***

“after this, therefore because of this”

***Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc***

“with this, therefore because of this” 

**Appeal to Fear**

An exaggerated or baseless fear that is used to persuade others to accept a concept or follow a certain idea because of the others fear and emotions. This will allow them to do what you want them to do based on their fear. 

**Hasty Generalization**

 When you make a claim on insufficient or small evidence that does not hold quality or depth in order to boost your claim. You say that something is undeniably true even when you only have one example or two as evidence to back yourself up. 

**Appeal to Ignorance**

When you argue that your evidence or claim has to be true because there isn't any evidence against it and it has not been proven false.

***Argument from personal incredulity***

where a person's inability to imagine something leads them to believe that it is false.

**No True Scotsman**

When someone tries to protect their universal generalization from a counterexample that is trying to falsify them by excluding it improperly. What that means is that the argument is false because of its generalization and overall vauguess to prove its point.

**Genetic Fallacy**

 A kind of fallacy of irrelevance where arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin or where they came from rather than their content.

**Guilt By Association**

When someone connects the person they are arguing to a demonized/bad group of people or to an evil/wrong person in order to discredit his or her argument.When you share even a single attribute with that group would make one a member of it, which would then give them all the evils associated with that group.

**Affirming the Consequent**

 Is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the opposite form would be true as well., we can also represent this fallacy like:  If X is the case, then Y is also the case.

**Appeal to Hypocrisy**

**(tu quoque—you too)**

attempting to discredit an opponent's position by pointing out their contradictory behavior or hypocritical stance.

***Whataboutism***

When an argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.

Example:

**Slippery Slope**

A course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or end. Or attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are not wanted.

**Bandwagon**

Can also be called  the appeal to the people, this argument uses the fact that many people (or a majority) believe in something as evidence that it must be true. Basically you are following what everyone else is doing, because you believe that if they are doing it then it must be true.

***Abusive Ad Hominem***

Is one that attacks rather than the argument he or she is making, with the intention of diverting the discussion and discrediting their argument. It doesn't do anything to strengthen the attacker’s position.

***Circumstantial Ad Hominem***

When you attack a person for cynical or outright mean reasons, usually by making a judgment about their intentions or what they really want to do.

**Circular Reasoning**

Is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner starts with what they are trying to end with. when you make this type of argument, you aren't supporting your claim with a logical point. Instead, you're using your claim to “prove” that the reasons for the claim are true.

Fallacy of Composition

by inferring that, because the parts of a whole have a particular attribute, the whole must have that attribute also

Fallacy of Division

is to infer that part of a whole must have some attribute because the whole to which it belongs happens to have that attribute.

**False/Faulty Analogy**

A type of informal fallacy or a persuasive technique in which the fact that two things are alike in one way leads to the invalid conclusion that they must be alike in some other way.

Ad Hominem

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.