"Stephen Hawking supports the argument for a higher minimum wage, so that's all I need to know." (While quite brilliant, Prof. The opposite to the above, this fallacy attempts to prove an argument because of a misplaced sense of authority. "My opponent wants to increase EPA regulations, but how can you listen to a man who ends sentences with prepositions?"Īrgumentum ad verecundiam - Argument t o authority This fallacy attempts to disprove an argument by attacking the character of the speaker. "Sports cars are noisy, therefore they should not be driven after 10pm." (Are all sports cars noisy? Did the speaker check them all?)Īrgumentum ad hominem - Argument t o (against) the man Begging the question is when the premise of an argument assumes a conclusion of its own in order to justify the final conclusion. This fallacy is, perhaps, one of the most incorrectly understood. You should take it" (While the book may indeed be free, is that a good enough reason to take a book you know nothing about and may not need?) Like the non sequitur, the naturalist fallacy often skips a necessary premise. The naturalistic fallacy is an attempt to draw a conclusion from a statement of fact. Person 1: "More tax money should be used to build homeless shelters." Person 2: "No, because more homeless would mean more crime." Similar to the previous, this fallacy is an overt attempt to disrupt an opponent's argument by introducing a counter argument that isn't strictly related to the original. Person 1: "I'm wearing a cape, so I'm going to jump off the roof." (Person 2: "Why?" Person 1: "Because Superman wears a cape and he can fly.") In terms of logical argument, a non sequitur is when a conclusion is made from a premise that does not lead to that conclusion, usually because it skips an intermediary step. "There is no picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon that shows his face, so the moon landing must not have actually happened." (Even though an argument has failed, there may still one that succeeds) Similar to the previous, this fallacy attempts to prove that an idea/event is false on the grounds that all arguments made so far for the idea have failed. "I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against quitting my job and moving to the Alaskan wild, therefore it must be the right choice to make."Īrgumentum ad logicam - Argument to logic This fallacy attempts to prove an idea/event on the grounds that it has yet to be proven false. "If I let my child play video games then she's not going to do her homework, her grades will suffer, and she won't be able to go to college."Īrgumentum ad ad ignorantiam - Argument to ignorance The Slippery slope fallacy happens when one person concludes that an idea/event will cause a series of other ideas/events, usually increasing in severity, without offering evidence as to why the trigger occurs. Person 1: "I believe hunting for sport is immoral." Person 2: "Apparently, my opponent wants us all to be vegetarians because animals are more important than people." This fallacy occurs when an opponent attacks an exaggerated version of your argument rather than your actual argument. "You can't trust elves, they're all stuck-up know-it-alls who think they're better than everyone else." This fallacy proposes a conclusion for all instances of the premise, even though there are most likely to be exceptions. Of course DCEU movies are horrible, look at Justice League."ĭicto Simpliciter - Sweeping generalization/stereotype "Justice League was a horrible movie because all DCEU movies are horrible. In this fallacy, the premise and conclusion are used to support each other in a never ending circle of x because y, and y because x. It must be because it's so much colder today than the last few days."Ĭirculus in demonstrando - Circular argument "There are more people on the train than usual today. Evidence may eventually support a link, however concurrence is not enough to prove the conclusion. Like the previous fallacy, this one proposes that an idea/event is linked to another idea/event because they happen at the same time. "The Giants lost today because I forgot to wear my cap backward."Ĭum hoc ergo propter hoc - (Along) With, therefore because of While there may be evidence to eventually support the belief that the two events are linked, the conclusion that the one must be due to the other simply because it happened afterward is false. This fallacy attempts to create a causal relationship between ideas/events. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - After, therefore because of
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |