Logical Fallacies (Technical Set)

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.

Fallacy of exclusive premises

a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

Ambiguous middle term

a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated. (Informal fallacy)

Prosecutor's fallacy

a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found. (Informal fallacy)

Two wrongs make a right

occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. (Red herring fallacy)

Affirming the consequent

the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. (Propositional fallacy)

Equivocation

the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). (Informal fallacy)

False Authority (single authority)

using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to motive

where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. (Red herring fallacy)

Inconsistent comparison

where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. (Informal fallacy)

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The propositional fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. An argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. (irrelevant conclusion)

A form

All S are P. Quantity - universal Quality - affirmative Subject - distributed Predicate - undistributed An A-proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse. Consider the following categorical proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All dogs are indeed mammals but it would be false to say all mammals are dogs. Since all dogs are included in the class of mammals, "dogs" is said to be distributed to "mammals". Since all mammals are not necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to "dogs".

Gish Gallop

Gish was characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.

(shifting the) Burden of Proof (see - onus probandi)

I need not prove my claim, you must prove it false. (Informal fallacy)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) ie - X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. or Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster (Informal fallacy)

Non sequitur

Latin for "it does not follow", in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

E form

No S are P. Quantity - universal Quality - negative Subject - distributed Predicate - distributed An E-proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate. From the categorical proposition "No beetles are mammals", we can infer that no mammals are beetles. Since all beetles are defined not to be mammals, and all mammals are defined not to be beetles, both classes are distributed.

Argumentum verbosium

See - Proof by verbosity: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (Informal fallacy)

I form

Some S are P. Quantity - particular Quality - affirmative Subject - undistributed Predicate - undistributed Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some Americans are conservatives". Neither term can be entirely distributed to the other. From this proposition it is not possible to say that all Americans are conservatives or that all conservatives are Americans.

O form

Some S are not P. Quantity - particular Quality - affirmative Subject - undistributed Predicate - distributed In an O-proposition only the predicate is distributed. Consider the following: "Some politicians are not corrupt". Since not all politicians are defined by this rule, the subject is undistributed. The predicate, though, is distributed because all the members of "corrupt people" will not match the group of people defined as "some politicians". Since the rule applies to every member of the corrupt people group, namely, "all corrupt people are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.

Statements in syllogisms

Statements in syllogisms can be identified as the following forms - a: All A is B. (affirmative) e: No A is B. (negative) i: Some A is B. (affirmative) o: Some A is not B. (negative)

Inflation of Conflict

The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question. (Informal fallacy)

Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum)

a categorical syllogism that has four terms. ie - Major premise: All fish have fins. Minor premise: All goldfish are fish. Conclusion: All humans have fins. (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

Illicit major

a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion. ie - All A are B No C are A Therefore, no C are B or All dogs are mammals No cats are dogs Therefore, no cats are mammals (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

Illicit minor

a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion. ie - All A are B No C are A Therefore, no C are B or All cats are felines. All cats are mammals. Therefore, all mammals are felines. (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

Thought-terminating cliche

a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche--not a point. (Faulty generalization)

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)

a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam)

a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. (Red herring fallacy)

Reification (hypnotization)

a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. (Informal fallacy)

Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)

a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. (Informal fallacy)

Syllogism

a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form. ie - Major premise: All humans are mortal. Minor premise: All Greeks are humans. Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

Red herring

a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to. (Informal fallacy)

Wishful thinking

a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Appeal to fear

a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Appeal to flattery

a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Appeal to spite

a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Abusive fallacy

a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the original proposed argument. (Red herring fallacy ; ad hominem)

Poisoning the well

a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. (Red herring fallacy ; ad hominem)

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean)

assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. (Informal fallacy)

Conjunction fallacy

assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them. (Formal fallacy)

Ad hominem

attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Red herring fallacy)

Naturalistic fallacy

attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also take to meant the appeal to nature) or God's will. (Conditional or questionable fallacies)

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident)

basing a broad conclusion on a small sample. (Faulty generalization)

Onus probandi

from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignoratium" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. (Informal fallacy)

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy)

improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity. There are clearly reasonable and clearly unreasonable cases in which objects either belong or do not belong to a particular group of objects based on their properties. We are able to take them case by case and designate them as such even in the case of properties which may be vaguely defined. The existence of hard or controversial cases does not preclude our ability to designate members of particular kinds of groups. Also, related to the sorites paradox (Informal fallacy)

Ecological fallacy

inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate (data combined from several measurements) statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belongs. (Informal fallacy)

Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy)

inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false. (Red herring fallacy)

Judgmental language

insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment. (Red herring fallacy)

Misleading vividness

involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. (Faulty generalization)

Definist fallacy

involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other. (Conditional or questionable fallacies)

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification)

it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes. (Informal fallacy)

Formal syllogistic fallacies

logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. syllogism - a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form.

Base rate fallacy

making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities. (Formal fallacy)

Historian's fallacy

occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.) (Informal fallacy)

Prior probability

often called simply the prior, of an uncertain quantity p (for example, suppose p is the proportion of voters who will vote for the politician named Smith in a future election) is the probability distribution that would express one's uncertainty about p before the "data" (for example, an opinion poll) is taken into account. It is meant to attribute uncertainty rather than randomness to the uncertain quantity. The unknown quantity may be a parameter or latent variable.

