Fallacious Reasoning

the genetic fallacy

this fallacy occurs when the causes of someone’s belief are attacked as if they were the justification for it; this is fallacious because the causes of someone’s belief are not in general relevant to its truth or falsity in the special way that the justification for it is relevant

what is the claim made about the origin of the idea being attacked, and why is it irrelevant to its truth?

the argumentum ad hominem (ad hominem)

this fallacy occurs when someone argues against a claim or position by attacking its holder(s) in logically irrelevant ways

exception: if the fact that a certain person holds a belief has itself been offered as evidence or support for a claim, then an inquiry into his characteristics and qualifications may be relevant

who is being attacked and how, and what irrelevant conclusion is the attack being used to justify?

the fallacy of equivocation/semantic fallacy

this fallacy occurs when the meaning of the words used in reasoning is changed (used in multiple, different senses within the same context)

what term is being equivocated upon, what are its ambiguous meanings, and where or how does a shift from one meaning to another occur in the argument, making it appear sound when it is not?

the fallacy of false alternatives/false dilemma/either-or fallacy/fallacy of thinking in extremes

this fallacy occurs when the number of alternatives or possible positions regarding something is erroneously assumed to be less than actually exists; it is mistakenly assumed that there are only two possibilities when, actually, there are more; the mistaken assumption may be mentioned explicitly, or it may just be an unstated sufficient suppressed assumption

what are assumed to be the only alternatives, and why is this assumption dubious?

the straw man

this fallacy occurs when someone, in attacking an opponent’s position, attacks a less defensible position superficially similar to, but actually different from, the position really held by his opponent; a variation on this fallacy occurs when someone deceptively defends a position superficially similar to, but actually different from, the position attacked by his opponent

what easily refuted view is being attacked instead of a more reasonable position that would be more difficult to refute? who allegedly holds a position or view that no sensible person or group would be likely to assert in public, or even hold privately?

hasty generalization

this fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn about an entire population on the basis of too small a sample

what is the generalization made in the conclusion, and what is the insufficient sample used as its basis?

post hoc, ergo propter hoc (post hoc)

this fallacy, meaning “afterwards, therefore because,” occurs when someone invalidly concludes that C is the effect of B simply because C came after B; in this fallacy, the fact that one event preceded another is invalidly treated as sufficient evidence that the first event caused the second event

where in the discourse is it explicitly concluded that something is caused by something else? what is the insufficient basis?

fallacy of division

this fallacy occurs when one concludes that either the parts of something or the individual members of a group or other totality of things must have a specified property because the entire totality, considered as a whole, has that property

what is the “whole thing” in question, and what property of it is being invalidly concluded to be a property of its parts?

fallacy of composition

this fallacy is the opposite of the fallacy of division as it moves from part to whole; this fallacy occurs when someone concludes that because each part of some whole thing has a certain property, the entire thing as a whole must also have that property

what are the “parts” in question, and what property of it is being invalidly concluded to be a property of a whole thing that they make up?

begging the question

this fallacy occurs when reasoning, for one of its reasons of assumptions (whether explicit or suppressed), depends on a statement that is identical or equivalent to the drawn conclusion

what conclusion of the argument is the same as one of the stated or unstated basic reasons?

argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)

this fallacy occurs when someone argues that because we do not know that a certain statement is true, it is false, or because we have no proof that a certain statement is false, it is true, or “what I am saying is true because you cannot disprove it”

exactly where does the argument base a conclusion on the assertion that we do not know that its opposite is true?

appeal to authority

this fallacy occurs when someone inappropriately uses the fact that some alleged “authority,” “expert,” book, magazine, or famous person says that a claim is true as justification for a conclusion

who or what is being cited as an authority? how or why is such evidence inappropriate here?

accident

this fallacy occurs when someone tries to apply a general principle to a particular case in a manner in which the principle was never intended to apply

what principle is applied inappropriately, and why is this application inappropriate?

false analogy

this fallacy occurs when someone’s reasoning is based on an analogy that is assumed to exist between two different things that are not really analogous in the relevant respect

what is the analogy being used, and why is it inappropriate?

attacking the illustration

this fallacy occurs when someone tries to refute a general principle or theory or to discredit an idea or point, by attacking in an irrelevant manner an example given to illustrate it

what is the illustration, and what fact about it is being used as the basis for an irrelevant criticism?

