Have no baring on the truth. Include the following fallacies: Genetic Fallacy; Composition; Division; Appeal To The Person; Tu Quoque; Equivocation; Appeal To Popularity; Appeal To Tradition; Appeal To Ignorance; Appeal To Emotion; Red Herring; Straw Man; and 2 Wrongs Make A Right
Arguing a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.
1. You can safely dismiss that energy conservation plan. It's the brainchild of a liberal think tank in Washington
2. We should reject that proposal for solving the current welfare mess. It comes straight from the Republican party.
3. Russell's idea about tax hikes came to him in a dream, so it must be bunk.
Arguing what is true of the parts must be true as a whole
1. The atoms that make up the human body are invisible. Therefore, the human body is invisible.
2. Each member of the club is productive and effective. So the club will be productive and effective.
3. Each note in the song sounds great. the whole song will sound great.
4. Every part of this motorcycle is lightweight; therefore, the whole motorcycle is lightweight.
Arguing what is true of the whole or is true of a group is true for the individuals
Rejecting a claim by criticising the person who makes it. Also called Ad hominem.
1. Jones has argued for a ban on government-sanctioned prayer in schools and at school-sponsored events. But he's a rabid atheist without morals of any kind.
2. Anything he has to say on the issue is bound to be a perversion of the truth.
3. We should reject Chen's argument for life on other planets. He dabbles in the paranormal.
4. You can't believe anything Morris says about welfare reform. He's a bleeding heart liberal.
A form of appeal to the person. It means "you're another" - rejecting a claim though charges of hypocrisy. The fallacious reasoning goes like this: Ellen claims that X, but Ellen doesn't practice/live by/condone X herself-so X is false.
1. A lot of Hollywood liberals tell us that we shouldn't drive SUVs because the cars use too much gas and are bad for the environment. But they drive SUVs themselves. What hypocrites! I think we can safely reject their stupid pronouncements.
The use of words in 2 different ways within an argument. Eg Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational. = Man is used twice: in the first instance to be "human kind", the second, to mean "male".
1. The end of everything is its perfection. The end of life is death. Therefore, death is the perfection of life
2. Laws can only be created by law-givers. There are many laws of nature. Therefore, there must be a Law-Giver, namely, God
Arguing a claim must be true simply because a substantial number of people believe it.
1. Most people approve of the government's new security measures, even though innocent people's privacy is sometimes violated. So I guess the measures must
2. Of course the war is justified. Everyone believes that it's justified.
3. The vast majority of Americans believe that there's a supreme being, so how could you doubt it?
Arguing a claim is true or good just because it is part of a tradition
1. Acupuncture has been used for a thousand years in China. It must work. Of course publishing pornography is wrong. In this community there's a tradition of condemning it that goes back fifty years.
Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something
1. No one has shown that ghosts aren't real, so they must be real.
2. It's clear that God exists because science hasn't proved that he doesn't exist.
3. You can't disprove my theory that IFK was killed by LEf. Therefore, my theory is correct
The use of emotion as premises in an argument
1. You should hire me for this network analyst position.
I'm the best person for the job. If I don't get a job soon my wife will leave me, and I won't have enough money to pay for my mother's heart operation. Come on, give me a break.
The deliberate raising of irrelevant issues in an argument
1. woman should have the right to an abortion on demand. There's no question about it. These anti-abortion activists block the entrances to abortion clinics, threaten abortion doctors, and intimidate anyone who wants to terminate
2. The legislators should vote for the three-strikes-and-you're-out crime control measure. I'm telling you, crime is a terrible thing when it happens to you. It causes death, pain, and fear. And I wouldn't want to wish these things on anyone
The distorting, weakening or over simplifying of someone's position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted. Politicians are known for this.
1. Obviously he thinks that gay sex is something special and should be protected so it's allowed to take place just about anywhere. Do you want gays having sex all over town in full view of your children? David does, and he's dead wrong.
are relevant to the conclusion but are still dubious in some way. Includes: Begging the Question; False Dilemma; Slippery Slope; Hasty Generalisation; Faulty Analogy; & Decision-Point Fallacy
Also known as arguing in a circle. The attempt to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise.
The Bible says that God exists.
The Bible is true because God wrote it.
Therefore, God exists
Asserting that there are only 2 alternatives to consider when there are actually more than 2.
Look, either you support the war or you are a traitor to your country. You don't support the war. So you're a traitor.
Arguing, without good reason, that taking a particular step will lead to a further, desirable step or steps
We absolutely must not lose the war in Vietnam. If South Vietnam falls to the communists, then Thailand will fall to them. If Thailand falls to them, then South Korea will fall to them. And before you know it, all of Southeast Asia will be under communist control.
The drawing of a conclusion about a target group based on inadequate sample size.
You should buy a Dell computer. They're great. I bought one last year, and it has given me nothing but flawless performance
An argument in which the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways
In the Vietnam War, the United States had not articulated a clear rationale for fighting there, and the United States lost. Likewise, in the present war the United States has not articulated a clear rationale for fighting. Therefore, the United States will lose this war too.
Arguing that, because a line of distinction cannot be drawn at any point in the process, there are no differences or gradations in that process
Assuming a cut-off point exists when it doesn't nor does it need to be