Logical Fallacies
If you want to maintain your ethos and appear logical, you need to avoid logical fallacies. These errors in
reasoning, if noticed, can cause your audience to suspect your assertion and your support for it. You will need
to know these fallacies for a quiz. You will also want to watch for them during our class debates. In addition,
they could prove helpful for the AP test. The most important lesson, however, to apply to the AP test is to
recognize unsound logic—even if you are not able to retain the name of that particular fallacy.
“The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson’s time.” —Richard Nixon
Note that some of the statements given as fallacies may be true, but they do not provide enough logic or
connection to prove the truth. They are not currently functioning as sound reasoning or developed, logical
arguments. Also, the examples given as fallacies reflect many different opinions, and I am not trying to suggest
any political/moral truth due to the particular examples selected. Note: Rather than providing an
alphabetical list of fallacies, I have “chunked” them based on meaning.
Source Note: Much of the info. and wording below comes from various sources, including McGraw-Hill’s 2004 5 Steps to a 5: Writing
the AP English Essay (pgs. 69-70); Essentials of Speech Communication (pgs. 188-89); http://www.livestrong.com/article/14725-watchout-for-these-common-fallacies/; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html; and Wikipedia’s articles on Propaganda and
Persuasion. Handout put together by Shauna McPherson (and TAs), Lone Peak High School.
Tier 1
You are required to read and memorize the following fallacies. They may appear on the
quiz (with a word bank). Some have been known to appear on the AP test by name.
However, they do not often show up on the test; they are mostly helpful in aiding
students to distinguish between good logic and manipulation/over-reliance on emotion.
The ideas of logical fallacies—whether you can use the exact name or not—may also
help you on the essay portion of the AP test. Note: some of the fallacies are known by
many different names, including the Latin version as well as English. In some cases, I
have bolded the particular title used on the quiz. (In the cases where no one term is
bolded, I may offer additional help later.)
Non Sequitur: (Latin phrase for “does not follow”). This is an argument where the conclusion does not
follow from the premise. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great
frequency. For example: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have
nothing to do with an automobile's performance. In another example: “Tens of thousands of Americans
have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is
fast becoming certainty!” (Ex 3: Jesse drives a Mercedes. He must have a great deal of money and live
in a mansion. Ex 4: Dr. X is being sued. He must be a terrible doctor. Ex. 5: I saw some suspiciouslooking people in this neighborhood last night. This must be a dangerous neighborhood.) Note that
sometimes the conclusion could be true—if more clues/data added up to it, but based on the one item,
the conclusion seems to come out of nowhere. (Note: Colloquially, “non sequiturs” can refer to a
random statement that someone—such as a character in a movie—says that leaves people laughing and
scratching their head, wondering, “Where did that come from?”)
Here’s a few things people have said or written in my class that I would call non sequiturs (in the
colloquial sense):



“I can be in whatever mood I want to be because you’re sitting in my seat.” (and then: “I don’t
care if what I said made sense. You’re sitting in my seat, so it doesn’t matter.”)
“Although players had shaved legs, the team unity at the State Meet was high.”
“Why are there three girls’ choice dances in a row?” “Because the girls soccer field needs to be
re-done.”
Transfer: This fallacy is also known as association; this is a technique that involves projecting the
positive or negative qualities of one person, entity, object, or value onto another to make the second
more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response. Often highly visual, this technique
sometimes utilizes symbols superimposed over other visual images. These symbols may be used in
place of words; for example, placing swastikas on or around a picture of an opponent in order to
associate the opponent with Nazism. Transfer makes an illogical (or stretched/distorted) connection
between unrelated things; for example, if politics is corrupt, this candidate also is corrupt. Another
example: Transfer is used when a soda ad includes a party or an attractive woman: it suggests that
there is some kind of causal connection between drinking the soda and having a good time or attracting
girls, without ever directly proving the logic of such.
Note: The following four fallacies are quite similar.
Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the
premises. Basically, the writer assumes something in his assertion/premise that really needs to be
proved. (Ex. 1: All good citizens know the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Therefore, a test on the Bill
of Rights should be given to all those registering to vote. Ex. 2: A good Christian would definitely
support the such-and-such act, which bans international prostitution. Therefore, so-and-so who is
arguing for it must not be Christian. Ex. 3: “Our ineffective mayor should be replaced.”)
Circular Reasoning: This mistake in logic restates the premise rather than giving a reason for holding
that premise. (Ex. 1: Science should be required of all students because all students need to learn
science. Ex. 2: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible. Ex.
3: Conversation in Fletch that goes something like this:
“Who are you?”
“I’m Frieda’s boss.”
“Who’s Frieda?”
“She’s my secretary.”)
Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
“Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is
revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office.” Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An
argument like the above supposedly has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret
Services' official ban on homosexual employees. (Note: I’d say this particular example could be
categorized as false premise or begging the question as well.)
Circular Definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
Example: “A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pornography.” (We would need to know
what pornography is in order to tell whether a book is pornographic.)
False Premise: A speaker begins with a false assumption that is assumed true. Ex. 1: “All other
leading antacid remedies take 20 minutes to provide relief.” (If some of the competitors take less than
20 minutes to work, the example would be a false premise) Ex. 2: “Because Ms. McPherson is the
worst teacher in the school, she should be fired.” (Understood premise of “The worst teachers should
be fired”; hopefully false premise that Ms. M is the worst teacher). Ex. 3: Because you are in AP, this
work must come easy for you. (Understood—and likely false—premise that hard/AP work is easy for
advanced students)
Note: The following three fallacies are quite similar.
Attacking the Person / Ad hominem: (Latin phrase for “argue against the man”) This technique attacks
the person rather than his/her argument or the issue under discussion. (Ex. 1: We all know that Brady
was forced to leave college. How can we trust his company with our investments? Ex. 2: “You claim
that atheists can be moral—yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children.”) This is
a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A
less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also
asserted by some other easily criticized person—could also call this Reductio ad Hitlerum. For
example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with
you.” (Note: It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a
claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It
won’t, however, prove that their testimony is false concerning whatever matter is under discussion. It
also won’t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.)
Obtain Disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to
disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held
in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe
that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the
group may decide to change their original position. (Ex. 1 A couple years ago in Utah, some who
argued for Proposition 1 charged that those against it included the liberal NEA and Hillary Clinton.)
Distraction by Nationalism: A variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies applied
to entire countries. The method is to discredit opposing arguments by appealing to nationalistic pride
or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear of dislike of a specific country, or of
foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it discredits foreign journalists (the ones that are least
easily manipulated by domestic political or corporate interests). Example: “The only criticisms of this
trade proposal come from the United States. But we all know that Americans are arrogant and
uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant.”
Straw Man argument: This fallacy occurs when you misrepresent (or distort) someone else’s position
so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the
original position has been demolished. Or, Straw man is also explained as putting an opponent’s weak
argument with his stronger arguments and then suggesting that when you’ve overcome the weak
argument, you’ve overcome the opponents’ arguments as a whole. Example: “Those who favor guncontrol legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the
hands of the criminals.” Ex. 2: Grouping all those opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as “pacifists”
allows the speaker to refute the group by arguing for war in general. Likewise, someone might call
those who are for the war “warmongers” or “lackeys of the United States.”
Note: The next two fallacies are quite similar.
Hasty generalization: A person who makes a hasty generalization forms a general rule by examining
only a few specific cases, which aren’t necessarily representative of all cases. Basically, the evidence
is insufficient to warrant the conclusion being applied to a larger population. (Ex. 1: The well-known
computer expert found a virus in his own PC. All computers must be contaminated with this virus.
Ex. 2: Utah county high schools have had a rise with gang violence, so this must be a rising problem
for all of Utah. Ex. 3: Obama changed his mind on how long the troops need to stay in Irag; therefore,
we can’t trust our politicians—they never stick to what they originally say they will do. Ex. 4: “Jim
Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere.”)
