Fallacies Flashcards
Phases in a discussion
1 = Confrontation phase 2 = Opening phase 3 = Argumentation phase 4 = Conclusion phase
Confrontation phase
One party fields a position and the other party calls it into question
Argumentation phase
The protagonist offers arguments to defend his or her position, to which the antagonist responds
Fallacy of ambiguity
Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Misuse of ambiguous language
Argumentum ad baculum
Phase 1
Party P/A
Fallacy of the stick: Applying pressure to the opposition by threatening violence or other sanctions
Argumentum ad consequentiam
Phase 3
Party P
Rejecting a (descriptive) position on the ground of undesired consequences (evaluative)
Argument ad hominem / Personal attack
Direct (“abusive”)
Indirect (“indirect”)
Tu quoque
Generalizing the success of a defense
direct (abusive) personal attack
Phase 1
Party P/A
Calling the opponents’ knowledge of the facts, intelligence or integrity into question
indirect (circumstantial) personal attack
Phase 1
Party P/A
Casting doubt on the opponents’ motives
Argumentum ad hominem tu quouque
Phase 1
Party P/A
Pointing out a contradiction in the opponent’s past or current ideas and actions
Generalizing the success of a defense
Phase 4
Party P
Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concession
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Shifting the burden of proof
Generalizing the failure of a defense
Shifting the burden of proof
Phase 2
Party P
The antagonist has to show why the protagonist’s position is wrong
Generalizing the failure of a defense
Phase 4
Party A
Concluding that a position is correct because the opposite has not been defended successfully
Argumentum ad misericoridam
Appeal to pity
Exaggerated modesty
Appeal to pity
Phase 1
Party P
Applying pressure to the opposition by appealing to their emotions
Exaggerated modesty
Phase 3
Party P
Manipulating the audience by charming them with a posture of modesty (ethical fallacy: reverse argumentum ad verecundiam)
Pathetic fallacy
Phase 3
Party P
Playing on the sentiments of the audience instead of offering arguments in support of a position
Populist fallacy
Phase 3
Party P
A large number of people believing something is seen as a sign that it is true (the masses as the authority: argumentum ad verecundiam)
Evading the burden of proof
Phase 2
Party P
Personally guaranteeing the validity of a position
Ethical fallacy
Phase 3
Party P
Trotting out one’s own qualities instead of offering arguments in support of a position (reverse argumentum ad miscericordiam)
Fallacy from authority
Phase 3
Party P
The expertise, authority or special status of a person or an institution is seen as a sign that a position originating with this source is true, while the antagonist rejects the argument from authority or denies the expertise or authority of source
Affirming the consequent
Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect argumentation in which a sufficient condition is taken to be a necessary condition
Fallacy of composition
Phase 3
Party P
A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a part of a whole is wrongly attributed to the whole (incorrect conflation)
Fallacy of division
Phase 3
Party P
A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a whole is wrongly attributed to a part of the whole (incorrect division)
False dilemma
Phase 4
Party A
Portraying a contrast as a contradiction: from the fact that it has not been proved that one thing is the case
Declaring a position to be unassailable
Phase 1
Party P
Prohibiting or preventing a position from being called into question
Ignoratio elenchi
Phase 3
Party P
The argumentation refers to a different position from the one being discussed (irrelevant argumentation)
Denying a shared principle
Phase 3
Party A
Calling a proposition into question that is clearly a shared principle
Denying a concealed argument
Phase 3
Party P
Denying that one is bound to a correctly construed argument
Many questions (Compound question, trick question)
Phase 3
Party P
Question in which a position appears as a presupposition and is unfairly presented a a shared principle
Evading the burden of proof
Phase 2 Party P
With regard to a position
Phase 3 Party P
With regard to an argument
- to present a position or an argument as self-evident
- personally guaranteeing the correctness of a position or an argument
- to immunise a position or an argument to criticism
Denying the antecedent
Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect argumentation in which a necessary condition is taken to be a sufficient condition
Vagueness
Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Misuse of vagueness: in explicit, unspecific, unfamiliar, or vague use of language
Petitio principii
Phase 3
Party P
Circular reasoning, Begging the question
offering an argument tat amounts to the same as the position
Post hoc ero propter hoc
Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect suggestion of cause and effect
Inffering a causal relation from a chronological order: “following, so caused by”
Secundum quid
Phase 3
Party P
Rash generalisation
Reaching a general conclusion on the basis of too few, or unrepresentative, observations
Slippery slope
Phase 3
Party P
Incorrectly suggesting that a position will make a bad situation worse
Straw man
Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Attacking fictional position
- incorrectly attributing a position to the opponent; creating a fictional opponent
Attacking a distorted position
- twisting the opponent’s words by taking them out of them context, simplifying them or exaggerating them
Attacking weak arguments or opponents
- ignoring the opponent’s stronger arguments or ignoring stronger opponents
Attacking an inflated or concealed argument
- voicing a concealed argument, taking it further than the argument that can be ascribed to the opponent
Declaring a position to be taboo
Phase 1
Party A
Prohibiting or preventing a position from being presented
Generalizing the success of a defense
Phase 4
Party P
Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concessions
Wrong analogy
Phase 3
Party P
A position on a certain issue is defended by comparing it with a different issue, although the antagonist denies the analogy and there are essential differences between the issues
Shifting the burden of proof
Phase 2
Party P
… in an unmixed dispute: the antagonist has to show the protagonist’s position to be untrue
… in a mixed dispute: only the opponent has to defend his or her position, as one’s own position has the status of a presumption or is harder to defend
