Logical Fallacies Mister Martin

we're o din din din done

Hasty Generalization

A broad claim that rests on too few or unrepresentative examples. Not enough evidence.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Assumes A caused B because B happened after A. Sequence or cause?

Slippery Slope

Predicts an extreme chain of consequences without adequately supporting the links. Is each link justified?

False Dichotomy

Offers only two choices when other reasonaa hold up

Peptitio Principii/Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Assumes the conclusion in the reasons offered to prove it. Is the proof circular?

Non Sequitur

The conclusion is not adequately supported by the stated reasons. Does it follow?

Ad Hominem

Dismisses an argument by attacking the speaker rather than addressing the reasoning. Person or claim?

Genetic Fallacy

Rejects argument because of its origin. Origin or merits?

Ad Verecundiam/Appeal to Authority

Treats an unqualified or inappropriate authority as decisive proof. Relevant expertise?

Ad Populum/Appeal to Popularity

Treats widespread agreement as proof that a claim is correct. Does popularity prove it?

Ad Antiquitatem/Appeal to Tradition

Treats a practice’s age as sufficient reason to keep it. Does old mean justified?

Ipse Dixit/Bare Assertion

Expects a claim to be acccepted just because it is asserted. Where is the support?

Ad Passiones/Appeal to Emotion

UMBRELLA: Feelings replace relevant, sufficient reasons. Name the specific emotion when possible.

Ad Metum/Ad Terrorem: Fear

Uses frightening outcomes as inadequate support for agreement.

Ad Odium: Hatred

Uses hostility toward a person or group as a reason to agree.

Ad Invidiam: Envy/Resentment

Exploits resentment of others’ advantages as proof.

Ad Blanditas: Flattery

Uses praise of the audience to secure agreement

Appeal to Pride

Pressures agreement through intelligence, honor, superiority, or group identity.

Ad Ridiculum: Ridicule

Mocks a position instead of demonstrating its weakness.

Ad Fastidium: Disgust

Treats a feeling of revulsion as proof that a claim is wrong

Ad Misericordiam: Pity

Uses sympathy as a substitute for relevant evidence.

Red Herring

Introduces an irrelevant issue that distracts from the original question. Has the subject changed?

Straw Man

Distorts someone else’s position to make it easier to attack. Is that their actual claim?

Ignoratio Elenchi/Irrelevant Conclusion

Supports a different conclusion from the one at issue. What was actually proved?

Whataboutism/Tu Quoque

Deflects with another wrong; this specifically accuses the critic of hypocrisy. Does that answer the criticism?

Motte and Bailey

Retreats to a safer claim, then treats defending it as defending the original, stronger claim. Did the claim change?