AP LANG Argument Terms

ad hominem

Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument

itself

straw man

Misrepresenting or oversimplifying someone’s argument to make it easier to

attack

slippery slope

Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related

(and usually negative) events

false dichotomy

Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a choice

between extremes

appeal to authority

Asserting that a claim is true simply because an authority figure

believes it, without further evidence

begging the question

Assuming the conclusion within the premise, creating circular

reasoning

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Assuming that because one event follows another, the first

event caused the second

hasty generalization

Making a broad claim based on insufficient or unrepresentative

evidence

red herring

Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue

bandwagon

Arguing that something is true or right because it is popular or widely

accepted

appeal to emotion

Manipulating emotional responses instead of presenting logical

arguments

tu quoque (you too)

Dismissing someone's argument by pointing out their hypocrisy

rather than addressing the argument itself

false cause

Assuming that correlation implies causation without sufficient evidence

no true scotsman

Making a claim about a group and then dismissing

counterexamples by redefining the group

cherry picking

Selecting only evidence that supports a claim while ignoring evidence

that contradicts it

appeal to ignorance

Claiming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven

false, or vice versa

composition fallacy

Assuming that what is true for individual parts is also true for the

whole

division fallacy

Assuming that what is true for the whole must also be true for its

individual parts

gambler’s fallacy

Believing that past events affect the probabilities in random events,

like assuming a coin flip is "due" to land a certain way

false analogy

Making a misleading comparison between two things that are not

sufficiently similar

anecdotal evidence

Using personal stories or isolated examples instead of sound

reasoning or compelling evidence

appeal to tradition

Arguing that something is better or correct simply because it is

traditional or has always been done that way

middle ground fallacy

Assuming that the middle position between two extremes is

always the correct one

loaded question

Asking a question that contains a controversial assumption, making it

difficult to answer without appearing guilty or wrong

no fallacy fallacy

Arguing that because a fallacy has been identified in an argument,

the entire argument is invalid, disregarding valid points

scare tactics

Using fear as a primary motivator to persuade an audience instead of

logical reasoning

special pleading

Applying standards, principles, or rules to other people or

circumstances while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt

fallacy of sunk costs

Continuing a behavior or endeavor due to previously invested

resources (time, money, effort) rather than future benefits

vagueness fallacy

Using ambiguous or unclear language that lacks precision, leading

to confusion

false equivalence

Drawing an equivalence between two things based on flawed

reasoning or superficial similarities

wishful thinking

Assuming that something is true simply because one wants it to be

true, rather than relying on evidence

casual fallacy

Mistaking correlation for causation, suggesting that because two things

occur together, one causes the other

argument from consequences

Judging the validity of an argument based on its

potential consequences rather than its merit

false balance

Presenting two sides of an argument as equal when one side is

significantly more valid or supported by evidence

affection

Using overly complex language or jargon to impress rather than clarify,

often leading to misunderstanding

inconsistency fallacy

Making contradictory statements in an argument, undermining

its credibility

moralistic fallacy

Assuming that because something should be the case morally, it is

the case in reality

appeal to nature

Arguing that something is good or valid simply because it is natural or

occurs in nature

cultural fallacy

Assuming that a belief or behavior is acceptable simply because it is

prevalent in a certain culture

self-contradiction

Making an argument that contradicts itself, rendering it logically

invalid

scapegoating

Blaming a person or group for problems not caused by them to distract

from the real issues

cherry-picking data

Selectively presenting only the data that supports one’s argument

while ignoring contrary evidence

appeal to common sense

Relying on what is commonly believed or considered

"common sense" without substantial evidence

fallacy of moderation

Assuming that the middle ground between two extremes is

always the best or correct position

argument from silence

Drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence

rather than the presence of evidence

argument and populum

Arguing that a proposition is true because many people

believe it to be true (appeal to popularity)

