Fallacies

Formal Fallacy

A fallacy that may be identified by merely examining the form of an argument

What are formal fallacies found in?

Deductive arguments that have identifiable forms (ex. Categorical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogism, Hypothetical syllogism)

Informal fallacy

Fallacies that can only be detected only by examining the content of the argument

Fallacies of relevance

Shares the common characteristic that the argument in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion

Appeal to force

Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells them implicitly or explicitly some harm will come to them if they don’t accept the conclusion

Appeal to pity

Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader or listener

Appeal to the people

Uses common desires (loved, accepted, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, etc) to get the reader or listener to accept the conclusion

Appeal to fear

A variety of appeal to the people in which an arguer stirs up fear of something in the mind of the crowd and uses that fear as a premise to some conclusion (fear mongering)

Bandwagon argument

Has a general structure of “Everyone believes in __/ is doing __, therefore, you should believe in __/ do __ too.

Appeal to vanity

Indirect approach, links love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, etc. usually by advertisers

Appeal to snobbery

The crowd that the arguer appeals to is a smaller group that is supposed to be superior in some way— more wealthy, more powerful, more culturally refined, etc.

Appeal to tradition

Another variety of the indirect appeal to the people. Occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for some conclusion

Argument against the person

Fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (implicitly or explicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the argument, but to the person themselves.

Ad Hominem Abusive

The second arguer responds by verbally abusing the first person (any sort of attack on THEM, not the argument)

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

The second arguer attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent

Tu Quoque

The second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical, or arguing in bad faith

Accident

This fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Straw man

Committed when an arguer distorts an opponents argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it

Missing the point

Illustrates a special form form of irrelevance, occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but them a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn

Red herring

Committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one

Fallacies of weak induction

Occurs because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, the connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

Appeal to unqualified authority

Variety of the argument from authority, occurs when cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Appeal to ignorance

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about the thing

Hasty generalization (converse accident)

Affects inductive generalizations, a conclusion is drawn about a whole group from the premises that only mention a few instances

False cause

Occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

Weak analogy

Affects inductive arguments from analogy, committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

Begging the question

Committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly fake (shaky) key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle

Complex question

committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them

False dichotomy

is committed when a disjunctive (“either… or…”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available

Suppressed evidence

Occurs when an argument presents evidence that would weaken or contradict that conclusion

Division

Whole to parts

Composition

Committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, part to whole

Amphiboly

occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Equivocation

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument