Fallacies

Question 1

Phases in a discussion

Answer 1

1 = Confrontation phase 
2 = Opening phase
3 = Argumentation phase
4 = Conclusion phase

Question 2

Confrontation phase

Answer 2

One party fields a position and the other party calls it into question

Question 3

Argumentation phase

Answer 3

The protagonist offers arguments to defend his or her position, to which the antagonist responds

Question 4

Fallacy of ambiguity

Answer 4

Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Misuse of ambiguous language

Question 5

Argumentum ad baculum

Answer 5

Phase 1
Party P/A
Fallacy of the stick: Applying pressure to the opposition by threatening violence or other sanctions

Question 6

Argumentum ad consequentiam

Answer 6

Phase 3
Party P
Rejecting a (descriptive) position on the ground of undesired consequences (evaluative)

Question 7

Argument ad hominem / Personal attack

Answer 7

Direct (“abusive”)
Indirect (“indirect”)
Tu quoque
Generalizing the success of a defense

Question 8

direct (abusive) personal attack

Answer 8

Phase 1
Party P/A
Calling the opponents’ knowledge of the facts, intelligence or integrity into question

Question 9

indirect (circumstantial) personal attack

Answer 9

Phase 1
Party P/A
Casting doubt on the opponents’ motives

Question 10

Argumentum ad hominem tu quouque

Answer 10

Phase 1
Party P/A
Pointing out a contradiction in the opponent’s past or current ideas and actions

Question 11

Generalizing the success of a defense

Answer 11

Phase 4
Party P
Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concession

Question 12

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Answer 12

Shifting the burden of proof

Generalizing the failure of a defense

Question 13

Shifting the burden of proof

Answer 13

Phase 2
Party P
The antagonist has to show why the protagonist’s position is wrong

Question 14

Generalizing the failure of a defense

Answer 14

Phase 4
Party A
Concluding that a position is correct because the opposite has not been defended successfully

Question 15

Argumentum ad misericoridam

Answer 15

Appeal to pity

Exaggerated modesty

Question 16

Appeal to pity

Answer 16

Phase 1
Party P
Applying pressure to the opposition by appealing to their emotions

Question 17

Exaggerated modesty

Answer 17

Phase 3
Party P
Manipulating the audience by charming them with a posture of modesty (ethical fallacy: reverse argumentum ad verecundiam)

Question 18

Pathetic fallacy

Answer 18

Phase 3
Party P
Playing on the sentiments of the audience instead of offering arguments in support of a position

Question 19

Populist fallacy

Answer 19

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)

Question 20

Evading the burden of proof

Answer 20

Phase 2
Party P
Personally guaranteeing the validity of a position

Question 21

Ethical fallacy

Answer 21

Phase 3
Party P
Trotting out one’s own qualities instead of offering arguments in support of a position (reverse argumentum ad miscericordiam)

Question 22

Fallacy from authority

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Affirming the consequent

Answer 23

Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect argumentation in which a sufficient condition is taken to be a necessary condition

Question 24

Fallacy of composition

Answer 24

Phase 3
Party P
A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a part of a whole is wrongly attributed to the whole (incorrect conflation)

Question 25

Fallacy of division

Answer 25

Phase 3
Party P
A (relative or structurally dependent) quality of a whole is wrongly attributed to a part of the whole (incorrect division)

Question 26

False dilemma

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Declaring a position to be unassailable

Answer 27

Phase 1
Party P
Prohibiting or preventing a position from being called into question

Question 28

Ignoratio elenchi

Answer 28

Phase 3
Party P
The argumentation refers to a different position from the one being discussed (irrelevant argumentation)

Question 29

Denying a shared principle

Answer 29

Phase 3
Party A
Calling a proposition into question that is clearly a shared principle

Question 30

Denying a concealed argument

Answer 30

Phase 3
Party P
Denying that one is bound to a correctly construed argument

Question 31

Many questions (Compound question, trick question)

Answer 31

Phase 3
Party P
Question in which a position appears as a presupposition and is unfairly presented a a shared principle

Question 32

Evading the burden of proof

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Denying the antecedent

Answer 33

Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect argumentation in which a necessary condition is taken to be a sufficient condition

Question 34

Vagueness

Answer 34

Phase 1/2/3/4
Party P/A
Misuse of vagueness: in explicit, unspecific, unfamiliar, or vague use of language

Question 35

Petitio principii

Answer 35

Phase 3
Party P
Circular reasoning, Begging the question
offering an argument tat amounts to the same as the position

Question 36

Post hoc ero propter hoc

Answer 36

Phase 3
Party P
Incorrect suggestion of cause and effect
Inffering a causal relation from a chronological order: “following, so caused by”

Question 37

Secundum quid

Answer 37

Phase 3
Party P
Rash generalisation
Reaching a general conclusion on the basis of too few, or unrepresentative, observations

Question 38

Slippery slope

Answer 38

Phase 3
Party P
Incorrectly suggesting that a position will make a bad situation worse

Question 39

Straw man

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Declaring a position to be taboo

Answer 40

Phase 1
Party A
Prohibiting or preventing a position from being presented

Question 41

Generalizing the success of a defense

Answer 41

Phase 4
Party P
Concluding, after a successful defense, that the position is valid; disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concessions

Question 42

Wrong analogy

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Shifting the burden of proof

Answer 43

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