Appeal to Popularity. Concluding that p is true because p is popular, when popularity isn’t relevant to the truth of p.
1. 87% of Americans believe that raising taxes would not harm the economy.
C. Raising taxes would not harm the economy.
Appeal to Unpopularity. Concluding that p is false because p is popular, when popularity isn’t relevant to the falsehood of p.
1. The common folk believe that pesticides are dangerous to humans.
C. Pesticides are not dangerous to humans.
Unwarranted Certainty. Concluding that because there is some reason to believe p, p is known. 1. There is evidence that Johnny was the masked robber.
C. Johnny was the masked robber.
Appeal to Ignorance. Concluding that because p is not known to be false, there is reason to think p is true. 1. We don’t know for certain that Johnny wasn’t the masked robber.
C. There is evidence that Johnny was the masked robber.
Ad Hominem. Attacking the character of one’s opponent, instead of their reasoning. 1. Marsha claims that mass transit benefits the city.
2. Marsha is a compulsive liar and has past convictions for shoplifting.
C. Mass transit doesn’t benefit the city.
Appeal to Flattery. Arguing that somebody should believe that p because they are smart or attractive. 1. You are intelligent and young.
2. Intelligent young people support building a new arena.
C. You should support building a new arena.
Appeal to Ridicule. Arguing that somebody shouldn’t believe that p because it would be silly or stupid. 1. Only crazy people believe that the earth is flat.
2. You aren’t crazy.
C. You shouldn’t believe that the earth is flat.
Appeal to Irrelevant Authority. Arguing that p is true because an expert says so, when that person’s expertise isn’t relevant to the truth of p.
1. Einstein was a genius physicist.
2. Einstein believed that bagels were the best breakfast.
C. Bagels are the best breakfast.
Intellectual Hubris. Arguing that p is false even though an expert on the subject says so, because one already believes p, even though one isn’t an expert on the subject.
1. I know that the war of 1812 took place in 1812.
2. My history professor says that the war of 1812 ended in 1815.
C. My history professor is wrong.
Appeal to Emotion. Arguing that p is true because it would feel bad if it weren’t, or feel good if it were. 1. It would be scary if I were at risk of losing my job.
C. I am not at risk of losing my job.
Deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Arguing that because something is a certain way, it should be that way. 1. Life is a constant competition for dominance and control of others.
C. Life ought to be a constant competition for dominance and control of others.
Tribalism. Arguing that p is true because one’s group believes it to be so.
1. ASU is my university.
C. ASU’s teams deserve to be exempt from NCAA requirements.
Appeal to Consequences. Arguing that p is false because, if it were true, there would be negative consequences.
1. If Albrecht forged signatures, then we’d have to fire him.
2. It would be awful if we fired Albrecht.
C. Albrecht didn’t forge signatures.
Oversimplification. Arguing that, because A is important, nothing but A is important. 1. K-12 Education needs more funding to improve.
C. K-12 Education doesn’t need anything to improve but more funding.
Reductionism. Arguing that two closely related things must be identical.
1. Breathing is an exchange of gasses.
C. Breathing is nothing but an exchange of gasses.
– Fallacy of the Single Cause. Arguing that, because A causes C, B doesn’t cause C. 1. Gun violence is caused by the criminal intentions of bad people.
C. Gun violence is not caused by the availability of guns.
The Fallacy of Accident. Arguing that, because generally M is P, and an S is M, therefore that S is P. 1. Generally college students stay up past midnight.
2. Annie is a college student.
C. Annie stays up past midnight.
Hasty Generalization. Arguing that, because some M is an S, and also a P, therefore all S are P. 1. Annie wakes up at 6am.
2. Annie is a college student.
C. Typical college students wake up at 6am.
Distinction without a Difference. Arguing that, because we use a different word for two things, they are distinct things.
1. Brad is an “independent contractor” paid to work hourly, not an “employee”
2. Federal labor law only applies to employees.
C. Federal labor law does not apply to Brad.
Appeal to Force. An appeal to force isn’t an argument, it’s a threat pretending to be an argument. C. Either you agree with me that the sky is blue, or you are so dead.