Categories of Fallacies
(as described in Argumentation Fallacy Lecture)
 Linguistic Confusion – using language inappropriately
 Equivocation (two words with different meanings)
 Ambiguity (vagueness, easy to misinterpret)
 Semantical Ambiguity (one word, vague meaning)
 Syntactical Ambiguity (confusion due to poor grammatical construction)
 False Ambiguity – Careless interpretation (receiver’s fault)
 Distinction w/o a Difference ( saying it’s different when it’s not)
 Emotionally Loaded Language (using language to persuade instead of logic
 Technical Jargon (using technical jargon to confuse)
 Hyperbole (exaggeration)
 Begging the Question – circular reasoning
 Circular Reasoning (conclusion and premise are basically the same)
 Loaded/Complex Question (answering a question actually answers another, unasked,
question)
 Leading Question (leading respondent to an answer)
 Unwarranted Assumptions – arguments based upon questionable assumptions
 Fallacy of the Continuum (differences are always unimportant; “one more straw won’t
break the camel’s back”)
 Transfer Fallacies (characteristics of the whole or part “transfer” to the other)
 Fallacy of Composition (what’s true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole)
 Fallacy of Division / Sweeping Generalization / Dicto Simpliciter (what’s true of the
whole is necessarily true of the parts)
 False Alternatives / False Dilemma / False Dichotomy (giving too few alternatives &
implying that one of the stated alternatives must be true)
 Is/Ought Fallacy (because something is the case, it ought to be the case, or vice versa)
 Wishful Thinking (because you want something to be the case, it is the case)
 Misuse of a Generalization / Hasty Generalization (assumes no exceptions to a
generalization, or uses one case to draw a conclusion; could also be a statistical fallacy)
 Faulty Analogy (comparing apples to oranges)
 Fallacy of Novelty / argumentum ad novitatem (new is necessarily better)
 Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison (compared to what?)
 Missing Evidence – no evidence used
 Fallacy of Negative Proof / Appeal to Ignorance / argumentum ad ignorantiam (because it
has not been proven false, it must be true)
 Contrary-to-Fact Hypothesis (If you had …. Then …)
 Unsuitable Use of a Cliché (using a cliché instead of evidence)
 Neglect of Relevant Evidence / Apriorism (refusing to look at or downgrading evidence as
irrelevant to the argument when, in fact, it is relevant)
Argumentation: Fallacies
-1-
P.M. Harris-Jenkinson
 Causal Fallacies – false or insufficient cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this, therefore
because of this”)
 Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient Cause (while it might be necessary to attend
class to pass a course, it is not sufficient in and of itself)
 Causal Oversimplification (simple or inappropriate cause; often called simply “false cause”)
 Neglect of a Common Cause (If you say X causes Y, could there be a Z out there that causes
both X and Y?)
 Domino Fallacy / Slippery Slope / Snowball Argument (assumes, without appropriate
evidence, that one thing leads to another which leads to another…)
 Fallacies/Appeals of Irrelevance – don’t apply
 Attacking the Critic:
 Abusive Ad Hominen (attacking the source in an abusive way, rather than responding to
the argument)
 Tu Quoque (“you also”; “the pot calling the kettle black)
 Poisoning the Well (attacking the person in advance with something that really doesn’t
apply)
 Genetic Fallacy (static evaluation; assuming things – and people – don’t change)
 Irrelevant or Questionable Authority (appeal using poor authority, unidentified authority,
or no authority)
 Appeal to Tradition / ad verecundiam (We should continue to do things as they have been
done in the past)
 Missing the Point (not paying attention to the evidence; the evidence doesn’t say what you
think it says)
 Ad misericordiam / Special Pleading (appeal to pity or misery, instead of logic)
 Appeal to Public Opinion / Bandwagon Philosophy / Appeal to the Masses / ad populum (it
must be good because lots of people are doing it/believe it)
 Fallacies of Diversion – misdirection
 Distortion (restating an opponent’s argument in a distorted manner to make it easier to
attack)
 Attacking a Straw / Straw Man (focusing your argument on a small part of the opponent’s
argument so that it is easier to attack, then claiming you won the entire argument)
 Red Herring (drawing attention away from a critical issue to a side issue so your opponent
gets sidetracked and you can now “win” the bigger argument)
 Statistical Fallacies – improper use of statistical data
 Insufficient sample (too few cases; a form of hasty generalization)
 Unrepresentative Statistics (the sample is from an unrepresentative group, such as college
students being used in a study and then generalizing to senior citizens or the general
population)
 Fallacy of False Precision / Unknowable Statistics (being so precise that you wonder where
/ how they got that data; basically, questioning the method used to collect the data)
 Gambler’s Fallacy (playing the odds that because some random event has happened in the
past, it affects the likelihood of that random event occurring in the future; e.g., lottery)
Argumentation: Fallacies
-2-
P.M. Harris-Jenkinson