1.
Ad hominem/tu quoque: focus attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. the conclusion is usually, "you shouldn't believe so and so." becaus they are a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque.)
2.
Ad Populum: The arguer takes advantage of th desire most people have to b liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.
3.
Appeal to Authority: When we try to gt readers to agree with us simply impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert.
4.
Appeal to Belief: The fact that many people believe in a claim doesn't mean its true. There are some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. 1) Most people believe that a claim, X is true. 2) Therefore X is true.
5.
Appeal to Emotion: 1) I approve of X. 2) Therefore, X is true.
6.
Appeal to Flattery: Flattery is presented in the place of evidence for accepting a claim; flattery is not evidence. 1) Person A is flattered by Person B. 2) Person B makes claim X. 3) Therefore X is true.
7.
Appeal to Ignorance: The audience is ignorant, therefore your option is the only right one.
8.
Appeal to Pity: an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
9.
Appeal to Popularity: 1) Most people approve of X. 2) So, I should approve of X, too. 3) Since I approve of X, X must be true.
10.
Appeal to Ridicule: Ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument.
1) X, is some from of ridicule is presented. 2) Therefore, claim C is false.
Mocking a claim doesn't show that it is false.
11.
Appeal to Tradition: occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older or traditional. 1) X is old or traditional. 2) Therefore X is correct or better.
12.
Bandwagon: The threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted for evidence in an argument. 1) Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection. 2) Therefore person P's claim X is false.
13.
Begging the Question: asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence the argument relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion, or simply ignores an important assumption that the argument rests on.
14.
Biased Sample: When a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced. 1) Sample S, which is biased, is taken from Population P. 2) Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. Known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization.
15.
equivocation: sliding between two or more different meanings of a word or phrase that is important to the argument.
16.
False Dichotomy: the arguers sets up the situation so that it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then elminates one of them, so it seems that there is only one option. But often there is more than one option.
17.
Hasty Generalization: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate. Causes stereotypes.
18.
Middle Ground: When it is assumed the middle person between two extremes must be correct simply because they are in the middle.
19.
Personal Attack (ad hominem abusive): when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claims. Directed at the person, not the claim itself.
20.
Poisoning the Well: trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information about the person. 1) Unfavorable info about person A is presented. 2) Any claims a person makes will be false.
21.
post hoc: Assuming that B comes after, a caused b. Sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't related as cause and event.
22.
Red Herring: partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent to distract the audience. They often return.
23.
Slippery Slope: A chain reaction will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step, we will slide all the way down the hill.
24.
Straw man: the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. Defeating a watered down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive, either.
25.
Two Wrongs Make a Right: a person justifies an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A.
26.
Weak Analogy: if two things that are being compared aren't really alike in th relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it is a weak analogy.
