[THINKIN] Logical Fallacies

Relevance Criterion

The premises must be pertinent to the conclusion.

Sufficient Grounds Criterion

The premises should be enough in quantity, quality, and force to support the conclusion.

Acceptability Criterion

Premises must meet acceptable standards, such as being true and not mere restatements of the conclusion

Rebuttal Criterion

A good argument should effectively address counterarguments.

Fallacu

a violation of one or more of the criteria of a good argument; a mistake or error in reasoning

Irrelevant or Questionable Authority

Attempting to support a claim by appealing to the judgment of a person or group that lacks direct expertise or knowledge related to the specific issue at hand

Appeal to Common Opinion

Arguing that something is true based solely on the majority's belief.

Genetic Fallacy

Dismissing current arguments based on past practices without considering changes.

Rationalization

Providing fabricated justifications for a belief.

Using the Wrong Reasons

Presenting irrelevant arguments that don't support the claim.

Drawing Wrong Conclusions

Arriving at conclusions not endorsed by the premises.

Appeal to Pity

Attempting to persuade others by appealing to their sympathy instead of to relevant evidence.

Appeal to Force/Threat

Using threats rather than debate to persuade.

Appeal to Tradition

Relying on tradition or appealing to their feelings or reverence or respect for a tradition instead of evaluating actual evidence.

Appeal to Personal Circumstances or Motives (Appeal to Advantage)

Focusing on personal motives rather than robust arguments.

Exploitation of Strong Feelings and Attitudes

Leveraging strong feelings to persuade others of one’s point of view.

Use of Flattery

Seeking agreement through excessive praise rather than logic.

Guilt by Association

Discrediting an argument based on who supports it rather than the argument itself.

Equivocation

Using a term in multiple senses to mislead.

Ambiguity

Presenting unclear arguments that can be interpreted diversely.

Improper Accent

Mis-emphasizing elements of an argument to change its implication.

Arguing in a Circle

Explicitly or implicitly asserting, in one of the premises of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of that argument; repeating the conclusion, not adding anything new to the argument.

Loaded or Complex Question

Framing questions that presuppose unproven assumptions.

Question-Begging Definition

Attempting to establish an irrefutable position in an argument by means of a questionable definition.

Fallacy of the Continuum

Assuming that small things will have a negligible effect and that to make definite distinctions between the points on that line is impossible or at least arbitrary.

Fallacy of Composition

Assuming that what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole.

Fallacy of Division

Assuming that what is true for a whole must also be true for its individual parts.

False Alternatives

Presenting limited choices when other possibilities exist.

Is-Ought Fallacy

Assuming that because something is the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, assuming that because something is not the practice, it ought not to be the practice.

Wishful Thinking

Assuming something will be true because one wishes it to be.

Misuse of a General Principle

Generally, a principle is true/helpful, but it is not meant to be applied in specific cases

Fallacy of the Golden Mean

Assuming that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it’s the middle view

Faulty Analogy

Assuming that because two things are like in one more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other important respect while failing to recognize the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities.

Fallacy of Novelty

This fallacy asserts that something is superior or better simply because it is new or innovative.

Insufficient Sample

Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases.

Unrepresentative Data

Drawing a conclusion based on data from an unrepresentative or biased sample.

Argument from Ignorance

Claiming something is true simply due to a lack of contradictory evidence.

Contrary-to-fact Hypothesis

Treating a hypothetical claim about what would have been in the present if other conditions had been present in the past.

Improper Use of a Cliche

Using an aphorism or cliche in place of relevant evidence or claim.

Inference From a Label

Assuming that evaluative or identifying words or phrases attached to people or things constitute a sufficient reason for drawing conclusions; saying a product is the best one because it is marketed as “new and improved”

Special Pleading

Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception

Confusion of a Necessary With a Sufficient Condition

Necessary condition is different from a sufficient condition

Post Hoc Fallacy

Assuming that a particular event B is caused by another event A simply because B follows A in time

Domino Fallacy/Slippery Slope

Assuming without appropriate evidence that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead to a specifically, usually undesirable, consequence

Gambler’s Fallacy

Mistakenly believing past random events influence future outcomes.

Abusive Ad Hominem

Attacking the person rather than the argument.

Poisoning the Well

Rejecting a criticism/argument presented by another’s circumstances because of their personal circumstances or improper motives

“You do it too” Argument (Tu quoque)

rejecting a criticism/argument by accusing one’s critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way

Attacking a Straw Man

Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

Trivial Objections

Attacking an opponent’s position by focusing critical attention on a minor point of the argument.

Red Herring

Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue

Resort to Humor or Ridicule

Injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to the criticism or counterargument