Fallacies in Argumentation

This set of flashcards covers various types of fallacies in argumentation, helping to understand and identify flawed reasoning.

Deductive flaws

Occur when the major premise is untrue or the conclusion does not logically follow.

Inductive flaws

Arise when examples are limited, making the conclusion unwarranted.

Causal flaws

Assume that if something happened first, then it was the cause.

Comparative flaws

Assume that two things are similar enough to justify a comparison.

Either-or fallacy

Presents only two options or outcomes, claiming only one is correct.

Hasty generalization

Drawing a rushed conclusion based on insufficient evidence, often leading to stereotypes.

Appeal to ignorance

Claims something must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Bandwagon appeal

Suggests that something is true or valid simply because many people believe it.

Authority fallacy

Basing an argument on the endorsements of a famous or unrelated person.

Ad hominem

Attacks a person's character or credentials instead of addressing the argument itself.

Slippery slope

Suggests that a minor action will lead to major and often ridiculous consequences.

Faulty causality

Assumes that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.

Weak analogy

Uses an analogy that is too dissimilar to effectively support the argument.

Appeal to pathos

Bases the argument on emotional appeal rather than logical reasoning.

straw man argument

arguing something related to the topic but avoiding the actual topic

non-sequitur fallacy

conclusion or statement that does not logically follow the previous argument or statement; rule out others before using this one