Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D.

; PHIL 60 Spring 2017; What are 47 fallacies to avoid committing and to expose and disagree with when
others commit them? Note: this handout is optional but helpful for PHIL 10 during Spring 2017.

47 Fallacies to Avoid & to Criticize When You Find That Others Commit Them

Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or argument. Some textbooks define these fallacies differently. The following definitions, descriptions or
examples are the ones that I have found to be most useful. See me if you encounter other definitions, descriptions or examples that clash with the
ones here, so we can see which is most useful. Arguments consist of a series of statements intended to establish the truth of a conclusion.
Premises are reasons the arguer gives to try to establish the truth of a conclusion. A conclusion is the claim that the arguer ultimately wants to
show to be true. Arguers often indicate premises by using: 'since,' 'because,' 'for the reason that' or 'for' (as in 'you should stay with me; for I love
you.') These words are direct premise indicators. Direct premise indicators often serve as indirect conclusion indicators. For example, in the
argument "Abortion is wrong because it kills people" the premise is directly indicated to be "Abortion kills people" but indirectly the conclusion
is indicated to be " Abortion is wrong." Conclusions are often indicated by the words: 'In conclusion', 'I conclude,' 'therefore,' 'Thus,' 'so,' 'hence,'
or 'Ergo.' These words are direct conclusion indicators. The initials Q.E.D. also directly indicate a conclusion, since they stand for a Latin phrase
meaning "that which is to be demonstrated." Direct conclusion indicators serve as indirect premise indicators. Since each argument has only one
conclusion, by process of elimination everything else working in the argument would be a premise. Generally, it is a good strategy to argue from
less controversial premises to more controversial conclusions. For if your premises are every bit as controversial and uncertain as your conclusion
is, then as a practical matter you will usually fail to convince your audience that your conclusion is true.

A sound argument must, by definition, be both 1) valid; and 2) without false premises. An unsound argument is simply an argument that is not
sound (an invalid argument, an argument with at least one false premise, or both). All fallacies are unsound (except begging the question, which
merely cannot ever be known to be sound), but four of the fallacies listed below are valid. Sound arguments are the best arguments.

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, IF all the premises
are true, then the conclusion must be true. Stated differently, the truth of the conclusion of a valid argument would necessarily follow from the
truth of all the premises. This is why invalid arguments are often called non-sequiturs, since "non sequitur" is Latin for "does not follow." An
invalid argument is simply an argument that is not valid (that is, an argument where it is possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion
to be false). Fallacies 1 through 16 are invalid and fallacies 17 through 19 are valid (though I suspect hasty generalization can be interpreted
reasonably as valid or as invalid, since all scientific generalizations are, strictly speaking, invalid). Valid arguments are not necessarily the best
arguments, since they can fail to be sound arguments.

A strong argument, by definition, is an argument where if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true. All valid arguments
are strong, but not all strong arguments are valid. Strong arguments tend to have words associated with probabilities being over 50% for example,
'most,' 'almost all,' 'nearly all,' the majority,' 'usually,' 'typically,' most often,' 'probably,' and 'most commonly.' For example, "Most As are Bs. Jim
is an A. So Jim is a B." is a strong but invalid argument. A weak argument is an argument that is not strong (that is, even if all the premises are
true, then the conclusion is not likely to be true, meaning its probability is 50% or less.) Strong arguments are not necessarily the best arguments,
since they can fail to be valid arguments and thus also fail to be sound arguments.

FALLACY 1), THE AD POPULUM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: Most (or all) people believe X. Therefore, X is true

This fallacy is invalid since the premise can be true and the conclusion false. For example: even when most people believed the earth was flat, the
earth was not flat. Here's a real example of the fallacy committed: "This [Windsor v. United States, Supreme Court decision, June 2013] is
straight follow, follow the polls. I don't think it's anything more than that or anything less than that. I also think it's the right thing because, for
that reason." ~ Evan Thomas, Inside Washington (PBS, produced by WUSA), broadcast 7/1/2013.

FALLACY 2), THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: Arguer X is defective.

Therefore, the conclusion of X's argument is false.

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.

For example: Hitler was morally defective (to say the least!) but that does not imply that Hitler's belief that Britain had an air force during WWII
was false.

