Studied by 2 peopleFallacies
Errors in reasoning make up fallacies.
Incorrect reasoning happens when…
The premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion.
Formal Fallacies
Are identified by examining the form or structure of an argument
Informal Fallacies
Only identified when the content of the argument is examined.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
An informal fallacy that exploits the vagueness or multiple meanings of words, phrases, or sentences.
Also known as “sophism.”
Amphiboly
A fallacy of ambiguity that makes the argument confusing due to the way it was written. The sentence can be interpreted in two or several ways because of the loose or awkward way the words were arranged.
This statement has two interpretations. It could either mean that the man is using the telescope or the man just has the telescope. The structure of the argument will confuse people. Therefore, it is a fallacy of Amphiboly.
“I saw a man on the hill with a telescope”- What fallacy is this?
Equivocation
Using a word or phrase with different meanings in an argument. This is a grammar-based way to conceal the truth or to trick people into thinking that the argument is stronger than it is.
This is a fallacy of equivocation. The sentence could mean any type of sugar, and the types of sugar are either healthy or unhealthy. It confuses the viewer into thinking that either every type of sugar is healthy or fruits have different types of sugar content.
“Eating fruits is good for you because they have sugars, and we know sugar is good for energy.” What fallacy is this?
Fallacy of Presumption
Too much is assumed in the premises.
Accident
Presuming the applicability of a generalization to individual cases that is does not really apply. Making a broad statement that may be true in some cases, but not in all cases.
Generalization → Specific case
This is a fallacy of accident. This argument uses a general statement, “Thou shall not kill,” and applies it to the specific case, “you should not fight for your country or control weeds in your garden.”
“‘Thou shalt not kill;’ therefore, you should not fight for your country or control weeds in your garden.” What fallacy is this?
Converse Accident
Using a specific case to make a generalization.
Specific case → Generalization
This is a fallacy of converse accident. This argument uses a specific case, “I know a person who smoked…” to make a general conclusion about something, “Therefore, smoking is not harmful.”
"I know a person who smoked all his life and never got sick. Therefore, smoking is not harmful."
Complex Question
Phrasing a question in a way that assumes the truth of a conclusion not contextually granted.
The argument does not grant the assumption made here. It already assumes that the receiver has cheated on their exams once or cheats on their exams.
“Have you stopped cheating on your exams?” What fallacy is this?
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
The conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise. It's like trying to prove something by using the same thing you're trying to prove.
This is “begging the question” because “I’m the greatest” does not explain why “I” is the best. You just proved a conclusion by using the conclusion which cannot work.
"I’m the best because I’m the greatest!” What fallacy is this?
False Dichotomy
Presenting a limited amount of options when in reality there are many more options to choose from.
Since this inference argues that you can only be with “us” or against “us,” this is a false dichotomy. It ignores the alternative POVs or middle ground.
"You're either with us or against us." What fallacy is this?
Insufficient Evidence
The evidence or the premises is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance)
The conclusion is true just because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true.
Appeal to Ignorance. It is assuming that astrology claims are true because no one ever successfully disproven it.
“People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. We must conclude that the claims of astrology are true.” What fallacy is this?
Ad Verecumdiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)
Occurs when cited authority or witness.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, as the argument uses Kris Aquino to prove Brand X to be better.
“Brand X is better than Brand Y because Kris Aquino endorses Brand X!!!!!” What fallacy is this?
False Cause
“Correlation does not equal Causation.”
Incorrectly identifying the cause of something.
This is a false cause. Extinction and eating plants here is an imagined casual connection.
“Dinosaurs went extinct because they eat plants.” What fallacy is this?
Relevance
The premises are not relevant to the conclusion.
Mostly uses psychology to prove the argument right.
Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)
Rather than responding to the claim or argument, thrust is directed at the person themselves. The person is personally and abusively attacking the person to prove their argument right.
Ad Hominem. This argument personally attacks the other person making other arguments.
“Don’t listen to his arguments. Just look at his ugly face.” What fallacy is this?
Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language and other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm, anger, or hate.
Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Causes the acceptance of some conclusion by way of appeal to coercion or force.
Note
Flashcard