Logic exam ~ fallacies

Ignoratio Elenchi

fallacy of irrelevance:

(putting forward a proposition which might be true but has no relation with the conclusion it is proposed to support)

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Correlation ≠ causation

If A and B have a correlation/ exists and vary simultaneously, then there must be a causational relationship between them. There may be an additional variable which causes both variations/ it might be a chance.

Slippery Slope

Involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen, leading to a negative result.

Denying the Antecedent

fallacy of the inverse:

fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement

If P then Q

→ if not P then not Q

Fallacy of Composition

if all components of a whole posses a property P then the whole will posses property P.

opposite of fallacy of division

Affirming the Consequent

inverse error:

A → B

then B → A

Petitio Principii

Begging the question/ circular reasoning:

assuming as a premise of the argument its conclusion. The more premises the argument has, the more convoluted it is, and the more difficult to spot the circularity.

Ad Verecundiam, Abuse of Authority

appeal to authority rather than rational arguments for the support or dismissal pf a proposition

Fallacy of the Stick: Ad Baculum

use of force:

appeal to force in order to silence or threaten the opponent

False Analogy

a fallacy which introduces a weak analogy between A and B in order to claim that since A has property P, then B also has property P

False Dilemma

Black and white argument:

arguing for a proposition P by assuming without support that either P or Q must be the case, and that Q must be rejected. This neglects any alternatives to P and Q)

Shifting the burden of truth

rather than justifying one’s own thesis, forcing the other person to disprove the thesis or to justify their own instead.

plurium interrogationum

complex/ many question fallacy:

loaded questions are used to implicitly assume the proposition to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked, without the respondent ever explicitly having made such statement.

Not “did you kill him? “, but “how did you kill him?

Gambler’s fallacy

inferring that a certain outcome of a random trial is more likely given that a specific history of outcomes of previous, statistically independant random trials have been observed.

ad ignorantiam

absense of evidence for a proposition does not constitute evidence for the contrary.

“If you can’t prove A, not A must be true”

fallacy of division

if a whole posses a property P then all its component parts must also posses P

post hoc ergo propter hoc

If B temporaly successes from A then A must be the cause of B.

Temporal succession of events A and B is a necessary but not sufficient condition for A to be a cause of B.

hast generalization

supporting the truth of a proposition by means of a generalization from a few cases which are either not representative of the variability of the whole population or whose representativity has not been sufficiently argued for.

ad hominem circumstantial

undermining the credibility of the opponent rather than the argument, or casting doubt on the opponents motive for arguing, distracting the attention of the audience.

ad hominem tu quoque

the attempt to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.

ad hominem abusive

character or other irrelevant personal qualities are presented as if they are evidence against their position, often couples with insults. Abusive and extreme way to distract the audience from the topic of debate

fallacy of definition

an argument is fallacious when the underlying reasoning is erroneous

ad misericordiam

appeal to pity:

appeal to emotions of pity rather than rationality in order to support a proposition.

ad hominem poisoning the well

committing a pre-emptive ad hominem attack on the opponent, before the opponent has been able to make the case. This may stall the debate, and leave the position of the attacker as the apparent winner.

straw man

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making