aplang logical fallacies

begging the question

assumes in the premis what the arguer should be trying to prove in the conclusion

argument from analogy

explains something unfamilair by compering it to something more familair

personal attack (ad hominem)

tries to divert attention from the facts of an arguemnt by attacking the motives or character of the person making the argument.

hasty or sweeping generlaization

when a conclusion is reached on the basis of too little evidence

equivocation

the meaning of a key changes at some point in the argument

false dilemma

when you suggest that only two alternatives exist even though there may be others

red herring

when the focus of an argument is changed to divert the audience from the actual issue

you also

asserting that an opponents argument has no value becasue the opponent does not follow his or her own advice

appeal to doubtful authority

bolstering an arguemnt with references to people who are not experts on the topic

misleading statistics

using atatistics that have been disorted or misrepresented, only using pieaces of statistics, or taking them out of context.

post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore becasue of this)

assuming that becasue two events occur close togther in time, the first must be the casue of the second.

non sequitur

when a statement does not logically follow from a previous statement.