Logical Fallacies

• Ad hominem – unfairly attacking the opposition’s character instead of their argument
• Type of Ad Hominem

  Abusive - the person is directly attacked

  ✮ This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job. (direct attack on the basis of the person’s gender)
• Type of Ad Hominem

  Circumstantial - personal circumstances motivate a person's argument, so it must be false.

  ✮ This car is proven to get great gas mileage. Yeah right! You just want my sale. (assumes the person is lying because lying would benefit them)
• Type of Ad Hominem

  Guilt by association - due to an association to something negative, an argument is discredited.

  ✮ He was evil and against religion. All people against religion are bad. (hasty generalization due to association)
• Type of Ad Hominem

  Tu Quoque (you too) - actions discredit your argument (hypocrisy)

  ✮ “You should study hard,” “But you don’t, why should I?” (discounting someone’s arguments because their actions do not align with it)
• “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc” or False Cause and effect – misattribution of causation; assuming that because two things happened, the first must have caused the second. ⟡ Every time my sister Xena uses hairspray, it is an extremely hot day. ← past correlations do not equal causation; there is no determined relationship between the two events
• “False dichotomy” or false dilemma or “Either/or” Fallacy – discusses an issue as if there are only two options and ignores any other possible alternatives. ⟡ Love America or leave it.
• Evasion – ignoring or evading the questions ⟡ “How’s your test?” “I’m too tired, I want to rest.”
• False Analogy/Faulty Comparison - making a comparison between two subjects that have more dissimilarities than similarities ⟡ Using hairspray everyday is like launching a nuclear weapon
• Oversimplification - making a complicated issue seem simple by using simple terms or omitting information ⟡ Global warming is caused by using hairspray and other beauty products
• Rationalization - providing incorrect reasons to justify your position; incorrectly rationalizing your claim ⟡ I don’t believe in global warming because I like using hairspray
• Red Herring - presenting an argument unrelated to your subject to serve as a distraction ⟡ A smoked herring was often dragged by escaped prisoners to cover their scent and confuse the tracking dogs (origin)
• Two wrongs make a right - defending something wrong by citing another incident of wrongdoing (an eye for an eye) ⟡ Filipinos do not need to regulate pollution because China is producing more pollution than them.
• Hasty Generalization - inference drawn from insufficient evidence ⟡ It is warmer this year in Las Vegas as compared to last year; therefore, global warming is rapidly accelerating.
• Straw Man - opponent’s position is represented as being more extreme than it actually is

  ⟡ Pres. Duterte feels that all companies are irresponsible and should be punished for releasing emissions which cause global warming.
• Equivocation – juvenile tricks of language

  ⟡ “A man is the only intelligent animal on the planet. And, since a woman is not a man, we can say that women are not intelligent.”
• Non sequitur - arguments where the reasonings fail to connect logically ⟡ Mrs. Sedik really knows math; she would be an excellent math instructor (One cannot automatically conclude that all individuals who are good at math can teach this subject well)
• Appeal to Ignorance - a conclusion is true because it has never been proven wrong ⟡ Aliens exist because scientists have never proven otherwise
• Slippery Slope - one event leads to a terrible consequence; implies that one small step in the wrong direction will cause catastrophic results ⟡ If we teach high school students safe sex, they may end up having a family at a young age.