logical fallacies

1. Genetic Fallacy

instead of talking about the real argument itself, talks about the origin of the argument. <- irrelevant!

e.g. I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. (Ronald Reagan)

2. Ad Hominem

ignores the merits of his/her opponents' arguments rather target at the persons who produce the arguments.

i. Abusive<- irrelevant!

ii. Circumstantial

point out the circumstance of the opponents themselves (they CAN have an ulterior motive and their arguments are still GOOD for OTHER people) >> only means you should be more careful, it doesn't mean the opposite is true!!!

iii. Tu Quoque

“you do it too!” <- hasn't really respond to the argument!

3. Ad Populam

the person appeals to bandwagoning, snobbery, or fear of being different than the majority in order to influence the other person

i. Bandwaggoning: “a lot of people do it!”

ii. Snobbery: “the elite do it!”

4. Appeal to Pity

emotional appeal <- irrelevant!

5. Straw Man

distort an opponent's position, directs arguments at this distorted position <- you've changed my point!

6. Appeal to force

7. Appeal to authority

EXPLAIN why he's credible/ more credible than the other authority

8. Appeal to Ignorance

lack of evidence =negation of the argument

9. slippery slope

10. false dichotomy

the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only 2 options, when in fact there are other possibilities. he goes on to show that 1 option is outrageous therefore his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

key difference btw slippery slope & false dichotomy: SS. the disjunction maybe true (could be only 2 choices), the problem is how you get “not B”; FD. there are MORE options

11. alternate description

gives an alternate description of an object or event, and implying that under the new description the opponent's argument is flawed. [it's a fallacy if the original description is more appropriate]

e.g. take his son to a topless bar ~ “spend time with his loving father!”

12. composition [particulars -> whole]/ division

one mis-attributes properties of the whole to the part [division ]or the part to the whole [composition]

e.g. The Balboa Suspension Bridge was constructed using the strongest steel available, so the bridge must be extremely strong. >> what about the other parts of the bridge? what about a loosened nail? what about the design?

13. false cause [requires a causal chain]

mistaken a correlation for a cause

i. coincidence

ii. A causes B

iii. B causes A

iV. A and B both caused by C

14. hasty generalization [some particulars -> all particulars]

sample not typical: sample might be too small, or systematically biased

15. weak analogy

A has features WXYZ

B has features WXYZ

C has features WXYZ

D has features WXY, so it also has feature Z

16. begging the question

the arguer attempts to establish some conclusion P by appealing to some premises such that one or more of the premises illicitly assumes that P is true

17. affirming the antecedent / denying the consequent

attempting to fallaciously derive a conclusion from a conditional

e.g. if I had cake, I would be full; I'm full, so I had cake. (why? I could have had bread!)

.....; I didn't have cake, so I'm hungry. (really?)