AP Lang - Logical Fallacies

weasel words

chosen to say more than they probably do (ex: up to)

straw man argument

rephrase opponent’s pov into something absurd/exaggerated/simplified

loaded question

two questions rolled into one to make you look guilty

poisoning the well

phrases that suggest your pov is already accepted (ex: acknowledge)

proof by verbosity

false impressions of the subject being throughly researched due to unnecessary word use

either-or/false dilemma

forces you to pick between two extremes by eliminating other options

red herring

distraction from the real point

special pleading

assert that your claims are beyond mere mortals

non-sequitor

does not follow or lead to the conclusion made

argument from ignorance

because you don’t understand something, it has to be supernatural/not true

ad hominem

“to the man"; insulting the person you’re arguing against

ad hominem tu quoque

a person has behaved inconsistently with their argument so they lack the authority to make that argument

false authority

because someone is in a position of authority, they must be right

no true scotsman

to what degree an exception truly belongs in a category (ex: no true scotsman is sober)

circular logic

evidence is the same as your claim (ex: i’m right because i’m right)

slippery slope

one thing will lead to a slope of disasters

false analogy

because two things are alike in some aspects, they are alike in other aspects too

hasty generalization

generalization based on a small group

post hoc ergo propter hoc/cause and effect

assumes that two things have a causal relationship because they occur close together

bandwagon

because the majority of people accept something, it must be true

equivocation

equates two similar but unrelated things (ex: glucose and table sugar)