Faulty generalizations

reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)

refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. (Informal fallacy ; False attribution)

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)

signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody care to discuss it anymore. (Informal fallacy)

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)

someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven of accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. (Informal fallacy)

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation)

submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum)

supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth) (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)

supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.) (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to probability

takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case). (Formal fallacy)

Shotgun argumentation

the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (form of proof/argument by verbosity) (Informal fallacy)

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue)

the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. (Red herring fallacy)

Retrospective determinism

the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand. (Informal fallacy)

Ludic fallacy

the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic: a failure to take into account unkown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad cosequentiam)

the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion. (Red herring fallacy)

Denying the antecedent

the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B. (Propositional fallacy)

Personal Attacks (Argumentum ad Hominem)

the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent. (Informal fallacy)

Begging the question (petitio principii)

the failure to provide what is essentially the conclusion of an argument as a premise, if so required. (Informal fallacy)

Gambler's fallacy

the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to land on tails" is incorrect. (Informal fallacy)

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. ie - All Z is B (All) y is B Therefore (All) y is Z B is the common term between the two premises (the middle term) but is never distributed, so this syllogism is invalid. Also, a related rule of logic is that anything distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in at least one premise. All Z is B Some Y is Z Therefore All Y is B The middle term - Z - is distributed, but Y is distributed in the conclusion and not in any premise, so this syllogism is invalid. (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

Conditional probability

the probability that an event will occur, when another event is known to occur or to have occurred. If the events are A and B respectively, this is said to be "the probability of A given B". It is commonly denoted by P(A|B), or sometimes PB(A). P(A|B) may or may not be equal to P(A), the probability of A. If they are equal, A and B are said to be independent. For example, if a coin is flipped twice, "the outcome of the second flip" is independent of "the outcome of the first flip".

Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals)

the substitution of of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. (Formal fallacy)

False dilemma (false dicotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy)

two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. (Informal fallacy)

Kettle logic

using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position. (Informal fallacy)

Hedging

using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later. - Informal fallacy

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative)

when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism. Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.) ie - All A is B. All B is C. Therefore, some C is not A. or Premise: All colonels are officers. Premise: All officers are soldiers. Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers. (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative)

when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. (Formal syllogistic fallacy)

No true Scotsman

when a generalization is made true only when a counter example is ruled out on shaky grounds. (Faulty generalization ; Accident)

Pathetic fallacy

when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.

Mind projection fallacy

when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is. (Informal fallacy)

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy)

when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. (Informal fallacy)

Circular reasoning

when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. (Informal fallacy)

Homonculus fallacy

where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. (Informal fallacy)

Genetic fallacy

where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. (Red herring fallacy)

Special pleading

where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam/antiquitam)

where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern (Red herring fallacy)

Chronological snobbery

where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held. (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to emotion

where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to authority

where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to equality

where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality. (Red herring fallacy)

Appeal to accomplishment

where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to authority)

Incomplete comparison

where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison. (Informal fallacy)

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)

where proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so. (Red herring fallacy)

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio)

where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. (Informal fallacy)

Circular cause and consequence

where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to nature

wherein judgement is based solely on whether the subject of judgement is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. For example (hypothetical); "Cannabis is healthy because it is natural" ; I doubt any one has stated that vipers are healthy for people, but it doesn't get much more natural than that. (Red herring fallacy)

Etymological fallacy

which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. (Informal fallacy)

Wrong direction

cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. (Informal fallacy)

Naturalistic fallacy (is-ought fallacy)

claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. (Red herring fallacy)

Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card)

comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also - Godwin's law) (Red herring fallacy)

Affirming a disjunct

concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B. (Propositional fallacy)

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. - Red herring fallacy

Suppressed correlative

a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. ie - Person 1: "All things are either X or not X." (The correlatives: X-not X.) Person 2: "I define X such that all things that you claim are not X are included in X." (The suppressed correlative: not X.) Alternatively Person 2 can redefine X in way that instead concludes all things are not X. or Person 1: "Things are either mysterious or not mysterious. Exactly when an earthquake will strike is still a mystery, but how blood circulates in the body is not." Person 2: "Everything is mysterious. There are still things to be learned about how blood circulates." Regardless of whether Person 2's statement about blood circulation is true or not, the redefinition of "mysterious" is so broad that it omits significant contrast in the level of scientific understanding between earthquakes and blood circulation. Bain argues that if we hold the origin of the universe as equally mysterious against simple equations such as 3×4=12, it seems unimaginable what kind of concepts would be described as non-mysterious. Through redefinition "mysterious" has lost any useful meaning, he says. The redefinition is not always so obvious. At first glance it might appear reasonable to define brakes as "a method to quickly stop a vehicle", however this permits all vehicles to be described as having brakes. Any car could be driven into a sturdy barrier to stop it, but to therefore say the car has brakes seems absurd. This type of fallacy is often used in conjunction with one of the fallacies of definition. (Informal fallacy)

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence)

act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. (Faulty generalization)

Overwhelming exception

an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. (Faulty generalization)

False attribution

an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an arguement. (Informal fallacy)

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Straw man

an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. (Red herring fallacy)

False analogy

an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. (Faulty generalization)

Existential fallacy

an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion. (Quantification fallacy)

Appeal to ridicule

an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. (Red herring fallacy ; Appeal to emotion)

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat)

an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. (Red herring fallacy)

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point)

an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. (Informal fallacy)

If-by-whiskey

an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. (Informal fallacy)

Broken window fallacy

an argument which disregards lost opportunity cost (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes. (Conditional or questionable fallacies)

Formal fallacies

an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Accident

an exception to a generalization is ignored. (Faulty generalization)

Psychologist's fallacy

an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event. (Informal fallacy)

Association fallacy (guilty by association)

arguing that because two things share a property they are the same. (Red herring fallacy)

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar)

argument in which evidence is presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. (Informal fallacy)

Informal fallacies

arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.

Regression fallacy

ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a kind of post hoc fallacy. (Informal fallacy)

Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose)

asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.) (Conditional or questionable fallacies)

Argument from fallacy

assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. (Formal fallacy)

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam)

assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true). (Informal fallacy)

Fallacy of composition

assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. (Informal fallacy)