Affirming the consequent- Ex) -If A is true, then B is true - B is true - therefore A is true
Denying the Antecedent- Ex) - If A is true, then B is true - A is not true - Therefore, B is not true
If the conclusion does not follow from the premise, True or False
Working on the false assumption that a complex situation only has one cause.
(leaping to conclusions) Using inductive reasoning with too little evidence
A form of oversimplification - Asserts that there are only two (sometimes more) possibilities when in fact there may be many
Appeal to Authority (ipse dixit)
He himself said it - its the assertion that because someone respected supports something it must be right.
Ad Hominem (Latin ad=to hominem=the man)
-argument is the confusion of someone's character with an issue they support. (usually an appeal to emotion)
Begging the Question
(circular reasoning) - When a premise presupposes the conclusion. - The argument goes in circles and fails to prove anything because it assumes what it is supposed to prove as fact.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(after this, therefore because of this) - argument assumes that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.
(comparing apples to oranges) A valid analogy is a comparison that allows someone to see situational similarities. - The difference must be relevant and significant