1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. A.Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true. B. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment. 2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument. A. Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say. B. Example: Convert or die. 3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. A. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you. B. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline. 4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it. A. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good. B. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you? 5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time. A. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way. B. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true. 6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular. A. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists. B. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him. 7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together. A. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise. B. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas. 8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question 9. Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts. A. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue. B. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too. 10.Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. A. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush. B. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species. 11.False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible. A. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over) B. Example: Do you still beat your wife? 12.Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. A. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it. B. Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him. 13.Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another. A. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad. B. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you. 14.Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. A. Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car. B. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine. 15.Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. A. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject. B. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser. 16.Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. A. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems. B. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you. 17.Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself. A. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man. B. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you. 18.Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it. A. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor. B. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys. 19.Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another. A. Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. B. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't. Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the see argumentum ad ignorantiam." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam. the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible. etc. Moreover. In a sense. therefore you should declare him not guilty. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case. For further commentary on burdens of proof. this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted. perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate. Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. It is. the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would. This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. in some forms of debate. which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge. who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only . this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team. Still. even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point. In debate. which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition. The English translation pretty much says it all. Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). the opposition wins. the difference is the burden of proof. how much it costs. even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. the expensive costless. the false true. above. starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible. the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. of course.defendant committed the crime. be sufficient to affirm the proposition. in the absence of refutation. for example. Example: "Think of all the poor. it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team. This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again." Well. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions. But no matter how many times you repeat something. again and again and again. drugs are wrong. i. Of course. this is a very popular fallacy in debate. since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them. whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust. When a distinction is made between the two. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. But no matter how many people believe something. the appeal to the people or to popularity. the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion. because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!" Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).with more impassioned pleas. and with good reason: the more times you say something. what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect. that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. The Latin wording is particularly nice here. our opponents tell us drugs are wrong. failed to justify it. and then tell 'em what you told 'em. and then stated it again and again. The distinction is a fine one. and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon. some debaters think that's all there is to it.e. then tell 'em. maybe 70% of Americans are wrong! This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum. Nonetheless. ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity. by repitition). drugs are wrong. "Sir." Unfortunately. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).) . This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views).for instance." Complex question. Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Of course. as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true. such as "Have you stopped beating your . And since you shouldn't smoke pot. For instance. which you should see for more details. even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate. and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. there is nothing wrong with doing so. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees. In general. "In other words. and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven. it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction.Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). see above. A good summing up statement is. or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area. Since smoking pot is illegal. you shouldn't smoke pot. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum. For an example. which is why marijuana is illegal!" Circular arguments appear a lot in debate. it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand. but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. debaters should be called down for committingargumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification. he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. They are always illegitimate. In general. though. therefore because of this). the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact.i.wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case. so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e. But be careful -. what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.. .. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!" Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this. it is false).g. do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course. the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents). but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate. "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty. or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e. you'll look stupid. the President may have a negligible effect on the economy. For instance. some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better (loosely speaking). You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis.e.. causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing). A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. In debate rounds. but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. thinking that because two things occur simultaneously. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. This is a sneaky tactic. that you beat your wife) has not been established. one might say. or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e. and the real driving force is technological growth).. but it might work in a debate. downsizing upset a lot of voters. one must be a cause of the other. although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given.if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -.g. For instance.g. but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit. It can. For further comment on this subject. and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average. stereotyping. below.in other words. absolutely correct). and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. As the example indicates. appeal to.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably. Most of the time. Note. Nature. post hoc (as it is affectionately called) being the preferred term. "Sodomy is unnatural. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is. sweeping generalization). that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit. be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases. anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong. wearing clothes. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average)." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means.e. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases. Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply. there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. but to the value of human survival.. i. For example. however. see the naturalistic fallacy. tilling the soil. to my knowledge. there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so. it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good. or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. however. The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate. women are indeed weaker than men). A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks. "All human males have a Y chromosome" is. This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -. . After all. