Informal fallacies

Question 1

Appeal to the stone.

Answer 1

• Dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Question 2

Argument from ignorance.

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Argument from incredulity.

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Argument from repetition.

Answer 4

• Signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore; sometimes confused with proof by assertion.

Question 5

Argument from silence.

Answer 5

• Assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.

Question 6

Argument to moderation.

Answer 6

• Assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.

Question 7

Begging the question.

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Circular reasoning.

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Circular cause and consequence.

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Continuum fallacy.

Answer 10

• Improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Question 11

Correlation proves causation.

Answer 11

• A faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.

Question 12

Suppressed correlative.

Answer 12

• A correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.

Question 13

Divine fallacy.

Answer 13

• Arguing that, because something is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.

Question 14

Double counting.

Answer 14

• Counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.

Question 15

Ambiguous middle term.

Answer 15

• A common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.

Question 16

Definitional retreat.

Answer 16

• Changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.

Question 17

Motte-and-bailey fallacy.

Answer 17

• The arguer conflates two similar positions, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.

Question 18

Ecological fallacy.

Answer 18

• Inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.

Question 19

Etymological fallacy.

Answer 19

• Reasoning that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.

Question 20

Fallacy of accent.

Answer 20

• A specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.

Question 21

Fallacy of composition.

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Fallacy of division.

Answer 22

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

Question 23

False attribution.

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy, quote mining).

Answer 24

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

Question 25

False authority (single authority).

Answer 25

• Using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Question 26

False dilemma.

Answer 26

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

Question 27

False equivalence.

Answer 27

• Describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

Question 28

Fallacy of many questions.

Answer 28

• 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 29

Fallacy of the single cause.

Answer 29

• 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 30

Furtive fallacy.

Answer 30

• Outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.

Question 31

Gambler's fallacy.

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Historian's fallacy.

Answer 32

• 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 33

Historical fallacy.

Answer 33

• A set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.

Question 34

Homunculus fallacy.

Answer 34

• A "middle-man" is used for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).

Question 35

Inflation of conflict.

Answer 35

• 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 36

If-by-whiskey.

Answer 36

An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.

Question 37

Incomplete comparison.

Answer 37

• Insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.

Question 38

Inconsistent comparison.

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Intentionality fallacy.

Answer 39

• The insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated.

Question 40

Ignoratio elenchi.

Answer 40

• (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Question 41

Kettle logic.

Answer 41

• Using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

Question 42

Ludic fallacy.

Answer 42

• 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 43

McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy).

Answer 43

• Making a decision based only on quantitative observations, discounting all other considerations.

Question 44

Mind projection fallacy.

Answer 44

• One's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception of that object.

Question 45

Moralistic fallacy.

Answer 45

• Inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction.

Question 46

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar).

Answer 46

• Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Question 47

Naturalistic fallacy.

Answer 47

• Inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact–value distinction.

Question 48

Naturalistic fallacy fallacy (anti-naturalistic fallacy).

Answer 48

• Inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above.

Question 49

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy).

Answer 49

• Solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

Question 50

Onus probandi (shifting the burden of proof).

Answer 50

• The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

Question 51

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation).

Answer 51

• X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.

Question 52

Proof by assertion.

Answer 52

• A proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

Question 53

Prosecutor's fallacy.

Answer 53

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

Question 54

Proving too much.

Answer 54

• Using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, undesirable conclusion.

Question 55

Psychologist's fallacy.

Answer 55

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

Question 56

Red herring.

Answer 56

• A speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.

Question 57

Referential fallacy.

Answer 57

• 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 to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.

Question 58

Regression fallacy.

Answer 58

• Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.

Question 59

Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness).

Answer 59

• 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 60

Retrospective determinism.

Answer 60

• The argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.

Question 61

Special pleading.

Answer 61

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

Question 62

Wrong direction.

Answer 62

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

Question 63

No true Scotsman.

Answer 63

• Makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.

Question 64

Cherry picking.

Answer 64

• Act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Question 65

False analogy.

Answer 65

• An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.

Question 66

Hasty generalization.

Answer 66

• Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample or the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.

Question 67

Inductive fallacy.

Answer 67

• A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.

Question 68

Misleading vividness.

Answer 68

• Involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Question 69

Overwhelming exception.

Answer 69

• An accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.

Question 70

Thought-terminating cliché.

Answer 70

• A commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliché—not a point.

Question 71

Poisoning the well.

Answer 71

• A subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Question 72

Abusive fallacy.

Answer 72

• Verbally abusing the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

Question 73

Appeal to motive.

Answer 73

• Dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.

Question 74

Kafka-trapping.

Answer 74

• A sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.

Question 75

Tone policing.

Answer 75

• Focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Question 76

Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo).

Answer 76

• A critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.

Question 77

Wishful thinking.

Answer 77

• A decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Question 78

Appeal to nature.

Answer 78

• Judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.

Question 79

Appeal to novelty.

Answer 79

• A proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.

Question 80

Appeal to tradition.

Answer 80

• A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.

Question 81

Argumentum ad populum.

Answer 81

• A proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because majority or many people believe it to be so.

Question 82

Association fallacy.

Answer 82

• Arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.

Question 83

Bare assertion fallacy, also known as ipse dixit.

Answer 83

• A claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

Question 84

Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy).

Answer 84

• Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.

Question 85

Chronological snobbery.

Answer 85

• A thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.

Question 86

Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as").

Answer 86

• Dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument.

Question 87

Genetic fallacy.

Answer 87

• A conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

Question 88

Judgmental language.

Answer 88

• Insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.

Question 89

Pooh-pooh.

Answer 89

• Dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.

Question 90

Straw man fallacy.

Answer 90

• An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Question 91

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Answer 91

• Improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.

Question 92

Tu quoque (Whataboutism).

Answer 92

• The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Question 93

Two wrongs make a right.

Answer 93

• Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, an "equal but opposite" wrong will cancel it out.

Question 94

Vacuous truth.

Answer 94

• A claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form of claiming that no A in B has C, when there are no A in B.