Overgeneralization or False Generalization or Dicto Simpliciter or Sweeping Generalizations:
(Stereotyping) The writer/speaker draws a conclusion about a large number of people, ideas, things,
etc. based on very limited evidence. Any statement assuming all members of an ethnic, religious, or
political group are all the same in all or most respects is false. (Ex. 1: All members of the Wooden Peg
Club are not to be trusted. Ex. 2: Whites are well-off so they shouldn’t be in the pool for a scholarship
for those who are needy or who have overcome challenges.) Words such as never, always, all, every,
everyone, everywhere, no one are usually indicative of overgeneralization. It’s best to use and to look
for qualifiers (some, seem, appear, often, perhaps, frequently, etc.), which indicate that the writer has
an awareness of the complexities of the topic or group under discussion. (However, in writing an
analysis, don’t use too many qualifiers, such as “seems” a lot—go ahead and stick your neck out,
particularly if you’re pretty sure.)
Another definition says that oversimplification occurs when favorable generalities are used to provide
simple answers to complex, social, political, economic, or military problems. This is also sometimes
called glittering generalities (See below.).
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but
the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when
you go from the general to the specific. For example: “Christians generally dislike atheists.
You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists.” (Note: If you felt the first sentence was
erroneous, you could also call this a false premise fallacy.)
Note: The next five fallacies are quite similar.
Glittering generalities: Oversimplification/favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers
to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
The speaker/writer uses clichés; makes broad, sweeping, positive statements with little or no
substance; or otherwise tries to make the audience accept something by associating it with other things
that are values. Another explanation says: glittering generalities are “emotionally appealing words
applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis.” (Ex. 1: “Good
citizens will support new housing developments in our communities.” Ex. 2: “Ford has a better idea.”)
Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a
positive image when attached to a person or issue. “Peace,” “happiness,” “security,” “wise leadership,”
and “freedom,” are virtue words. See Transfer. (Ex. 1: A speech mentions phrases/words like “justice
for our children, peace in our lands, virtue in our hearts,” etc.)
Name Calling, Stereotyping, or Labeling. A speaker uses emotionally charged, negative terms for a
group or idea, without providing proof or examining the real issues. For example, calling someone a
“loser” or a “racist” is meant to turn people against him or her. This technique attempts to arouse
prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target
audience fears, hates, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group
may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being
representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.
Slanting: This is a form of misrepresentation in which a statement is made which may be true, but the
phrasing, connotations of words, or emphases are manipulative. For example: “I can’t believe how
much money is being poured into the space program” (suggesting that “poured” means heedless and
unnecessary spending).
Complex question / Loaded question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition: This is
the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question: “Have
you stopped beating your wife?” The question presupposes a definite answer to another question
which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they
ask questions like: "Where did you hide the money you stole?” Similarly, politicians often ask
loaded questions such as: “Does the Chancellor plan offer two more years of ruinous
privatization?” or “How long with this EU interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?”
(Anecdotal Evidence often functions as a sub-category of the hasty generalization fallacy.)
Anecdotal Evidence: One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:
“There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read
about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she
was cured.” It is quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes do not
act as proof by themselves. For example, your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but
those who haven’t had the same experience will require more than your friend’s anecdotal evidence to
convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to
believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been
known to circulate as anecdotes for years. Note: When a speaker/writer tries to use an anecdote alone
to prove a point, it is also a hasty generalization (perhaps such and such did occur in one person’s
experience, but that experience alone is likely not enough evidence to generalize as a rule). Note:
Anecdotes are often effective in creating pathos or helping a speaker connect with the audience, but
they are not good at creating a foundation of logos—although, an anecdote may be one building block
in creating evidence.
Note: The next three fallacies are quite similar—as well as similar to the hasty generalization.
False Cause (or Non Causa Pro Causa): This fallacy occurs when something is identified as the cause
of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example: “I took an aspirin and
prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache.” Two specific forms
of this fallacy include the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, which
follow.
Correlation vs. Cause or Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: The fallacy, a form of hasty generalization or
false cause, asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy
because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. “Literacy rates have steadily
declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning.” (Possibly a third
factor has caused literary rates to decline.)
