Quick Review
This page reviews
the definitions of fourteen fallacies and their variations.
In most cases a common English name for each fallacy is used,
with alternative names in parentheses. This page does not describe
the fallacies in detail, so you should be sure to read some
material on these fallacies before you take the tests.
These fallacies
have been grouped together because they can all be considered
to be refutation in arguments. Keep in mind that they could
also be grouped in other ways, as could the fallacies in other
sections of this site.
APPEALS TO EMOTIONS:
attempts to gain agreement based solely on the feelings aroused
in the message. Specific types of appeals to emotions include:
APPEAL TO COMPASSION (appeal to pity, ad misericordiam ): an appeal to emotion that argues that a conclusion should be made
based on feeling sorry for someone when that feeling is irrelevant
to the conclusion.
APPEAL TO FEAR (scare tactics): an
appeal to emotion that argues actions should be taken to
avoid negative results, when the negative results are exaggerated,
unlikely or irrelevant.
APPEAL TO INDIGNATION: an
appeal to emotion that argues against a position based only
on negative personal feelings toward the position.
APPEAL TO JOY: an
appeal to emotion that argues something should be done only
because it will make the person doing it feel good.
APPEAL TO LOYALTY: an
appeal to emotion that argues an action should be taken based
only on the need to be loyal to someone or to a group.
APPEAL TO POPULARITY: an
appeal to emotion that argues someone should do something
only because it will make that person better liked by others.
APPEAL TO SPITE: an
appeal to emotion that argues someone should do something
only because of ill will towards someone else.
APPEAL TO FORCE (ad baculum ): using
threats of harm instead of good evidence and sound reasoning
to gain agreement.
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (ad hominem ): attacking
the character or background of the person making an argument
instead of responding to that person's claim, evidence, and
reasoning.
EVADING THE ISSUE (red herring, irrelevant
conclusion): supporting a claim
with evidence or reasoning that is not relevant to the proposition,
or responding to another's argument by changing the subject.
FALSE CONSOLATION: arguing
that someone is not really harmed because things could be worse
or by pointing out what they have to be thankful for.
GENETIC FALLACY: arguing
that an idea should be accepted or disregarded only because
of its source.
HORSE LAUGH: responding
to an argument with an expression of derision instead of a
counter argument.
IGNORATIO ELENCHI .(ignorance of refutation): causing confusion during refutation because of a real or feigned lack
of ability to engage in refutation.
REDUCING TO AN ABSURDITY (reductio ad absurdum ): characterizing
an opponent's position in such a way to make it or its consequences
appear to be ridiculous.
STRAW PERSON (straw man): asserting
an argumentative opponent has taken an easily defeated position,
which the opponent has not really taken, defeating the position,
and acting as if you've done significant damage to that person's
overall argument.
TU QUOQUE .("you too" fallacy, two wrongs make a right,
common practice): responding to
charges of wrongdoing by saying the accuser or others do
something equally bad.
Select a test