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -. For example. there can be no purely logical argument against it. or premises) a statement of value. Non Sequitur ("It does not follow").really believes that "whatever is natural is good". suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good. any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact. as a conclusion." The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds." But this reasoning is invalid. there is at least . we need affirmative action. In both of these fallacies. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). Fortunately. (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement. the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. your judge. in order to reach any conclusions of value. one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms. If you wish to reach conclusions about values. something that does not strictly follow from the premises. because the former statement is a statement of fact. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap. then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine. you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible. someone might argue that the premise. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value. debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof." Obviously. "You should take this medicine. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble. Therefore.Naturalistic fallacy. One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that. For example. "Racism is wrong. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is. or even your opponent himself -. while the latter is a statement of value. about values) from statements of fact alone." and forcing the judge to choose between them. like "whatever enhances human life is good. and (c) pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong. then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions. For example. "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion. This is the simple fallacy of stating." which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy.you. not a statement of value. The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term "begging the question" has a very specific meaning.) For these reasons. though. because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as. For all practical purposes. obviously. (This strategy is not always preferable. when trying to prove something. point out the non sequitur. "They say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free expression. because some counterarguments are so obvious and important that it makes sense to address them early and nip them in the bud. this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation. But this begs the question of what free expression means. . And since it's free expression." because doing so might give the other side a hint about a good argument to make. and then refute it. A debate team arguing for affirmative action would be foolish to say in their first speech. "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. that way. etc. It is common to hear debaters saying things like." thatwould be begging the question." "Affirmative action would reduce racism.) without justifying each step in the chain. A better strategy (usually) is to wait for the other team to bring up an argument. This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. For each step in the chain they fail to justify." This is a misuse of terminology. "We also believe that affirmative action does not lead to a racist backlash. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this. Not surprisingly. and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. it shouldn't be banned. so that it is obvious by the end that the alleged chain of causation is tenuous and implausible.). The best time to point out a non sequituris when your opposition is trying to construct a chain of causation (A leads to B leads to C." "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action. therefore because of this). If somebody said. But that is partly just a result of having to work within the time constraints of a debate round. it is generally bad form to scream "non sequitur" just because your opposition has failed to anticipate every counterargument you might make. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion. This is the fallacy of assuming. what it is that you are trying prove. Petitio principii (begging the question)." etc. "Racism is common.one missing step in this argument. and partly a result of using good strategy. debate rounds are rife with non sequitur. you don't end up wasting your time by refuting arguments that the opposition has never made in the first place. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar." The conclusion is invalid. "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -. because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. however." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken. In the example given. which you should see for further details. a frustrated sex drive -. it is possible that some psychological factor -. but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. LSD. but it is no longer a fallacious one. and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal. in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence. Red herring. The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic. In the example given.pornography causes violence toward women. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. . Post hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propter hoc. the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin. This is a debatable point of view. to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. Often. Slippery slope. because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other.but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate.say. For example. concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime. but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example. and crack cocaine. such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. "If we legalize marijuana.) It is not fallacious.might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal. you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable. "Mr. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument. and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies. too!" Although clearly fallacious. For example. a fallacy at all. but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made. An error is still an error. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. But they asserted a lot of things. Straw man. This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. The best straw man is not. so if we don't like those other policies. For example. "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. regardless of how many people make it.so if we don't support legalizing other drugs. then maybe we don't really believe in that principle. but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes." the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -. if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying. Tu quoque ("you too"). that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. tu quoque arguments play an important role in debate because they may help establish who has done a better job of debating (setting aside the issue of whether the proposition is true or not). Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made. In debate. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made. One example of a straw man argument would be to say. For instance. "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued. strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. say." when in fact Mr. in fact. in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. rather than the actual argument they've made. If both teams have engaged in ad . we should question whether we really buy those principles. or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks!" This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack." Or. an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim doesn't change the truth of an issue. Example: "Superintendent." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument. literally. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.hominem attacks. Logically. using tu quoque statements is a good way to assure that judges make decisions based only on factors that distinguish between the two sides." While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform. rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. you should cut the school budget by $16. "argument toward the man. and therefore they cannot provide a reason for favoring one position over the other (such disadvantages are referred to as "nonunique"). to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class! Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea.000. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. In general. appearing immediately below. In addition. "Ha! I'm not reading that book. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence. "Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California. and we all know those people are flakes. Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem. professional. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or. this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. then it would hardly be fair to penalize one team for it but not the other. The statement . or ethnic origin. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. however. product. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy. and so on. it is not fallacious at all to point out that certain advantages or disadvantages may apply equally to both positions presented in a debate. Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): This argument uses force. or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial. _____________________________________________________________________________________ - FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand. however. the threat of force. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. It was published in Tennessee. geographic. or both teams have made a few appeals to pity. (2) Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh. Catholics. This is similar to the genetic fallacy. the argument must be true. racists. you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action. Communists. patriotism. or the course of action must be followed.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism."2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by criminals. motherhood. