Try to convince listener to accept a conclusion via threatening harm if the conclusion isn't accepted.
Appeal to Pity
Try to convince listener to accept a conclusion by making the listener feel sympathy/pity for someone.
Appeal to the People (Direct)
Arguer addresses the emotions/enthusiasm of crowd to win acceptance for their conclusion via mob mentality (whether positive or negative) ((also works with emotionally charged writing))
Appeal to the People (Bandwagon)
"Everyone else is doing it, so you should too!"
Appeal to the People (Appeal to Vanity)
Associates something people respect/admire/imitate, with implication that if you agree, you will be all of those, too
Appeal to the People (Appeal to Snobbery)
Associates something with relating to an exclusive group, with implications that you'll be exclusive, too, if you agree
Arguer attacks the opposition instead of countering their argument. (Abusive = verbal abuse; circumstantial = discrediting argument thru circumstances of person; tu quoque = highlights hypocrisy)
A general rule is applied to a specific situation it isn't designed to cover.
Arguer distorts the opposing argument, so as to make it easier to demolish, counters that argument, then concludes that they have defeated the original argument
Missing the Point
Setting up for a conclusion, then concluding something different that the premises don't have an inferential link to
Arguer changes the subject, often coming to a conclusion on another topic in the process
Arguer changes subject to a different, but often closely related one, then draws a conclusion about that particular issue, purporting to have won the argument
Appeal to unqualified authority
Wherein a cited witness is not qualified to provide support for a conclusion. (Not a fallacy if they are credible.)
Appeal to ignorance
Premises state that nothing has been proven one way or another about something, then conclusion makes a definite assertion about said thing.
A generalization is made based on a specific sample that is not representative of the group (whether too small or not randomly selected)
The link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn't exist.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause)
Because one event precedes another event, that event caused the other event.
Non causa pro causa (false cause)
In which the cause of something really isn't the cause at all, with a mistake besides temporal succession
Oversimplified cause (false cause)
Wherein a variety of things are responsible for a given effect, and just one of said things is singled out as the sole cause.
Gambler's Fallacy (false cause)
Supposition that the independent events in a game of chance are causally related.
Connects likely results of a course of action until a catastrophic horrendous conclusion.
In which an argument is dependent on an analogy that isn't strong enough to support a conclusion.
Begging the Question
The actual support for the conclusion is not apparent, so you ask, "why?" Inadequate premises in support of a conclusion. (1. leaving out a questionable premise and acting like what remains is enough for conclusion 2. shaky premise and conclusion that restates premise 3. shaky premise that leads into a series of circular conclusions)
A question asked presumes more than what has already been established, so in answering it, the person answering acknowledges something they may not want to. Two questions in one!
Disjunctive presents two unlikely alternatives, rules out one, concludes other is the only possible case (when there are in fact many more alternatives than what is given) ((If a premise is true, not a fallacy))
Conclusion depends on some evidence that would lead to a different conclusion if included in reading. (
Conclusion depends on the fact that a word/concept is used differently in multiple places in the argument. (Either invalid or have a false premise--either way, are unsound)
Arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and concludes from it (taking advantage of a grammatical ambiguity)
Fallaciously transferring characteristics of the parts of the whole to the whole's parts (class statement -- Predicated to the class as a whole, not to each individual member of the class)
Fallaciously transferring characteristics of whole's parts to the the whole itself (Class statement -- predicated collectively to class as a whole, as opposed to each individual member of the class, as the latter is hasty generalization)