Critical thinking

argument seems valid at first then reasoning brings it back to the beggining

Treating two different concepts as if they were the same

assumptions based on if two events happen at the same time or increase at the same rate then one caused the other

means after this, e.g what happened after this must of been caused because of this

Neccessary= soemthing that it is essential in order for something to happen

Sufficient= Gurantees that the next step must follow (all that is neccesary to do something)

use of moral panic

only offering a reader a number of limited options to choose from

A universalized statement or assumption that is not true in all circumstances

arguing from one perspective then totally changing view without sufficient evidence to back it up