Fallacies Flashcards
Win
ad hominem
Assumes an opponent’s position is
wrong by focusing the argument
on how the opponent personally
came to believe that position
tu quoque
Appeals to an irrelevant authority
as justification for a conclusion
transfer
Equates positive characteristics of a
spokesman with their conclusion
ipse dixit
Attempts to discredit an opponent’s
conclusion by irrelevantly appealing
to supposed hypocrisy
between argument and actions
bulverism
Attacks an opponent’s character
when character is irrelevant
to the argument
genetic
fallacy
Attempts to distract from
the truth or validity of an argument
by appealing to pity
special
pleading
Attempts to show the truth
of a proposition by means of
the sheer number of people
who already have accepted it
ad baculum
Inappropriately
attempts to persuade
by means of threats
ad populum
Argues for an exception
to an accepted principle or standard
without offering a justification
ad
misericordiam
Rejects or accepts an argument
solely because of the moral character
of another, previous arguer
argument from
personal
incredulity
Misrepresents or hyperbolizes
an opponent’s position
to make it much easier to defeat
chronological
snobbery
Any fallacy of distraction
that ultimately leads away from
the truth of the matter
ad
ignorantiam
Sneakily changes a definition or sense
of a key word during a discussion
irrelevant
goals or
functions
When an entire sentence or passage
can be taken in two or more ways
irrelevant
thesis
Uses a synonym or restatement
to exempt itself from
an opponent’s charge
straw man
Denies a conclusion
solely based on personal belief
red herring
Accepts or rejects an idea
solely based on its age
equivocation
Argues for a proposition by pointing to
absence of evidence to the contrary
amphiboly
Irrelevantly critiques an idea
for failing to do something
it never was intended to do
distinction
without a
difference
Addresses a tangentially related
(and perhaps valid) point
that is not the point under discussion
composition
Leaves out or disguises
the facts that do not fit with
the presupposed conclusion
division
Attempts to persuade
solely or primarily on the basis of
a limited time frame
accent
Eliminates an exception to a presupposed
generalization by dismissing the
exception without justification
repetition
Assumes what needs to be proven
loaded
question
Assumes causation
based on temporal precedence alone
selective
arrangement
Assumes something true of the parts
must be true of the whole
exigency
Assumes something true of the whole
must be true of the parts
no true
scotsman
Sneakily changes the sense
of a sentence by means of
where the emphasis is placed
petitio
principii
Uses repetition to bypass a discussion
of the truth or falsity of a proposition
post hoc ergo
propter hoc
Veils unproven (presupposed) assertions under seemingly innocent questions
post hoc ergo
propter hoc
in statistics
Makes claims about
how something ought to be
based on its existence
or on its pleasantness
affirming the
consequent
Asserts but does not demonstrate a connection between a proposed idea and a resulting series of bad consequences OR baldly denies that some clearly treacherous and dangerous step will lead to any negative consequences at all
denying the
antecedent
Ignoring differences,
compares one situation to another
to draw the desired conclusion
bifurcation
Draws a broad conclusion
based on a too-small sample size
fallacy of
compromise
Applies a general rule absolutely,
regardless of reasonable exceptions
naturalistic
fallacy
Assumes causation based on
correlation alone
slippery slope
Has the general structure
“If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.”
false
analogy
Has the general structure
“If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.”
hasty
generalization
Illegitimately limits choices
sweeping
generalization
Assumes truth is always to be found
perfectly in between
two opposing positions
cool-shame
Sidetracks reasonable argument
with a multitude of discussions
about detailed, insignificant facts
that are not at the root of the issue
milquetoastery
Denies any relationship between
the truth of facts and the truth of values
polling
fallacy
Uses a hypothetical hostile audience’s
sensitivities to curtail further discussion
of a position or argument
hooked on
a feeeling
Suddenly disregards relevant evidence
presented in response to a specific claim
under the pretense of demanding other,
greater evidence
ad imperium
Contradicts or rejects absolute truth
absolutely
hyperlogicism
Superciliously excludes people
who do not confess to a cultural elite’s
previously held ideals and
flatteringly includes them if they do
two-story
fallacy
Although perhaps personally convinced,
refuses to take a stand on
an unpopular position solely because of
the risk of consequences
sensitivity
shamming
Considers polling results
to be the unimpeachable last word
in a discussion
moving the
goalposts
Refuses to believe an opponent’s
argument solely because of a negative
feeling about that argument
pomo
relativism
Avoids personal obligation by
appealing to government
