Studied by 0 peopleweasel 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)
Note
Flashcard