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. It is a favorite device with the propagandist. and the advertiser. (3) Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it. because the reader is a Republican or Democrat. feminists. To argue that. After all.This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that." This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic. or the decision must be the best choice. (2) Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag. but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind. or pastors.” For instance. A true American would never use this approach. often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists. Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent. the John Birch Society. misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. rugged individualism. and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise. etc. all those people can’t be wrong. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. the demagogue. assertions. anti-Catholics. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought. There are three basic approaches: (1) Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it. Christians. anti-racists. congressmen. There are two subcategories: (1) Abusive: To argue that proposals. 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat.” but rather that “all the best people are doing it. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. For instance. she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. If one's adversary is a clergyman. nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. since beer belongs in this great country of ours. “Any true intellectual would . The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. IBM must make the best computers. godless communism. and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy. capitalists. suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument. "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds. we interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman." This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian. such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. who declared there is no problem. professional. "Covering Oneself in the Cross. To cite Darwin. On the other hand. don’t fix it. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism. we interviewed all the frat presidents. "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus. . to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious." Or again. so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke.recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near election time. or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad Traditio): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Keep in mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that longstanding policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago? Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium. Alternatively. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. In this sort of appeal. but it ignores important questions. the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true. or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal. In all three of these examples. we might add a fourth category. literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority. an authority on biology. but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance. That has been good enough for thirty years." and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. the authority is one who actually isknowledgeable on the matter.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense." Indeed. many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas. on religious matters is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. " The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument. the heart of the matter. illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. For instance. I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly. with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. For example. indeed. skipping over the part that's the real controversy. suppose a particular student group states. Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii. "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse. . Yes.Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam. However. Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance. For instance. “The medical tests show that Grandma has advanced cancer. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter. "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. the most important component. the argument is a fallacy. Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results. and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime. Therefore. might have cancer. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. literally.” Au contraire. one person might assert. if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion. in spite of how negative that fact may be or how it may affect us. they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. COMPONENT FALLACIES: Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced. in the 1880s. this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below). prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. Grandma. that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of his or her inability to understand how they work. The defense presented a "not-guilty" plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan. However. those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course-they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument. we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. also called “Jumping to Conclusions. and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Egbert failed Biology 101. a logician cannot normally examine every single example. Basically. Maybe Susan. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements." In understanding and characterizing general situations. which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example! Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God. Herman failed Biology 101. and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it.Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. it looks like this: The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. It is." If we draw this out as a chart. However. however. with each step of the argument relying on a previous one. Herman.” "Converse Accident"): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. the author is repeating the same point in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole. In the example. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger . the argument goes in an endless circle. logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists. for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. advantageous to the state.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion. "Not the cause for a cause"): A general. Sometimes it does. It is the honest writer's job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. my mother had a heartattack. He becomes furious to learn that 40% of office "sick-days" occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)--just in time to create a three-day weekend. catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause. for those that are not. Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this. it must mean the first event caused the later one. if only two women took the test that day. However. generalizations are bad. Ought I to give the weapons back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week. therefore because of this"): This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that. of course. Suppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers.than three--or (b) if that isn't possible. of course. 50% of the women who took the driving test failed. Except. the results would be far less clear-cut. . because the first event preceded the second event. . For example. the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. Plato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind." This is how superstitions begin." Of course they do! The very nature of an average implies that! False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist. but sometimes it doesn't. Suspecting fraud. He does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. (2) Post Hoc. The two most common include these types: (1) Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone. she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. The irony.” What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. . One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. An hour later. Every single last one. This error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. in Plato’s Republic. . so the numbers are completely average. the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. Example: "A black cat crossed my path at noon. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that "50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude. There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. and he points out that last Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles. All of them. Incidentally. he decides to punish his workers. So remember. Because the first event occurred earlier. it must have caused the bad luck later. ignoring the real or subtle points of contention. suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia. exaggerating. For example. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists. or take up a life of crime. of course. . One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the "Red Herring. and the police should be chasing them. like a scarecrow. which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it herself. Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes.” Certainly. above. or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. will agree. or made a bad choice in his companions. a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. For instance. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration. the question at hand concerns a particular measure. However. and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong. It's similar to begging the question. because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. His "victory" is a hollow mockery. worse criminals do exist. presumably. Everyone. he has created a straw man argument. and (2) should he pay a fine for it? Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"). The question really isn't. “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one. but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly." A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point. this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating. see correlation and causation. not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me. "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question really is. shoot classmates. Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later.The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show. or listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--to snort coke. After all. but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?" Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument. "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?" This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. for instance. Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life. For more information. These may be potential suspects for the cause. there are other senators who have done far worse things. This fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the American way of life will collapse. Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the Black-and-White Fallacy. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D. but did not put down on paper. "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. non causa pro causa." In this example. FBI agents will be reading our mail.” . Non Sequitur (literally." The second speaker retorts. leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head. the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s." There's obviously a step or two missing here. or privacy will completely vanish in the United States. distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose. but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term. . The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy. a second or third step will inevitably follow. and ignorantio elenchi. once you use one." However." "False Dilemma. no more than a person buying a single can of CocaCola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store. once the first step is undertaken. I'll show you why he's wrong . After that. much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. Outcomes are seldom so simple. it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. if one were to argue. It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. "If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet. For this reason. once the nose is in. you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies. "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children. . and eventually its whole body. no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another. The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The Camel's Nose Fallacy") is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that. and then its neck. helpless to stop herself." "Excluded Middle. the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy. It simply assumes that. it will inevitably stick in its head. The opponent argues. However. the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." or "False Dichotomy"): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. For instance. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy.For instance." Such thinking is fallacious. "If God can do anything. the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion.” In the first example. If the first object capable of moving anything exists. or everyone will think you are foolish. Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another. by definition. I say that death is the end of life." Either you must avoid either/or fallacies. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection. God is eternal and unchanging--He has no source or creator. All snakes are reptiles. earlier premise. Closely related is the fallacy of Special Pleading. and vice-versa. “Everything must have a source or creator. he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it. death is the perfection of life. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. faulty analogies are like flimsy wood. or else the universal principle of everything having a source or creator must be set aside—the person making the argument can’t have it both ways." "Either you drink Burpsy Cola. All snakes are coldblooded. equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed middle term. For instance. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases. a small amount tastes sweet. For example. Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise. As you can see.” In such an assertion. hence. more than two years of education is bad for a student. All snakes are coldblooded. Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. Therefore God must have created the world. but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. in which the writer creates a universal principle.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake. All snails are snakes. or changing definitions halfway through a discussion.” In the second example. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument.” Sometimes. no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material. Likewise. For instance. then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand. What? Who created God? Well. “education is like cake. we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. or else Canada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States. but it ." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage. Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded.” (2) “All snails are cold-blooded. either God must have His own source or creator."We go to war with Canada. and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood. the immovable object cannot exist. or you will have no friends and no social life. the middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-blooded” and “snails. the middle term “snakes” fits in the categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded. we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: "Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. He must have great influence in the California legislature. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. etc. Here. In the second case. but the conclusion uses the secondary "false" interpretation. below." (Perhaps she is motivated by money alone?) Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual thing represented by that word or idea.” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or sign peace treaties. but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to create a categorical generalization. "Microtech is a company with great influence in the California legislature. Amphiboly (from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing. Compare with amphiboly. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true. because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight. Also compare it withDivision (see below). "Save soap and waste paper. “Poverty. the fallacy comes from the fact that “war” implies a concrete struggle with another nation. Such an argument might hold that. we might imagine a reformer trying to eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or certain sexual acts in publications. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. The problem is that eliminating the words for these deeds is not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves. Egbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech--positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Reification of the concept merely confuses the issue of what policies to follow. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see above). Clearly. Such an argument notes that. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning." This is not necessarily true. She must be an environmentally minded individual. the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. In the command. It is closely related to and overlaps with faulty analogy and equivocation. Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. cannot be shot or bombed. In the first case. FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. . Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error.” In this case.means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. the entire machine also must be lightweight. Susan Jones is a worker at Sunsurf." the amphibolous use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb or as an adjective. we might imagine a person or declaring “a war on poverty. "You owe me part of your increased salary. so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless. Einstein’s theory of relativity must be true. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone. For instance. since the opposition cannot disprove a claim.Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy. but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. For instance. Perhaps not. you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer. and listing only those examples that support her case. For instance. have you stopped taking them . Contrast it with thestraw man argument. since one position is untenable. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate. no more than disproving your opponent's assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one. If I hadn't taught you how to recognize logical fallacies. suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero. Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that. “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by. the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point. one might mistakenly argue that. literally "Argument from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point. unstated question. This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization. Y would have been the result. For instance. if hypothetically X had occurred. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above). the opposite stance must be true. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is." Perhaps. or asserting that. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. the opposite stance must be true. the world would never have learned about relativity. Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. if I were to ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. or arguing that. Perhaps they are all wrong. Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium. since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous. the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. and Einstein’s theory is flawed. or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself. since the Newtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate. A common example is the idea that one "owes" her success to another individual who taught her. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above). but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. “If you have taken drugs in the past. A student might write. “Where did you hide the evidence?” or "when did you stop beating your wife?" The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analyze its component parts. “Why is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. the explicit question may dissolve. That question is. Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. implicit question remains unaddressed. whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases. a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion. a lawyer might ask a flustered witness. However. If one answers or discusses the prior. implicit question first.now?” In cross-examination. of course. an observant reader may disagree. . recognizing the prior.