complex question

this fallacy occurs when someone asks a question whose phrasing presupposes something that is perhaps not true

what is the question being asked, and what does it presuppose? what is the prior question, to which answering this question appears also to answer?

appeal to force

this fallacy occurs when force, violence, or other threat takes the place of logical reasoning to respond to a criticism or settle an issue in dispute

what threat is implied?

inconsistency/self-contradiction

this fallacy occurs when someone affirms and denies the same statement in the same sense

on what matter does the discourse contradict itself?

tokenism

this fallacy occurs when the importance of a very small good deed is exaggerated or treated as if it were a signifiant step toward the solution of some large problem

what action or good deed is the token? what magnitudes do we know, or can we infer, about the problem that show it to be only a token?

unjustified value judgment

this fallacy occurs when a crucial value judgment that is in question is simply slipped into a discourse without justification

where in the discourse is a debatable judgment about good or bad slipped in without justification?

evading the issue

this fallacy occurs when an answer appears relevant but does not really answer the question

what question or issue is evaded by the speaker or writer, and what does he or she do instead of addressing the question or issue?

diversion/irrelevant reason

this fallacy occurs when someone creates, or tries to create, the illusion that a claim has been proven by giving an argument for a different conclusion that is easily confused with it by an audience unskilled at critical thinking

did the arguer change the subject? from what to what? what different conclusions do the reasons tend to support instead of the stated conclusion that was supposed to be proven?

suppressing the evidence

this fallacy occurs when someone hides or omits mention of evidence that would tend to prove a conclusion different from the desired conclusion

what evidence looks as though it may have been hidden?

slippery slope

this fallacy occurs when someone assumes uncritically, or affirms without adequate justification, that when a scale of degrees or a range of values of some quality is possible, something that would move the situation away from one extreme end point must necessarily and inevitably lead to the opposite extreme, or that if a move away from one extreme is permitted, there will be “no logical stopping place” short of going to the opposite extreme, or that “we then could not stop short of going to the opposite extreme because any stopping place we chose would be arbitrary;” this fallacy may also take the form of arguing that if too much of something is bad, then any amount of it, even a little, must also be bad

what is the matter of degree here, and what might be a reasonable place to stop short of going to a bad extreme? what action, idea, or policy is claimed to lead inevitably to others?

amphiboly

this fallacy occurs when the meaning of a sentence is changed illegitimately because of unclarities in its intended grammatical structure

what are the different meanings of the sentence or linguistic expression whose grammatical structure is unclear?

accent

this fallacy occurs when a sentence takes on different meanings through stressing different words more than others

what is the word or phrase that changes the meaning of the sentence when it is stressed?

appeal to pity

this fallacy occurs when statements that elicit feelings of pity are used in place of sound reasons to justify a conclusion or action

exactly where and how does the discourse try to arouse and appeal to the emotion of pity?

appeal to other emotions (appeal to emotion)

this fallacy occurs when someone who aims to control our views by means other than rational argument or logical reasoning appeals to other emotions besides pity or fear of force

exactly where and how does the discourse try to arouse and appeal to an emotion other than pity or fear and try to use it to induce a belief or action?

bandwagon/appeal to majority/appeal to widespread belief

this fallacy occurs when the statement that certain beliefs are widely held is given as a reason for thinking that the content of the belief is true or is a correct judgment

how does the argument appeal to the claim that a large number of people do or believe something, and infer from this claim that it is good or true?

appeal to traditional wisdom

this fallacy occurs when someone claims that, because a belief has been held in the past and is part of the traditional wisdom handed down to us from earlier, the belief is true

what reason is based on what people have believed or done in the past?

provincialism

this fallacy occurs when an arguer advances the view that a belief or action is correct because it is accepted as such in some locality; this fallacy is also extended to judgments that express only a regional viewpoint

what is the group with which the speaker identifies, and what is the other group whose views the speaker ignores or rejects without adequate justification?

the wishing fallacy

this fallacy occurs when we conclude that a certain claim is true because we wish it to be true

what belief does the person accept on no better grounds than the desire that it be true?

tu quoque

this fallacy, which means “you too,” occurs when someone tries to defend themselves from accusations of wrongful behavior by pointing out, or claiming, that the accuser, or someone else, also did something wrong

what are the two wrongs that are supposed to make a right here? what action is supposed to excuse what other action?