Post hoc (full name is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, but most just call Post hoc): A form of a hasty
generalization or false cause in which it is inferred that because one event followed another it is
necessarily caused by that event. Example: Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly
on the quiz. It must be her fault. Or: “The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism.
Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons.”
Basically, this fallacy cites an unrelated (or, at least, not proved as related) event that occurred
earlier as the cause of a current situation. (Ex. 1: I had an argument with my best friend the night
before my driver’s test; therefore, I blame her for my failure. Ex. 2: Ever since Bush came into office,
our economy has tanked; therefore, it’s Bush’s fault.)
Eithor/or (also called Black-and-White and False Dichotomy or False Dilemma): The writer asserts
that there are only two (usually extreme) possibilities, when, in reality, there are more. (Ex. 1:
Tomorrow is my chemistry final; therefore, I must study all night, or I will fail the course. Ex. 2: You
can have an unhealthy, unreliable engine, or you can use Brand X oil. Ex. 3: “Either man was created,
as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell
us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so . . . ”)
Slippery Slope: This line of reasoning assumes that if one action is taken, it will lead to inevitable and
extreme consequences. There is no gray area or middle ground. This argument argues for (or against)
the first step because, if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. For
example: “If one Aggie sits down during a football game, soon everyone will; then all our traditions
will be ruined.” Ex. 2: “We can’t allow students any voice in decision-making on campus; if we do, it
won’t be long before they are in total control.” Ex. 3: “If we legalize marijuana, then more people
would start to take crack and heroin, and we’d have to legalize those too. Before long we’d have a
nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana.” Ex. 4: If we allow
PDA in the halls, next thing we know tons of girls will be pregnant and then who will be working our
stores and running our economy? (This last one is pretty similar to what a student wrote in a paper for
AP. It is an example of slippery slope as well as non sequitur.)
Plurium Interrogationum / Many Questions: This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or
simplistic) answer to a complex question. For example: “Are higher taxes an impediment to business
or not? Yes or no?”
Red Herring: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It
takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. (It might be related to what’s being discussed,
but it’s not the exact issue on the table.) Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice
in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills
that an engineer requires. Ex. 2: “You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent
against crime—but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel
when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they
should pay for their son’s murderer to be fed and housed?”
Note: The next two fallacies are quite similar.
Appeal to Authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument,
or course of action. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his field. For
example: “Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God.” Other examples include sports stars
selling cars or hamburgers, or the actor on a TV commercial that says, “I'm not a doctor, but I play one
on TV.” This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for
example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're
discussing that subject. For example, the following would be pretty good as a piece of evidence:
“Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation.” (Hawking is a renowned physicist, and
so his opinion seems relevant.)
Unrelated testimonials: Authorities in one field are used to endorse a product or an idea that they lack
expertise about. (Ex. 1: A famous basketball player endorses a political candidate.)
Appeal to Emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to
persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions, including pride, pity, fear, hate,
vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer.
Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the
general population. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as “might
makes right.” For example: “In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you
live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?” (Note that it doesn’t have
to be an implied threat from the speaker; it can merely motivate by causing fear—fear of
foreigners, fear of another Great Depression, etc.)
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity; Special pleading): The fallacy is committed
when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example: “I
did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering
enough through being an orphan.”
Note: The next three fallacies are quite similar.
Argument from Analogy or False Analogy: An unsound form of inductive argument in which an
argument is based completely or relies heavily on analogy to prove its point. Example: “This must be a
great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.” Ex. 2: “Saddam
Hussein had killed quite a few people. He was another Hitler and if we hadn’t have killed him at this
point, just imagine what he might have done next.”
False Assumption: The assumption that because two things are alike in some ways, they must be in
other ways.
Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature (related to false analogy): This is a common fallacy in political
arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some
aspect of the natural world—and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural
world is similar: “The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each
other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of
capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It’s how the natural world works.” Another form
of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must
mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is “unnatural.”
