Relevance

Question 1

Appeal to Emotion

Answer 1

argumentum ad passiones

an Appeal to Emotion attempts to move the argument from the rational to the emotional, and exploit the audience’s feelings to accept a conclusion

A claims P
P evokes emotion
therefore P is true

“Look at this poor pitiful child - look at him! - look at his sad eyes and quivering lips… look and tell me that my suggestion we buy him every toy in this shop is a bad one.”

Question 2

Appeal to Emotion // Appeal to Fear

Answer 2

argumentum ad metum

elicit support for a proposition by evoking fear in the audience - often fear at the alternative

either P or Q
Q is frightening
therefore P

“If God exists then so does hell, and hell is horrendous, so we should believe that God does not exist.”

Question 3

Appeal to Emotion // Appeal to Flattery

Answer 3

argumentum ad superbiam
Apple Polishing
Brown Nosing

showering the audience with praise, both to dispose them to accept your proposition, and temporarily blind their reason

A claims P
A is flattering
therefore P is true

“Many people would overlook this, but I know a man with your great perception realises that this conclusion must be true”

Question 4

Appeal to Emotion // Appeal to Pity

Answer 4

argumentum ad misericordiam
‘the sob story’

exploiting feelings of guilt and pity to convince an audience of a proposition’s truth

A claims P
P evokes pity
therefore, P is true

“Look at this weak, pitiful man. Can you really believe he’s capable of committing this crime?

Question 5

Appeal to Emotion // Appeal to Spite

Answer 5

argumentum ad odium

A claims P
P evokes spite
therefore P is true

“Why should we say the persecution of the Jews is against the state? Have their kind not betrayed the state, century upon century, through perfidious treachery?”

Question 6

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Authority

Answer 6

a fallacious appeal to an expert source as rendering the conclusion necessarily true/false

appeals to authority can be valid if they meet the appropriate criteria

“The Chinese government claims they are not oppressing the Uighurs, therefore we can assume they aren’t.”

Question 7

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Authority // False Authority

Answer 7

Appeal to False Authority

an appeal to parties with no legitimate claim to authority

A claims P
A cites B as an authority
B is not a valid authority
therefore P is true

“A: Freud concluded that there was no God.
B: Freud is a (controversial?) authority on psychology, not Philosophy of Religion or Theology.”

Question 8

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Authority // False Authority // Appeal to Hearsay

Answer 8

an appeal to second or third-hand sources of authority - the original source may be valid, but distorted through multiple transmissions

“My friend Dave knows a guy who’s cousin’s best friend’s dad works at the power plant who said they nearly had a melt-down last week.”

Question 9

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Authority // False Authority // False Attribution

Answer 9

appealing to a source that is irrelevant, unqualified, biased or fabricated

A claims P
A cites B as an authority
B is a poor source
therefore, P is true

“I read in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Jews eat babies! They are clearly bad people!”

Question 10

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Authority // False Authority // Quoting out of Context

Answer 10

Contextomy
Quote Mining

truncating or otherwise editing statements to impose a different meaning upon them, often to confer expert support of a conclusion

“A: this is a terrifically awful movie.
B: this is a terrific… movie”

Question 11

FALLACIES OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION // Appeal to Popularity

Answer 11

argumentum ad populum
Bandwagon

judging the truth-value of a proposition as necessarily dependent on its popularity and acceptance by others

P is widely accepted
Therefore, P is true

P is widely accepted
Therefore, P is false

“10,000 customers of new Rimmel Hair Creme Xtrem’ can’t be wrong!”

Question 12

FALLACIES OF SUBJECTIVITY // Argument from Incredulity

Answer 12

Appeal to Common Sense
Personal Incredulity
Divine Fallacy

a proposition is fallaciously believed false because it contradicts the subject’s ability to comprehend, imagine or believe

A cannot comprehend P
therefore P is false

“I can’t believe that Donald Trump would lie to me, so if he says the election was a steal then it must be”

Question 13

FALLACIES OF SUBJECTIVITY // Mind Projection Fallacy

Answer 13

projecting one’s subjective experience of an object onto the real world, and the object itself

A experiences P as having subjective property x
therefore P inherently has property x

“What do you mean, you don’t like chocolate? Chocolate is delicious, that’s the whole point of it!”

Question 14

FALLACIES OF SUBJECTIVITY // Mind Projection Fallacy // Psychologist’s Fallacy

Answer 14

assuming your subjective interpretation of an event or another mind matches the objective nature of the event/mind

I interpret event x as P
therefore, event x is P

“I know that I would only go out with Michelle if I was very desperate, so I can conclude that David must be feeling desperate”

Question 15

FALLACIES OF SUBJECTIVITY // Wishful Thinking

Answer 15

the fallacy of presenting a claim as true/false, on the grounds that one hopes/wishes it is/isn’t

A hopes P is true
therefore P is true

“I know Santa Clause is real, because it want him to be - more than anything!”

