LOGICAL FALLACIES (20)
3 Types: Distraction (10); Ambiguity (5); Form (5)

A. Fallacies of Distraction

1. Ad baculum (Veiled threat): "to the stick:"
DEF.- threatening an opponent if they don’t agree with you; EX.- "If you don’t agree with me you’ll get hurt!"

2. Ad hominem (Name-calling; Poisoning the well): "to the man;"
DEF.- attacking a person’s habits, personality, morality or character; EX.- "His argument must be false because he swears and has bad breath."

3. Ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance):
DEF.- arguing that if something hasn’t been proved false, then it must be true; EX.- "U.F.Os must exist, because no one can prove that they don’t."

4. Ad populum: "To the people; To the masses"
DEF.- appealing to emotions and/or prejudices; EX.- "Everyone else thinks so, so it must be true."

5. Bulverism: (C.S. Lewis’ imaginary character, Ezekiel Bulver)
DEF.- attacking a person’s identity/race/gender/religion; EX.- "You think that because you’re a (man/woman/Black/White/Catholic/Baptist, etc.)"

6. Chronological Snobbery
DEF.- appealing to the age of something as proof of it’s truth or validity; EX.-"Voo-doo magic must work because it’s such an old practice;" "Super-Glue must be a good product because it’s so new."

7. Ipse dixit: "He said it himself":
DEF.- appealing to an illegitimate authority; EX.- "It must be true, because (so and so) said so."

8. Red herring (Changing the subject):
DEF.- diverting attention; changing the subject to avoid the point of the argument; EX.- "I can’t be guilty of cheating. Look how many people like me!"

9. Straw Man:
DEF.- setting up a false image of the opponent's argument; exaggerating or simplifying the argument and refuting that weakened form of the argument; EX.- "Einstein's theory must be false!  It makes everything relative--even truth!" 

10. Tu quoque: "You also"
DEF.- defending yourself by attacking the opponent; EX.- "Who are you to condemn me! You do it too!"

B. Fallacies of Ambiguity

1. Accent:
DEF.- confusing the argument by changing the emphasis in the sentence; EX.- "YOU shouldn’t steal" (but it’s okay if SOMEONE ELSE does); "You shouldn’t STEAL" (but it’s okay to LIE once in a while); "You SHOULDN’T steal (but sometimes you HAVE TO) ."

2. Amphiboly: [Greek: "to throw both ways"]
DEF.- confusing an argument by the grammar of the sentence; EX.- "Croesus, you will destroy a great kingdom!" (your own!)

3. Composition:
DEF.- assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole; EX.- "Chlorine is a poison; sodium is a poison; so NaCl must be a poison too;" "Micro-evolution is true [change within species]; so macro-evolution must be true too [change between species]."

4. Division:
DEF.- assuming that what is true of whole must be true of the parts; EX.- "The Lakers are a great team, so every player must be great too."

5. Equivocation:
DEF.- confusing the argument by using words with more than one definition; EX.- "You are really hot on the computer, so you’d better go cool off."

C. Fallacies of Form

1. Apriorism (Hasty generalization):
DEF.- leaping from one experience to a general conclusion; EX.- "Willy was rude to me. Boys are so mean!"

2. Complex question (Loaded question):
DEF.- framing the question so as to force a single answer; EX.- "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

3. Either/or (False dilemma):
DEF.- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification; EX.- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."

4. Petitio principii (Begging the question; Circular reasoning):
DEF.- assuming what must be proven; EX.- "Rock music is better than classical music because classical music is not as good."

5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False cause): "after this, therefore because of this;"
DEF.- assuming that a temporal sequence proves a causal relationship; EX.- "I saw a great movie before my test; that must be why I did so well."

NJL/Oxford Tutorials/8.17.02