Fallacies

• Fallacies- weakens argument, very common, hard to evaluate
• arguments with several stages- have some strong and weka parts/sectios
• Hasty Generalization- Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small).
• Missing the point- The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
• Post Hoc- This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."
• post hoc (false cause)-Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
• slippery slope- camel's nose
• slippery slope- The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.
• weak analogy-Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
• Appeal to Authority- Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing.
• Appeal to Pity-takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
• appeal to ignorance-In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."
• Straw Man-One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score point by knocking it down.
• red herring-Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
• False dichotomy- the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.
• Equivocation-Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.