Chapter 8: Watch Out for Logical Fallacies (Part 1)

Hasty Generalization

Jumping to a conclusion too quickly

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (After This, Therefore Because of This)

Concluding that A caused B simply on the grounds that A happened before B

Non Causa Pro Causa Fallacy (Not the Cause for the Cause)

Claiming that A is the cause of B, when in fact A is not the cause of B, but the mistake is not based merely on the fact that B comes after A

Fallacy of Accidental Correlation

Concluding that A is the cause of B simply on the grounds that A and B are correlated

Silver Bullet Theory

A theory that assigns all blame to one factor

Slippery Slope Fallacy (Domino Argument)

Objecting to a position P on the grounds that P will set off a chain reaction leading to a bad result; however, no good reason is given for supposing the chain reaction leading to the bad result will occur

Fallacy of False Dilemma

Assuming that only two alternatives exist with respect to some matter, ruling out one of the two, and then concluding in favor of the other alternative, when in fact more alternatives exist but they haven’t been considered

Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

When an arguer leaves out evidence that would count heavily against the conclusion of their argument

Fallacy of Special Pleading

Applying a principle for someone else’s case but making an unjustified special exception for your case

Fallacy of Accident

When a general rule or principle is applied in a particular situation, but the rule was not intended for the situation; the situation is a recognized exception to the general rule

Fallacy of Equivocation

Occurs when an arguer uses a particular word/phrase with one meaning at one place in an argument and then uses the same word/phrase with another meaning later in the argument, in such a way that the premises are true on one interpretation of the word but not on the other, while the conclusion follows only based on the other meaning

Fallacy of Composition

Assuming, without justification, that what is true of the parts of a whole must also be true of the whole

Fallacy of Division

Assuming, without justification, that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts