Straw man fallacy
a fallacy committed when a person misrepresents an argument, theory, or claim, and then, on the basis of that misrepresentation, claims to have refuted the position the person has misrepresented
Abusive ad hominem
a fallacy in which you attack character traits instead of the argument. ex: John is a male therefore he shouldn't teach a class on feminism. He attacks the trait and not the argument.
Circumstantial ad hominem
a fallacy in which you don't "practice what you preach." Hypocritical and inconsistant. ex: a high school teacher gives a talk about why teachers should get more pay. It's in the teacher's best SELF INTEREST.
Guilt by association
a fallacy commited when a person or a person's views are criticized on the basis of a supposed link between them and a person or movement believed to be disreputable. Ex: "This is a socialist position, put forward by a radical, so it must be wrong." Easily confused with abusive ad hominem and it links someone with a group that's presumed to be bad. Also depends on what group you're dealing with.
Appeal to popularity
A fallacy in which one reasons from the popularity of a product or belief to a conclusion about its actual merits. Ex: "Polka dots are back in fashion this year, so you should buy a polka dot fabric." Appeals to numbers that a lot of people do it; fallacy of the bandwagon
Appeal to tradition
a fallacy in which one reasons from the fact that a practice, action, or belief has been common in the past to a conclusion about its merit in the present. Ex: We should have a picnic on the August long weekend because we have always done this in the past" What's been popular for a long period of time.
Appeal to ignorance
argument in which there is either an appeal to our ignorance about S in an attempt to show that not-S is true or probable, or an appeal to our ignorance about not-S in an attempt to show that S is true or probable. Ex: "Angels exist, because no one has ever proven that they don't." Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
Appeal to pity
a fallacy committed when premises express and evoke pity, with the implication that a conclusion should be accepted because someone is in a pitiful state. Ex: "you should give me an 'A' because otherwise I will not get into law school."
Appeal to fear
a fallacy committed when premises express or evoke fear, with the implication that a conclusion should be accepted because otherwise bad things will happen. Ex: "You had better accept our religion or you will burn forever in hell."
assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects. ex: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Two wrongs fallacy
when a person tries to defend something alleged to be wrong by pointing out that another thing, in some ways similar to it, has been accepted. Committed when one tries to defend oneself. ex: "There's not a thing wrong with what Roth did in front of 15,000 people. After all, don't millions of people see worse stuff in front of the television everyday?"
argument based on the logical error of assuming that because cases can be arranged in a series, where the difference between successive members of the series is small, the cases should all be assimilated. This is a mistaken appeal to consistency. It ignores incorrectly the fact that small differences can cumulate to be significant.
argument based on claiming that an action, though good, should not be permitted because it will set a precedent for further similar actions that are bad. Such arguments are flawed in that they use implicitly inconsistent premises. A good action cannot be relevanty similar to a bad action; there must be some relevant differences between them.
inductive generalization in which the evidence in the premises is too slight to support the conclusion, usually because the sample is so small that it is extremely unlikely to be representative. The G condition of argument cogency is not satisfied in such a case. Generalizing on a whole group based on a small sample.
argument in which the premises describe only a single episode, or a few episodes, typically from within the personal experience of the arguer. Such evidence is too slight to be the basis for a cogent inductive generalization. The G condition of argument cogency is not satisfied when evidence is purely anecdotal.
Fallacy of composition
Inferring a conclusion about a whole from premises about its elements.
Fallacy of division
Inferring a conclusion about its elements from premises about a whole.