Argument Structure: Review

Post Hoc

(Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.

Circular Reasoning

(Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Appeal to Doubtful Authority

(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit, testimonials [form of]) Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true

False Analogy

A False analogy is an informal fallacy. It applies to inductive arguments. It is an informal fallacy because the error is about what the argument is about, and not the argument itself. An analogy proposes that two concepts which are similar (A and B) have a common relationship to some property.

Non Sequitur

Definition of Non Sequitur. ... These two sentences are an example of a non sequitur. The Latin words non sequitur literally mean 'it does not follow.' There is a divide between the premise and the conclusion, which results in something called a fallacy. Simply put, the conclusion does not follow the premise.

Misleading Statistics

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .

Inductive Argument

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.

Syllogism

an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs )

Straw-Man Argument

is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Hasty Generalization

is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Also called insufficient sample, converse accident, faulty generalization, biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and neglect of qualifications.

Slippery Slope

is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Tu Quoque

or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Ad Hominem

short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the ...