Misreoresenting your opponents argument by substuting one that is easier to knock down.
Example: Some dads say that the amount of child support that they are required to pay is too high. We shoud have no sympathy for these Deadbeat Dads who dont want to help support their children.
Justify: Said the amount of child support that they are required to pay is too high. He did not say that he did not want to pay his childs support.
Attacking the person and not attacking the argument.
Introducing something irrelevant to distract people and get them off the topic
Example: Fred, Our utilities bill was higher this month. I think it is because we used the heater more with the cold weather, which reminds me that your heavy coat needs to go to the cleaners
Argument that objects to a peosition on the grounds that the position, if taken will set off a chain reaction that will lead to an undesirable consequence.
Example: "If we engage in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq just because it has weapons of mass destruction, that will lead to a pre-emptive stikes against Russia and China who also are a threat and who have weapons of mass destcution and that would be suicidal"
Justify: A pre-emptive strike against a smaller country like Iraq would not be as dangerous as waging war on countries like Russa or China
Dont know which came first Uses words like "statistics show"
Example: The most recent population survey reports that married women are happier than unmarried women. So, marriage must make women happy.
Justify: The fact that there is a correlation doesnt make it true. It could be that women that are happy want to get married.
The mear fact that a thing has not been proven true does not show that it is false.
Example: It has never been proven that eating fried foods causes cancer. So, it must be false that eating fried foods causes cancer
Justify: Just because something has not been proven true doesnt make it false. It could be that peope are dying of a heart attack before they can prove if the fried foods caused cancer.
Mistake of only thinking of one eaplanation of a thing.
Example: People who want to take "God" out of the pledge of allegiance are either just godless atheists, or they are ati-Christian. They should love America or leave it.
Justify: Maybe it coud be that they are German Baptists.
The whole are presumed to have properties of their parts.
Example: Cinnabar is a minera made of mercury (which is silver-colored) and sulfur (which is yellow). So, cinnabar must be a silvery-yelow in color, like gold.
Justify: Just because the whole is made of the parts doesnt mean it is going to have the same properties when the two menerials combine.
Begging the Question
Wants to get its concusion for free, no reason or evidence of its conclusion.
Example: Everyone shoud believe in God because they are Godless Atheists if they dont belive in God.
Justify: Trying to prove something with nothing to back it up, Maybe they are Buddist Monks.
The parts need not have the properties of the whole.
Example: Since people are entirely made of living cells, and since people are consciors, living cells must be conscious.
Justify: Living cells could never be conscious because they are cels not a human being.
Having too small a sample to base an opioon about missions of people.
Example: During the last election, my mother and sister both cared more about domestic issues like education than about security and fighting terrorism. Obviovsly, women care more about domestic issues than about security.
Justify: Two people is not a large enough sample to justify generalizing about millions of members of one gender.
Using a word in two different senses
Example: Paying taxes to support others is slavery, and slavery is unconstitutional, so paying taxes to support others is unconstitional.
Justify: The word slavery is used in two different senses
Biased sample / no having enough people from specific groups
Example: A survey of 10,000 blood donors shows that 90% of them feel that donating blood is everyones civic duty. So, obviously, the vast majority of Americans feel that donating blood is a civic duty.
Justify: Because you are only taking a survey from people who give blood you are going to have a biased survey because you didnt talk to people who dont give blood.
I dont understand, therefore it must be false.
Example: I just done understand how something as complicated as the human ee could evolve without an intelligen designer. So, the hteory of evolution must be false.
Justify: Just because the fact you dont understand it doesnt make it false. Maybe try reading some information on evolution first before making a decision.
Cause and effect sentance / If then statement
Example: After two years of psychotherapy, 70% of those in therapy were no longer depressed. Obviously, psychotherapy cures derpession.
Justfy: The fact that 70% of the people were no longer depressed maybe they got better on their own.
- All A is B
- All B is C
- so, All A is C
All cats are snakes, and all snakes are warm-blooded. So, all cats are warm-blooded
Valid, not sound Because one of the premisis are false
- All A is B
- All C is B
- All A is C
Example:All Libertarians are selfish, and BoB is selfish. So, Bob is a Libertarian
Parpody: All Men are people, All women are people. So, all men are women.
Denying the anticedent
- Example:If Tom jumps off the bridge, he will die. Tom wont jump off the bridge. So, tom wont die
- Not Valid
- Justify: Tom could still die, he could get hit by a car