Question 16

Genetic Fallacy

Answer 16

judging a proposition based on its origins/past (genesis)

P used to be be P’
Therefore, P is true/false

P originates from P’
Therefore, P is true/false

‘Michael must be wrong - he used to be illiterate, you know.’

Question 17

Genetic Fallacy // Etymological Fallacy

Answer 17

insisting a word must be defined by its original/historical meaning

“A; He must be wealthy, since he’s a gentleman.
B: His manners speak nothing to his income…
A: ‘Gentleman’ means landowner, you fool!”

Question 18

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem

Answer 18

‘to the man/person’

a rebuttal addressing the arguer rather than their argument

A claims P
A possesses negative property X
therefore P is false

“You can’t trust Juan - he’s a shifty Mexican!”

Question 19

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Appeal to Accomplishment

Answer 19

Appeal to Ignorance
Courtier’s Reply

dismissing an argument on the ground the arguer lacks expertise/accomplishment/authority in the subject

A claims P
A lacks expertise on P
therefore P is false

“John’s critique of Communism can hardly be taken seriously - he’s never studied political science at a serious level.”

Question 20

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Circumstantial

Answer 20

Appeal to Bias
Appeal to Motive

assertion that a given conclusion is reached due to the arguer’s personal bias and circumstances

A claims P
A is biased in favour of P
Therefore, P is false

“A: Higher taxes on the rich are bad for the economy.
B: You only say that because you’re rich, and you don’t want to pay higher taxes!”

Question 21

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Guilt by Association

Answer 21

Appeal to Bad Company

criticizing a source/argument on the basis of their connection to a guilty third-party/group

A claims P
A is associated with the negative C
Therefore, P is false

“A: I think Beyonce is overrated.
B: You can’t be trusted, your friends all have terrible musical taste.”

Question 22

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Tone Policing

Answer 22

Appeal to Bad Tone

criticizing the emotion/tone an argument was expressed in/with, instead of addressing the argument itself

A claims P
A expresses P in a bad tone
therefore P is false

“A: It’s absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that Hamilton is considered superior to Schumacher! I am SO ANGRY that people are overlooking the engineering advances and field imbalances that have favoured Hamilton!

B: Calm down. How can anyone in this state be taken seriously? If my opponent wants to change anyone’s mind, he first needs to find his own!”

Question 23

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Traitorous Critic

Answer 23

argumentum ergo decedo
Appeal to Treason

an Ad Hominem whereby a criticism of an in-group is dismissed as treason to the in-group, often concluding with an invitation to leave

A claims P
P is ‘treasonous’
Therefore, P is false

“A: This country needs to improve it’s education system.
B: If you hate it here so much, why don’t you move somewhere else?”

Question 24

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Tu Quoque

Answer 24

Appeal to Hypocrisy
‘you also’

a response to a critical argument, in which the second party accuses the first of hypocrisy regarding the argument

A claims P
P is contradictory to A’s past actions
therefore P is false

“A: North Korea is guilty of human rights abuses.
B: You can’t speak, the West is guilty of abuses too.”

Question 25

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Tu Quoque // Two Wrongs make a Right

Answer 25

can include any instance whereby one wrongdoing is supposedly justified by another (when fallacious) "Somebody stole my dog, so it's okay for me to steal a dog in turn."

Question 26

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // Ad Hominem // Abusive

Answer 26

an ad hominem that resorts to simple insults, name-calling and personal attacks "My opponent would have you believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4. My opponent, however, is a brainless moron who should be locked in a cattle shed."

Question 27

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // VIRTUOUS PHILOSOPHER // APPEAL TO RICHES // Fallacy of Poverty

Answer 27

argumentum ad Lazarum an argument is true because the arguer is poor A claims P A is poor therefore P is true "The poor are the salt of the earth, they live humbly, without the blinding influence of wealth; therefore we can believe them when they tell us that black people should definitely go back to their own country."

Question 28

Genetic Fallacy // APPEAL TO THE ARGUER // VIRTUOUS PHILOSOPHER // APPEAL TO RICHES // Fallacy of Wealth

Answer 28

argumentum ad crumenam an argument is true because the arguer is wealthy A claims P A is rich therefore P is true "Some of the most successful people in the country agree that P is true - so you should too!"

