Logic Fallacies Test 2

• Ambiguity - has 2 distinct meanings
• Vagueness - big range of meanings

• Verbal - arise over the meaning of language. Delt in vagueness and ambiguity
• Factual - arise over a disagreement about facts

Fallacies that occur when the premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

This always involves a threat, either explicit or implicit. The threat is irrelevant to the conclusion.

The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader to listener.

Uses the readers desire for love, esteem, admiration, value, and similar emotions to get the reader to accept a conclusion.

Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd.

Occurs when the arguer aims his or her appeal at one or more individuals in the crowd, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd.

Arguer trumps up fear of something in the in the mind of the crows and then uses this fear alone as a premise for some conclusion.

Occurs when the arguer asserts that the reader should accept a conclusion because the majority of people accept it.

• Occurs when the arguer plays on the vanity of the reader.
• Ex. Ladt Gagy wears Versace, If you want to be talented and iconic like her, you will wear Versace too.

Arguer appeals to the readers desire to be part of a smaller group within the crowd that is supposed to be superior or elite in some way.

Occurs when an arguer cites the fact that something has become a tradition as grounds for a conclusion.

Arguer verbally attacks the person of a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting his or her argument.

Arguer verbally abuses a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting that persons argument

Arguer cites circumstances that affect a second arguer, for the purpose of discrediting that persons argument.

Arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer for the purpose of discrediting the argument.

The arguer misapplies a general rule to an atypical specific case

• Arguer misinterprets an opponents position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished.
• Requires two arguers

Arguer draws a completely different conclusion than the particular conclusion that the premises of the argument actually entail.

Arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one and finishes by presuming that some conclusion, either about this different issue or something else, has been established.

The cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Occurs when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing.

• Occurs when a general conclusion is drawn from atypical specific cases. 
• Opposite of Accident

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.

• After this, therefore on account of this.
• Occurs when the arguer presupposes that just because one event occurred after another event, the first event must have caused the second.

• Not the cause for the cause
• Occurs when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.

Occurs when there are multiple causes responsible for a certain effect but the arguer chooses only one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.

• Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related.
• Ex. I know this is a fair coin, but it has come up rails five times in a row, so heads is due on the next toss.

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction, and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an analogy that is not strong enough to support it.

The arguer creates an illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for he conclusion by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premises or by reasoning in a circle

Occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions

Aruger presents two nonjointly exhaustive alternatives as if they were jointed exhaustive and the eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion.

Arguer ignores relevant evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.

Arguer uses some word or group of words either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect.

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the whole onto its parts.