hind fallacies

ad hominem

attacking a person's character, refute by focusing on evidence

straw man

distorts or exaggerates an opponent's argument, rebuild w facts and quote accurately

hasty generalization

forming a conclusion with little evidence, rework by making it less broad, remove absolute words

appeal to authority

claiming something is right because an authority figure said so, rework by finding data and explaining how and why

appeal to false authority

attempts to prove a point by using an opinion of someone who isn't an expert in that topic rework by using evidence like statistics

post hoc ergo propter hoc/causal fallacy

assuming that because event b happened after event a, event a caused event b, rework by identifying real cause and separating the two

false cause

mistaking that because two things happen together or in sequence, one causes the other, rework by explaining how and looking for 3rd variable that mightve caused both to happen

slippery slope

claiming that one action will domino into worse situations, rework by proving that action a doesn’t have to cause b

bandwagon/ad populum

thinking something is true because it is popular, rework by adding evidence and focusing on individual fit

false equivalence

treating two different things the same because they have one similarity, rework by adding differences

appeal to emotion

using strong emotions instead of evidence to win an argument, rework by removing emotional triggers and inserting facts

appeal to fear

using threats and dread instead of evidence, rework by educating w facts

cherry picking/suppressed emotions

presenting data that only supports their claim while ignoring data that contradicts, rework by addressing all points and data

loaded question

trick question that forces a person to admit guilt/defeat whether they answer with a yes or no, rework by not answering yes/no (ex. i have never __)

burden of proof

makes a claim without evidence and demands the opponent to disprove it, rework by adding evidence

circular argument/circular reasoning/begging the reason

an argument's conclusion is being used as its reasoning/proof, rework by adding evidence

oversimplification

watering down a complex problem to a simple factor that ignores relevant nuances, rework by adding other factors that contributed

red herring

a piece of information that deflects attention away from the main issue, rework by removing irrelevant info and adding data or an answer that addresses main issue

appeal to tradition

assuming that something is correct because it always has been, rework by adding reasons why and update to solve

appeal to pity

trying to win support by evoking sympathy/guilt, rework by removing emotion and adding real evidence

texas sharpshooter

viewing a random cluster of data as meaningful while ignoring contradictions, rework by looking at all data

no true scotsman

defending a general claim by changing its definition to exclude any exceptions (ex. no REAL patriots support this candidate), rework by acknowledging exceptions

equivocation/ambiguity

changing a word or phrase's meaning halfway throughout an argument to make it seem correct (noisy children are a headache, aspirin can get rid of headaches, aspirin gets rid of noisy children | headache is originally used figuratively but then is used literally), rework by clearly defining terms and making sure it stays the same

tu quoque/appeal to hypocrisy

discrediting the opponent by accusing them of the same offense/acting hypocritical, rework by agreeing/disagreeing and addressing behavior

appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance

claiming a statement is true because no one has proved it as false and vice versa, rework by shifting focus to available evidence

special pleading

applying a standard to everyone but themselves, "double standards" rework by applying rule to everyone

moral equivalence

claiming that two very different actions are morally equal even if they have differences in impact, scale, intent, etc. rework by evaluating each on their own

genetic fallacy

judging an idea because of who it came from, rework by shifting from where or who it came from and adding evidence

poisoning the well

information made to discredit an opponent's future arguments is shared before they get the chance to speak, rework by focusing on objective facts and data

appeal to consequences

claiming an idea is true/false because its results are good/bad, rework by accepting data and going to how to manage

middle ground fallacy

believing that the best solution is being right at the middle/thinking both sides are partially wrong, rework by using evidence

gambler's fallacy

if a random event happens more often, it will happen less in the future (and vice versa), rework by resetting every turn

composition fallacy

assuming that what's true for a part must be true to the whole, rework by explaining other factors

division fallacy

assuming that what's true for a whole must be true to every individual part, rework by removing assumption and focusin on facts

fallacy fallacy

assuming that if an argument has a logical mistake, it is immediately false. rework by pointing out flaw and adding evidence

appeal to nature

claiming that something is good because it is natural or something is bad because it is artificial, rework by adding evidence

what is a logical fallacy

errors in reasoning that lead to weak arguments.