| Term | Definition |
|---|
| False Dilemma | two choices are given when in fact there are three options |
| From Ignorance | because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false |
| Slippery Slope | a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn |
| Complex Question | two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition |
| Appeal to Force | the reader is persuaded to agree by force |
| Appeal to Pity | the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy |
| Consequences | the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences |
| Prejudicial Language | value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author |
| Popularity | a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true |
| Attacking the Person | the person's character is attacked, the person's circumstances are noted, the person does not practise what is preached |
| Appeal to Authority | the authority is not an expert in the field, experts in the field disagree, the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious |
| Anonymous Authority | the authority in question is not named |
| Style Over Substance | the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion |
| Hasty Generalization | the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population |
| Unrepresentative Sample | the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole |
| False Analogy | the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar |
| Slothful Induction | the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary |
| Fallacy of Exclusion | evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration |
| Accident | a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception |
| Converse Accident | an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply |
| Post Hoc | because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other |
| Joint effect | one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause |
| Insignificant | one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect |
| Wrong Direction | the direction between cause and effect is reversed |
| Complex Cause | the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect |
| Begging the Question | the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises |
| Irrelevant Conclusion | an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion |
| Straw Man | the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument |
| Equivocation | the same term is used with two different meanings |
| Amphiboly | the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations |
| Accent | the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says |
| Composition | because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property |
| Division | because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property |
| Affirming the Consequent | any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A |
| Denying the Antecedent | any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B |
| Inconsistency | asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true |
| Fallacy of Four Terms | a syllogism has four terms |
| Undistributed Middle | two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property |
| Illicit Major | the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate |
| Illicit Minor | the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject |
| Fallacy of Exclusive Premises | a syllogism has two negative premises |
| Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise | as the name implies |
| Existential Fallacy | a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises |
| Subverted Support | The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist |
| Non-support | Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased |
| Untestability | The theory which explains cannot be tested |
| Limited Scope | The theory which explains can only explain one thing |
| Limited Depth | The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes |
| Too Broad | The definition includes items which should not be included |
| Too Narrow | The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included |
| Failure to Elucidate | The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined |
| Circular Definition | The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition |
| Conflicting Conditions | The definition is self-contradictory |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
!