genetic fallacy

Judging something as either good or bad based on its origin rather

than its current context or merits

circular reasoning

Using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises to

support that conclusion, creating a loop

exaggeration

Amplifying a situation to make it seem worse or better than it actually is

to persuade others

false attribution

Citing a source that is misrepresented or not credible to lend weight

to an argument

quasi-argument

Presenting an argument that lacks logical coherence but is phrased

as if it were valid

overgeneralization

Making sweeping statements based on limited evidence or

experiences

false cause and effect

Confusing the direction of a causal relationship, implying that

A causes B without justification

argument from incredulity

Dismissing a claim as false because it seems unbelievable or implausible to the speaker

appeal to fear

Using fear to influence others' decisions rather than presenting factual

evidence

moral equivalence

Suggesting that two actions or situations are equivalent in morality,

when they may not be

non sequitir

Making a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises or

arguments presented

dichotomous thinking

Viewing situations in black-and-white terms, without recognizing the complexity or middle ground

false consensus effect

Effect: Assuming that one's beliefs or opinions are more widely

shared than they actually are

appeal to pity (ad misericordiam)

Trying to win support for an argument by

appealing to emotions of pity or compassion instead of relevant evidence

sunk coast fallacy

Continuing an endeavor due to previously invested resources (time,

money, effort) rather than future benefits

furtive fallacy

Assuming that because something is not well known or understood, it

must be false or incorrect

argument from repetition (ad nauseam)

Assuming that if something is repeated

often enough, it must be true

anecdotal fallacy

Relying on personal experiences or isolated examples rather than

sound reasoning or compelling evidence

argument from authority (ad verecundiam)

Citing an authority figure as evidence,

but the authority may not be an expert in the relevant field

fallacy of undistributed middle

A syllogism that assumes a relationship between

two terms based on a shared middle term without establishing that relationship

overfitting

Creating an overly complex model that describes a random error or noise

instead of the underlying relationship

causal reductionism

Simplifying complex causal relationships to a single cause

without acknowledging multiple factors

distraction fallacy

Introducing irrelevant information to divert attention from the main

argument or issue

argument from consequences

Dismissing a claim because the consequences of

accepting it would be undesirable

irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)

Presenting an argument that may in itself

be valid but does not address the issue at hand

misleading statistics

Using statistics in a way that misrepresents the truth, either

through manipulation or selective presentation

fallacy of exclusivity

Assuming that two options are mutually exclusive when they

may not be

quantitative fallacy

Misusing numerical data or statistics to make misleading

conclusions

false moderation

Assuming that a compromise between two opposing views is the

best solution without evaluating its merits

argument from intimidation

Using threats or intimidation to influence someone's

beliefs or actions instead of rational argumentation

fallacy of composition

Assuming that what is true for individual parts must also be

true for the whole

the Texas sharpshooter fallacy

Focusing on similarities in data while ignoring

differences, often leading to misleading conclusions

appeal to consequences of belief

Arguing that a belief is true or false based on the

consequences of believing it rather than on evidence

argument from spurious correlation

Concluding that two variables are related simply

because they occur together, without evidence of a causal relationship

the nirvana fallacy

Dismissing a solution because it is not perfect, ignoring the fact

that it may still be the best available option

argumentum ad nauseam

Repeatedly asserting a claim to persuade others without

providing evidence, leading to its acceptance as true

vicious circle

Circle: Assuming the conclusion in the premise while trying to prove it, resulting

in circular reasoning

hasty induction

Making a broad generalization based on an insufficient sample size or

isolated incidents

false dichotomy

Presenting a situation as having only two alternatives when there

are actually more possibilities

doubtful cause

Assuming that a cause-and-effect relationship exists when it does

not, often due to anecdotal evidence

counterfactual fallacy

Judging the validity of a claim based on hypothetical

scenarios rather than the actual evidence

self-serving bias

Interpreting evidence or events in a way that serves one's own

interests or beliefs

appeal to tradition (ad antiquitatem)

Arguing that something is better or more

valid because it has been practiced for a long time

misericordia fallacy

Relying on sympathy or pity rather than rational

argumentation to support a claim