Card-stacking. The speaker mentions only the facts that will build the best case for his or her
argument, ignoring other factors or evidence. For example, an advertisement for a sale on spring
clothing doesn’t mention that only 20 items are on sale, making people believe everything in the
whole store in on sale.
Tu quoque or Two Wrongs Make a Right: This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an
apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it,
then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of
this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.
Note: The next two fallacies are quite similar.
Appeal to Ignorance / Ad Ignorantium. This occurs when it’s argued that something must be true,
simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, vice versa: If you can’t prove that something is true
then it must be false. Example: You can't prove there isn’t a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one.
(Note that this isn’t the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for
example, you’re generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here are a couple of examples: Ex.
1: “Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.” Ex. 2: “Of course telepathy and other
psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real.” See also Shifting the
Burden of Proof.
Shifting the Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the
burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. Ex. 1: “Okay, so if you don't think the grey
aliens have gained control of the U.S. government, can you prove it?”
Equivocation: An assertion that falsely relies on the use of a term in two different senses.
The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to
make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: An ad from a sugar company says “Sugar
is an essential component of the body, a key material in all sorts of metabolic processes, so buy some
P&R sugar today.” The word “sugar” is being used with two definitions that the ad does not
acknowledge. Ex. 2: “What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it
remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that it
will always be freely redistributable.” One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology
carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid/take care with words like “free” which have many
meanings. (Or define/be clear with your terms.)
Note: The following six fallacies are quite similar/related. (For now, studying the common idea of
these fallacies is more important than distinguishing between them. For the quiz, I will let you know
which of the following six you should know well.)
Common Belief: This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that
many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth.
Example: “Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that.”
Past Belief or Appeal to Tradition/Argumentum ad Antiquitatem (a form of the Common Belief
fallacy): The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past.
In other words, asserting that something is good or bad simply because it’s old, or because “that’s the
way it’s always been.” Example: “Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your
outlandish claims?” This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Novitatem fallacy, which suggests
something is better just because it is newer. Example of Appeal to Tradition: “For thousands of years
Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the
face of persecution.” Ex. of Argumentum ad Novitatem: “BeOS is a far better choice of operating
system than OpenStep, as it has a much newer design.”
Common Man: The “plain folks” or “common man” approach attempts to convince the audience that
the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense of people. It is designed to win the confidence
of the audience by communication in the common manner and style of the target audience.
Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and
audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average
person.
Bandwagon Appeals: This form of fallacy/persuasion attempts to persuade the target audience to join
in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.” (Similar to Argumentum ad Numerum.)
Tier 2
You are required to read these fallacies and try to digest them, but they will not appear on the
quiz and they likely would not appear on the AP test by name.
Argumentum ad Numerum: This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the likelier that that proposition is
correct. For example: “The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a
noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous.”
Ex. 2: “All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be
something to it.”
Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the people or gallery): You commit this fallacy if you attempt to
win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language. For example: “Pornography must be banned. It is violence against
women.” (Note that the example before might be turned more logical if it proved harm against women
and showed a detrimental effect on women, but, currently, it merely appeals to what people want to
hear, or to a general value/superstition.) Ex. 2: “For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus
and the Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that
Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?”
Argumentum ad Lazarum: This fallacy assumes that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous than
someone who’s wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Crumenam. For example:
“Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the
distractions of wealth.”
Argumentum ad Crumenam: The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that
those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite of Argumentum ad Lazarum. An
example of Argumentum ad Crumenam: "Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would
Bill Gates have gotten so rich?"
Argumentum ad Nauseam: Tireless repetition. An idea, especially a slogan, once repeated enough
times, is taken as the truth. Used especially by the media. Employs constant repetition in asserting
something, or saying the same thing over and over again, to try and wear down the audience/make you
convinced.
Amphiboly: A fallacy of syntactical ambiguity deliberately misusing implications. Example: “Three
out of four doctors recommend this type of pain relief!” The implied assertion here is that “three out of
four” means seventy-five percent of all doctors and that “this type of pain relief” means this particular
pain reliever. In actuality, they might have only polled four doctors, or they might have polled twenty
and then chosen four out of those twenty to act as their sample size.