Fallacy Definitions

Question 0

The belief that there is a single, definitive explanation for our problems. Most problems are the result of several things adding ho to the problem, instead of one thing.

Answer 0

Multiple causation.

Question 1

A “cause” which by itself does not have the potency or power to produce the alleged “effect.” The “cause” is not strong enough to merit its effect.

Answer 1

Insufficient cause.

Question 2

After the fact, therefore because of the fact. When an advocate claims that a cause-effect relationship exists between two phenomena simply because the two phenomena occur sequentially in time.

Answer 2

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Question 3

The advocate establishes a single relationship between two phenomena A and B, but then asserts that A causes B. a sign is merely a coincidental relationship. When B exists, A exists, however A did not cause B or B did not cause A.

Answer 3

Substitution of sign for cause.

Question 4

An advocate commits this fallacy if they jump to conclusions.

Answer 4

Hasty generalization.

Question 5

The advocate assumes what is true of the “parts” is true of the whole itself.

Answer 5

Fallacy of composition.

Question 6

What is true of the “whole” is true of the “parts.”

Answer 6

Fallacy of division.

Question 7

When the advocate takes a sign that could be evidence to several things an argues without adequate evidence, that the sign signifies one particular thing.

Answer 7

Equivocal sign.

Question 8

When an advocate takes a sign from one time/culture/context and then applies it to a different time/context/culture.

Answer 8

Constant sign.

Question 9

When an advocate argues that a signal relationship exists between two phenomena A and B on no other basis than common belief or personal value judgements.

Answer 9

Mystic sign.

Question 10

Citing percentages without identifying the population from which the percentages are drawn.

Answer 10

Unnamed base.

Question 11

Gives the impression of having taken a survey, but the sample is not large enough to be representative or typical of total population to which his generalization applies.

Answer 11

Inadequate sample.

Question 12

An advocate will accurately identify the population, and will indicate that the statistics are reported on the basis of sampling. He will then report on a sample which is large enough, but fails to account for all groups to which the generalization applies. Thus, the results are not representative of the population.

Answer 12

Faulty sample.

Question 13

If, then..

Answer 13

Affirming “IFFirming” the consequent.

Question 14

If, then occurring when the advocate denies the “if” clause and reasons as though that entailed the denial of the “then” clause.

Answer 14

Denying the antecedent.

Question 15

Leaving out a major premise.

Answer 15

Unstated assumption or faulty enthymeme.

Question 16

“Begging the question.” Asking a question in a circle.

Answer 16

Petitio Principii.

Question 17

Only two possibilities. Either you do x or y or nothing at all.

Answer 17

Faulty dilemma (or Black and White fallacy).

Question 18

“It does not follow.” Conclusion is unpredictable and does not fit the pattern of evidence or statements made before it.

Answer 18

Non-sequitur.

Question 19

Advocate asserts that the audience should accept a proposition because “everyone else” accepts it.

Answer 19

Bandwagon (Argumentum Ad Populam).

Question 20

When an opponent asserts that a proposition or claim must be right because it always has been.

Answer 20

Appeal to tradition.

Question 21

Supports an argument by essentially stating that a proposition is justified or not justified mainly because someone else of importance supports it.

Answer 21

Appeal to authority.

Question 22

Appeal to ignorance. Something must be true because it has not been proven false, or something is false because it has not been proven true.

Answer 22

Ad Ignorantiam.

Question 23

Breaks it into parts and assert that each part alone, working by itself, is inadequate to solve the problem.

Answer 23

Part-whole composition (majoring on minors).

Question 24

To the man. Where an advocate will not reply directly to an opponent’s argument, but instead attacks the character of the opponent directly.

Answer 24

Ad Hominem.

Question 25

“You’re another.” Because someone else did something, I should be allowed to do it, too.

Answer 25

Tu Quoque.

Question 26

Rather than offer strict proof for each proposition, the advocate will “sandbag” the stronger arguments, leaving them unproven or barely proven. This invites the opponent to attack on what is the stronger point. This leaves out necessary evidence, and the advocate attacks.

Answer 26

Evidence trap.

Question 27

When the advocate diverts the opponents attention to an irrelevant issue or point. Can sometimes provoke emotional response to piss off the opponent.

Answer 27

Red Herring.

Question 28

When the advocate subtly shifts from defending the original losing assertions to defending other points. Pulling the rug out.

Answer 28

Groundshift.

Question 29

When summing up the other’s argument, you make it sound very weak and not that great.

Answer 29

Straw Man.