Question 29

Genetic Fallacy // Appeal to History // Appeal to Novelty

Answer 29

argumentum novitatis the premature belief that a newer proposition, element etc. is superior to its antecedents by virtue of being recent P is recent Therefore, P is true P and Q P is more recent than Q Therefore, P is superior to Q "The latest iPhone is surely the best ever!"

Question 30

Genetic Fallacy // Appeal to History // Appeal to Novelty // Chronological Snobbery

Answer 30

the belief that individuals and ideas from the past are inferior, less intelligent etc. and that only recent/current thought has virtue "You can't take your beliefs from a 2000 year-old book!"

Question 31

Genetic Fallacy // Appeal to History // Appeal to Tradition

Answer 31

a proposition is true/correct simply because it accords with tradition - it has historically been accepted as true P is traditional therefore P is true "We don't need the people of today telling us how to live - not when the people of yesterday already told us!"

Question 32

Ignoratio Elenchi

Answer 32

Irrelevant Conclusion some other argument, likely related to the original, is argued instead of the original A claims P B discusses P' 'is S allowed?' 'it SHOULD be allowed, because...'

Question 33

Ignoratio Elenchi // Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

Answer 33

a form of concept-swapping, where ambiguous concepts themselves (beyond mere words) are swapped in to influence justification the 'bailey' is a controversial claim one makes, before retreating to the similar but more-defensible 'motte' - imputing the defence of the latter to the former A claims P B challenges P A defends P' therefore, P is true A: I communicate with aliens. B: That seems unlikely... A: It's a big universe, can you really prove aliens don't exist?

Question 34

Ignoratio Elenchi // Strawman

Answer 34

a form of refutation, wherein one replaces the original argument with a similar, weaker one then proceeds to 'knock it down' - with the implication that the original is defeated A claims P B refutes P' therefore P is false "A: The death penalty is immoral. B: Why do you want heinous criminals to get away with their crimes?"

Question 35

Ignoratio Elenchi // Strawman // Appeal to Ridicule

Answer 35

dismissing a proposition as ridiculous, often through mockery, sarcasm etc. such that the proposition appears contrary to common sense A claims P B paints P as ridiculous Therefore, P is false "A: I believe God exists. B: You can't seriously believe in a sky-daddy with a big white beard who likes listening to angels playing harps all day!"

Question 36

Is-Ought

Answer 36

violating the is-ought distinction, falsely assuming: a) this is how things are, ergo how they should be b) this is how things should be, ergo how they are

Question 37

Is-Ought // Appeal to Nature

Answer 37

a belief that nature or the natural is inherently good or bad, and that a proposition's relation to nature affects its value P is unnatural Therefore, P is bad/good P is natural Therefore, P is bad/good "There's nothing wrong with murder - it's a part of the natural word. It happens everyday out in the jungle!"

Question 38

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Assertion

Answer 38

ipse dixit claiming a proposition as true, without offering evidence "It is the case that twelve cats, when combined, form a portal to the chthonic underworld. Now, as for preventing the inevitable rising of the Dark Lord Cthulu..."

Question 39

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Assertion // Burden of Proof Fallacy

Answer 39

it is fallacious to present a bare assertion, and then insist the burden is on the opposition to disprove it A claims P A claims B must refute P "A: I think the moon is made of cheese. Prove me wrong! B: I don't have to prove you wrong - you have to prove yourself right!"

Question 40

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Assertion // Proof by Assertion

Answer 40

Argument from Repetition P is asserted repeatedly therefore, P is true ``` "P P P P therefore, P is true" ```

Question 41

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Assertion // Proof by Assertion // Argumentum Ad Nauseum

Answer 41

argumentum ad infinitum arguing to the point of the opponent's boredom/frustration ``` "A: x is true. B: x is false. A: x is true. B: It's false, I tell you. A: x is true. B: Why do you even think that? A: x is true. B: I give up, I'm going home. A: No-one has refuted x!" ```

Question 42

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Refutation

Answer 42

argumentum ad lapidem Argument to the Stone Pooh-Pooh the fallacy of dismissing a claim as false/absurd/beneath attention without offering justification for the dismissal A claims P B dismisses P "John: I think Metallica are the best band. Michael: That's an absurd opinion. John: Why is it absurd? Michael: Please; this topic is unworthy of consideration."

Question 43

MISSING PREMISES // Bare Refutation // Thought-Terminating Cliche

Answer 43

'I'm entitled to my opinion' The language of non-thought; a move to avoid asserting or refuting an argument, to opt-out A claims P B opts-out "I'm entitled to my opinion" "That's just your opinion' "It is what it is"