The Ad hominem fallacy occurs when the arguer is attacking the person making the argument. This fallacy is attacking the arguer rather than
his/her argument. Example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a convicted felon. Note: Saying something
negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the issue, then it is not a
fallacy to criticize him/her.

FALLACY 3), THE FALLACY OF APPEALING TO AUTHORITY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: X is an expert.
X believes Y
Therefore, Y is true
This fallacy is invalid because the conclusion can still be false even if all the premises are true.

Example 1: Newton believed the orbit of Mercury around the sun had one particular shape, but Einstein later showed that Newton was wrong
about this.

Example 2: is Einstein's belief that indeterminism in physics is incorrect. He said: "God does not play dice with the universe." But indeterminism
fits the evidence better than Einstein's view does. Even the best experts can be wrong. Appealing to law or culture can also commit this fallacy,
since they are also fallible authorities.

"Ad verecundiam" is the Latin name for Appeal To Authority. This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous
or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise. Example: Sports stars selling
cars or hamburgers. Or, the actor on a TV commercial that says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

FALLACY 4), APPEAL TO PITY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: X is pitiful

Therefore, X is wrong

Even if it is pitiful to amputate the leg of a sick child, that does not mean that amputation is wrong, since amputation can be medically necessary
to save the child's life.

Consider the example of a driver asking a police officer to refrain from issuing a speeding ticket to the driver because of some pitiful
consequence the ticket will have for the driver. This fallacy is hardly saying we should run around and make the world a more pitiful place. But
avoiding the pitiful is scarcely the only value. We also value safety, as in the safety promoted by issuing speeding tickets to speeders.

FALLACY 5), EQUIVOCATION: This fallacy is invalid. One equivocates by trading on an ambiguity. One equivocates by acting as if an
ambiguous word or phrase has only one meaning when it has at least two.

Example 1:
Premise 1: It is generally wrong to lie.
Premise 2: We generally ought to prevent wrongdoing.
Conclusion: Therefore, we generally ought not to let sleeping dogs lie.

Example 2:
Premise 1): Every human has a right to life
Premise 2): All fetuses are human
Conclusion: Therefore, all fetuses have a right to life.

There are different senses of the word 'human.' One is a biological sense but he other is a moral sense. We can see the difference when we say:
"Hitler was inhuman." That scarcely means that Hitler was of a species other then Homo sapiens. Another example is from Captain Kirk's eulogy
of First Officer Spock in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Kirk said: "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most -- human."
Spock was biologically only half-human and half-Vulcan. Anyway, a soul seems less of a biological entity than a moral one. For example, when
we say Hitler had no soul, we seem to mean that he had no moral character. So, for all example 2 claims at least, fetuses might be human in the
biological sense but not in the moral sense. Obviously, whether the fetus is a person (has moral character or status) is key to many arguments
about whether abortion is immoral killing. It seems irrelevant to at least some utilitarian arguments, however, since utilitarianism's requirement
of maximizing happiness for all in the long run need not (and perhaps could not consistently) be limited to persons currently alive. If we limited
utility to be maximized to those currently alive, then we might perversely be required to spend lavishly on medical care in the last 6 months of
life for many terminally ill patients at the expense of promoting long-term projects (such as R&D or long-run space exploration) that will create a
serious amount of net benefit only for those who are not yet alive or born.

Equivocation is a product of semantic ambiguity. The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as
to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: We realize that workers are idle during the period of lay-offs. But the government
should never subsidize idleness, which has often been condemned as a vice. Therefore, payments to workers who were laid off are wrong.

FALLACY 6), COMPOSITION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly assumes that whatever is true of each part of the whole is true of the
whole.

Model: X is true of each part of Y

Therefore, X is true of Y

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.

Example 1: each part of a compound could be a poison, but when combined the two poisons cancel out each other's poisonous effects. Na and Cl
are poisons when consumed individually, but combine to form NaCl, which is ordinary table salt.

Example 2: Each book in the bargain book bin costs only $1, so therefore one can buy the entire collection of books in the bargain book bin for
only $1.

This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The
Dawson family must be rolling in money, since Fred Dawson makes a lot from his practice.

