fallacy quiz

red herring

off topic distraction from the topic at hand

sunk cost fallacy

thinking what you have already invested is worth investing even more

post hoc ergo, propter hoc

event A must have caused event B

no true scotsman fallacy 

categorical claim, counterclaim, rejection of counterclaim due to category 

circular argument 

the reasoning for the argument is the same as the argument 

fallacy fallacy

just because the speaker has committed a flaw in logic, doesn’t mean their argument is wrong 

blood of the martyrs

using suffering to justify continued action

NIMBY-ism

not in my backyard - as long as it doesn’t affect me

dog-whistle politics

speaking in a code for certain people to understand

gambler’s fallacy

superstitious thinking: heads, heads, heads, so tails HAS to be next

slothful induction

conclusions are drawn despite displayed pattern due to bias

hasty generalization

forming a conclusion too quickly

tu quoque

discrediting the argument by attacking the person - what about YOU, tho?

slippery slope fallacy

a smal, minor convenience leads to a chain of extreme bad events

gaslighting

form of psychological manipulation, invalidating feelings, shifting blame

bandwagon fallacy 

argument is believed to be true just because everyone else agrees “Hopping on the bandwagon” 

appeal to pity

when someone uses emotional plea or sob story to evoke emotional response or sympathy

appeal to authority

presents smth as true just cause an authority figure said it, even when there’s no evidence 

false authority

argument supported by an individual that lacks expertise/credentials

argumentum ad nauseam fallacy

constantly repeating argument, opponent gets sick of it and agrees to disagree

appeal to tradition

using historical preferences as a way to prove somethings right or wrong

guilt by association

when source is viewed wrongly just because of association

straw man

a person’s pov is distorted or exaggerated to make it easier to attack 

argument from silence

lack of info turned into an assumption or means flaw of logic, or conclusion based on no info

Rogerian

establishes a middle ground between parties of opposing values

classic western

claim supported by evidence and reasoning

proposal

focuses on giving a solution to a problem

evaluative argument

evaluating something based on pre determined criteria

rebuttal argument

clearly stating the opposite argument and refuting it

toulmin argument

six components: Claim, grounds, arrant, qualifier, rebuttal,racking 

narrative argument 

using a personal story to make a point usually persuasive 

ad hominen 

discrediting the argument by attacking the person

appeal to nature

something is good cuz its natural, and bad if its unatural 

false analogy 

comparing 2 things cuz they’re similar in one way, trying to say they’re similar in other ways that aren’t supported 

leading the witness

question already presents the wanted answer

false dichotomy

making it seem like there is 2 options but there is really more

contradictory premise

argument relies on contradictory statements, so conclusion isn’t true

moral equivalence

suggesting two things are morally equivalent when they’re not, self defense

argument from ignornace

something is considered true because there is no evidence to disprove it

middle ground fallacy 

the best solution is compromise 

othering

weaponizing difference: creating a division to enforce hierarchy

burden of proof

to shift the responsibility of providing evidence to the opponent instead of providing claim

anectodal evidence

based on personal stories and experience, rather than scientific data

genetic fallacy

logical error that judges an argument based on origin rather than content

dunning kruger

low confidence over estimate, high confidence underestimate

texas sharpshooter

argument is made to support a conclusion by finding a small pattern that doesn’t even fit a large chunk of data

hypothesis contrary to fact 

conclusion is formed based on a hypothetical that isn’t or cannot be true or proven 

Causal argument

asserts that one event or factor has caused another, event A caused event B with evidence of correlation between them