
Scare Tactics –presenting an issue in terms of
exaggerated threats or dangers
 Either/Or Fallacy
a/k/a "the Black-andWhite Fallacy"
"False Dilemma“
“False Dichotomy”
- oversimplifying a
complex issue so that
only two choices
appear possible
 “Either we ban X or the
American way of life will
collapse.”
 "Either you drink Burpsy Cola,
or you will have no friends and
no social life."
 Appeal to Force
a/k/a Argumentum Ad
Baculum or the "MightMakes-Right" Fallacy
- This argument uses
force, the threat of
force, or some other
unpleasant backlash
to make the audience
accept a conclusion.

Slippery Slope
 exaggerating the possibility
that an action or choice
today will have serious
adverse consequences in the
future
 In other words, the speaker
argues that, once the first
step is undertaken, a second
or third step will inevitably
follow, much like the way
one step on a slippery incline
will cause a person to fall
and slide all the way to the
bottom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udQSHWpL88

Sentimental Appeals
(a/k/a Argumentum Ad
Misericordiam, literally,
"argument from pity")
 a fallacy of argument in which
an appeal is based on excessive
emotion
http://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=9gspElv1yvc

Bandwagon Appeals
 Recommending a course of action
on the grounds that everyone else is
following it


Appeals to False
Authority
(Argumentum Ad
Verecundium, literally
"argument from that
which is improper")
a fallacy of argument in
which a claim is based
on the expertise of
someone who lacks
appropriate credentials

Dogmatism
 supporting a claim by arguing it is the only acceptable
conclusion within a given community

Ad Hominem
 Making irrelevant attacks on the speaker’s character
instead of his/her argument

Hasty Generalization
(a/k/a Dicto Simpliciter,
“Jumping to
Conclusions,”
"Converse Accident")
 Drawing an inference from
insufficient data
 Making a broad
generalization on the basis
of too little evidence

Stacking the Deck
 You "stack the deck“ in
your favor by ignoring
information that
disproves your claim
and only listing
examples that support
your claim.
 (closely related to
hasty generalization,
but the term usually
implies deliberate
deception rather than
an accidental logical
error)
 False Cause
 establishing a cause/effect relationship that does not
exist
 Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause")
 A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the
real cause.
 Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this, therefore because of
this")
 Mistakenly believing one thing caused another thing simply because it
happened first; assuming event X causes event Y because event X preceded
event Y

Begging the Question
(a/k/a Petitio Principii or Circular Reasoning)
 Basing a claim on the very grounds that are in doubt or
dispute; supporting a claim with a reason that is really
a restatement of the claim in different words.
 Rita can’t be a bicycle thief; she’s never stolen anything.

Equivocation
 Using to your advantage at least
two different definitions of the
same term in the same argument
 Misrepresenting the truth by
 giving a lie as the truth OR
 distorting the truth using
deceptive language (Using a word
in a different way than the author
used it in the original premise, or
changing definitions halfway
through a discussion)
 “Plato says the end of a thing is
its perfection; I say that death is
the end of life; hence, death is
the perfection of life.”
 Here the word end means "goal"
in Plato's usage, but it means
"last event" or "termination" in
the author's second usage.
Clearly, the speaker is twisting
Plato's meaning of the word to
draw a very different conclusion.

Non Sequitur
 Making a claim that doesn’t follow logically from the
premises, or supporting a claim with irrelevant premises
 claims, reasons, or warrants fail to connect logically; one
point doesn’t follow from another
 If you’re really my friend, you’ll lend me five hundred dollars.
 Faulty Analogy
 Relying only on comparisons
to prove a point rather than
arguing deductively and
inductively.
 For example, “education is
like cake; a small amount
tastes sweet, but eat too
much and your teeth will
rot out. Likewise, more
than two years of
education is bad for a
student.”
 The analogy is only
acceptable to the degree a
reader thinks that education
is similar to cake.

Appeal to Tradition
(Argumentum Ad Traditio)
 Asserting a premise must be true because people
have always believed it or done it.
 Irrelevant
Conclusion
(Ignorantio
Elenchi)
 Taking an argument that
established a particular
conclusion and using that
same argument to prove a
different conclusion
 Example:
 Question: “Will this
particular housing
legislation provide decent
housing or is there a better
alternative?”
 Legislator: “Decent
housing for all people is
desirable.”

Red Herring


Shifting the audience’s
attention from a crucial issue
to an irrelevant issue;
a deliberate attempt to
change the subject or divert
the argument from the real
question at issue to some sidepoint
Examples:



“Senator Jones should not be
held accountable for cheating
on his income tax. After all,
there are other senators who
have done far worse things.”
“I should not pay a fine for
reckless driving. There are
many other people on the
street who are dangerous
criminals and rapists, and the
police should be chasing them,
not harassing a decent taxpaying citizen like me.”

The Straw Man

Misrepresenting (includes exaggerating) or over-simplifying
an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute or
ridicule.
Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too”)
(Appeal to Hypocrisy)
Asserting an argument must be false simply because
the person presenting the argument doesn't follow it
herself.
Example:
"Reverend Jeremias
claims that theft is wrong,
but how can theft be wrong if
Jeremias is stealing money
from the offering plate?"

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad
Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance“;
Appeal to Lack of Evidence)
 Using lack of information to prove a point.
 Presenting evidence the audience can’t examine.
 Hypothesis Contrary
to Fact
(Argumentum Ad Speculum)
 Trying to prove something in the real world by using
imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if
hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been
the result.
http://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=
BxN9Mw6iQUs
 Complex Question
(a/k/a "Loaded Question“)
 Confronting the opponent with a question that will put him in a bad
light no matter how he responds.
 Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another
unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion.
 Examples:
 “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” (assumes you have been taking
drugs)