Informal Fallacies

Question 1

What does ‘Informal Fallacy’ mean?

Answer 1

Arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument’s content.

Question 2

Argument from ignorance

appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam

Answer 2

Assuming that a claim is true because it has not yet been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

This represents a type of false dichotomy that it excludes a third option. That there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

Question 3

What argument from ignorance was put forward by Bertrand Russel as a hypothetical example?

Answer 3

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell’s teapot describes a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.

Question 4

What is ‘Pragmatism’?

Answer 4

A position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument’s proponent.

Russell’s teapot would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism.

Question 5

What does Occam’s Razor state?

Answer 5

Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but — in the absence of certainty — the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Question 6

“I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.”

What type of fallacy is this statement?

Answer 6

An argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense).

Question 7

Argument from repetition

argumentum ad nauseam

Answer 7

Signifies that it the issue has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Question 8

Argument from silence

argumentum e silentio

Answer 8

Where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Question 9

What type of fallacy assumes that the compromise between two positions is always correct?

Answer 9

An argument to moderation

(false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam).

Question 10

Argumentum ad hominem

Answer 10

The evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

Question 11

Begging the question

petitio principii

Answer 11

Providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

A type of circular reasoning.

Question 12

(Shifting the) Burden of proof

see – onus probandi

Answer 12

Example: ‘I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.’

Question 13

Circular reasoning

circulus in demonstrando

Answer 13

When the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

“To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments”.

Question 14

Circular cause and consequence

Answer 14

Where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Question 15

Correlation proves causation

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Answer 15

It is a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

Question 16

What is Equivocation?

Answer 16

The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

Question 17

Fallacy of composition

Answer 17

Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Question 18

Fallacy of division

Answer 18

Assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.

Question 19

False dilemma

false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy

Answer 19

Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

“If you are not with us, you are against us”

Question 20

Fallacy of many questions

complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum

Answer 20

Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.

This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.

Question 21

Fallacy of the single cause

causal oversimplification

Answer 21

It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Question 22

False attribution

Answer 22

An advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Question 23

Fallacy of quoting out of context

contextomy

Answer 23

Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.

Question 24

Gambler’s fallacy

Answer 24

The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.

If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is “due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails” is incorrect.

Question 25

Hedging

Answer 25

Using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.

Question 26

Historian’s fallacy

Answer 26

Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Question 27

Presentism

Answer 27

A mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.

Question 28

Inflation of conflict

Answer 28

The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.

Question 29

If-by-whiskey

Answer 29

Used in political discourse in which the speaker’s position is contingent on the listener’s opinion.

An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.

The statement typically uses words with strongly positive or negative connotations (e.g., terrorist as negative and freedom fighter as positive).

Question 30

Incomplete comparison

Answer 30

Insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.

Question 31

Inconsistent comparison

Answer 31

Different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.

Question 32

Irrelevant conclusion

missing the point, Ignoratio elenchi

Answer 32

An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law ‘ought’ to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of making an irrelevant conclusion.

Question 33

Ludic fallacy

Answer 33

The belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.

Question 34

Mind projection fallacy

Answer 34

Where a person considers the way they sees the world as the way the world really is.

Question 35

Moral high ground fallacy

Answer 35

A person assumes a “holier-than-thou” attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

Question 36

The moralistic fallacy

Answer 36

Assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist.

Its typical form is “if X were true, then it would happen that Z!”, where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is used to be presented as the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy.

Question 37

Nirvana fallacy

perfect solution fallacy

Answer 37

When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

Question 38

Proof by verbosity

argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation

Answer 38

Submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.

Question 39

Prosecutor’s fallacy

Answer 39

A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.

Question 40

Proving too much

Answer 40

Occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequences of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion.

It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion.

Question 41

Psychologist’s fallacy

Answer 41

An observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.

Question 42

Referential fallacy

Answer 42

Assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to.

As opposed to words possibly referring no real object (imaginary) or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.

Question 43

Regression fallacy

Answer 43

Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.

Question 44

Reification (hypostatization)

Answer 44

A fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity.

In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

Question 45

Retrospective determinism

Answer 45

The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.

Question 46

Shotgun argumentation

Answer 46

The arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them.

Question 47

Special pleading

Answer 47

Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.

Question 48

Wrong direction

Answer 48

Cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.