Informal Fallacies

Question 1

Relevance Fallacies (Red Herring)

Answer 1

Premises are logically irrelevant to conclusion.

Question 2

Argumentum Ad Hominem

Answer 2

Attacks other person instead of their argument/ Dismisses someone’s position.

Question 3

Ad Hominem: Abusive

Answer 3

Coming for reputation of other person

Question 4

Ad Hominem: Circumstantial

Answer 4

Suggesting person making argument is biased

Question 5

Circumstantial: Poisoning The Well

Answer 5

Dismissing what someone is going to say by speaking on their consistency or character

Question 6

Circumstantial: Guilt by Association

Answer 6

Person is judged by the company they keep/someone we don’t like has that belief

Question 7

Circumstantial: Genetic Fallacy

Answer 7

Speaker argues that the origin of something in and of itself automatically renders it false

Question 8

Straw Man

Answer 8

Dismisses a conversation or argument by distorting or misrepresenting it

Question 9

False Dilemma

Answer 9

Someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only alternative to something we’ll find unacceptable, unattainable, implausible

Question 10

False Dilemma: Perfectionist

Answer 10

Ignores options between “perfection” and “nothing”; Ignoring less than perfect outcomes

Question 11

False Dilemma: Line Drawing

Answer 11

Occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal-clear line can be drawn between two things or else there is no difference between them. Ignores and limits the boundaries

Question 12

Misplacing The Burden Of Proof

Answer 12

When people try to support or prove their position by misplacing the burden of proof, they want the opposite party to prove otherwise

Question 13

Misplacing The Burden of Proof: Appeal to Ignorance

Answer 13

When someone asserts that we should believe a claim because nobody has proved it false or nobody has proven otherwise

Question 14

Begging the Question

Answer 14

Petitio principii - “assuming what you are trying to prove”. When someone tries to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question.

Question 15

Appeal to Emotion

Answer 15

Playing on emotions rather than making an argument

Question 16

Appeal to Emotion: Argument from Outrage

Answer 16

Attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than by giving us a relevant argument

Question 17

Appeal to Emotion: Scare Tactics

Answer 17

Speaker tries to scare one into accepting an irrelevant conclusion, requires a specific conclusion implied or stated, otherwise it is just considered as fear mongering

Question 18

Appeal to Emotion: Appeal to Pity

Answer 18

“Argumentum ad misericordiam”, speaker tries to convince by arousing pity rather than by giving a relevant argument

Question 19

Appeal to Emotion: Other Appeals to Emotion

Answer 19

Emotions are used to manipulate an audience into believing or doing something instead of providing actual support for a claim (e.g. guilt tripping)

Question 20

Irrelevant Conclusion

Answer 20

Conclusion is not closely related to its premise/s

Question 21

Irrelevant Conclusion: Wishful Thinking

Answer 21

Speaker forgets that wanting something to be true is irrelevant to whether it is true or not

Question 22

Irrelevant Conclusion: Denial

Answer 22

Speaker forgets that wanting something to be false is irrelevant to whether it is false or not