FALLACY 7), DIVISION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly assumes that whatever is true of the whole is true of each part of the whole
(or a particular part of the whole.)

Model: X is true of Y

Therefore, X is true of each part of Y.

This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the conclusion false.

Example 1: unsurpassed musical greatness in rock 'n roll is true of 'The Beatles, but that does not imply that unsurpassed musical greatness in
rock 'n roll is true of each solo Beatle (for example Ringo Starr.)

Example 2: is that since NaCl is not poisonous, Na is not poisonous. This would be a fatal error in reasoning.

This fallacy is committed when we conclude that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that
characteristic.

Example 3: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is so musical.

Example 4: Out of touch liberals like Barack Obama say they want a strong economy. But in everything they do they show they dont like
business very much. But the economy, of course, is simply the product of all the businesses in the nation added together. So its a bit like saying
you like an omelette but you dont like eggs. ~ Mitt Romney, victory speech after winning the primaries in Maryland, Wisconsin and the District
of Columbia, 4/3/12, broadcast on CNN.

FALLACY 8), THE NATURAL/UNNATURAL FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid. Avoid confusing this fallacy with the so-called naturalistic
fallacy in metaethics, which studies the meaning and reference of moral language.

Model 1: X is natural. Therefore, X is good

Model 2: X is unnatural. Therefore, X is bad

FALLACY 9), DENYING THE ANTECEDENT: This fallacy is invalid. The fallacy falsely assumes that a sufficient condition is a necessary
condition. First we need to know what an antecedent is. We can put a conditional statement into the following standard form: If A, then B. The
antecedent of "If A, then B." is A. The antecedent comes before ('ante' which means 'before') the word 'then' in the standard form "If A, then B."
This fallacy is invalid, since the premises can both be true even when the conclusion is false.

Example 1: Im not afraid. Im not scared. Why should I be afraid? Babies are afraid. Im no baby. ~ Curly Howard, The Three Stooges,
Dizzy Detectives (1943). The error is treating "Babies are afraid" (which is generally true or at least often true) as if it is "Only babies are
afraid" (which is clearly false). Curly's argument would be valid if he had said: "Only babies are afraid."

Example 2: If you get cancer, your medical problems will worsen.

You did not get cancer.
Therefore, your medical problems did not worsen.

Example 3:If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
It didn't rain today.
Therefore, the streets didn't get wet today. (Counterexamples include: watery people of the world convention, gang of kids releasing hydrants,
water tower falling; flood; dam bursting; snow; sleet; melting hail, old man Johnson watering laws too much etc.)

Example 4: If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.

You are not in California.
Therefore, you are not in the U.S.

Example 5: If X is between consenting adults, then X is morally permissible.

X is not between consenting adults.
Therefore, X is not morally permissible.

Example 6: If Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead, then people will listen to his music more.
Elvis hasn't made a triumphant return from the dead.
Therefore, people will not listen to his music more.
Note Libertarianism supports the first premise in Example 5, so look for this fallacy more when you see libertarianism.

This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion
denies the consequent. It is often mistaken for modus tollens. Example: If she
qualifies for a promotion, she must speak English. She doesn't qualify for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak English.

FALLACY 10), AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy falsely assumes that a necessary condition is a sufficient
condition. First, we need to know what a consequent is. A conditional statement can be put
into the following standard form: If A, then B. The consequent of "If A, then B." is B. The consequent follows ('seque' means, "to follow", as in a
musical seque, a sequence, and consequences following an act.)

Example 1: If Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead, then people will listen to his music more.
People did listen to his music more.
Therefore, Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead.

Example 2: If you get cancer, then your medical problems will worsen.
Your medical problems worsened.
Therefore, you got cancer.

Example 3: If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
The streets got wet today.
Therefore, it rained today

Example 4:
If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.
You are in the U.S.
Therefore, you are in California.

Example 5:
Capital punishment of person X is constitutional only if person X received due process.
Person X received due process.
Therefore, capital punishment of person X is constitutional.

This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the
conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his.

FALLACY 11), POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: This is a Latin sentence meaning "It happened after the event, so it happened because of the
event." This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy includes any argument of the form: "X occurred after Y, therefore X occurred because of Y." This
fallacy underestimates the frequency of coincidences.

Example 1:
I won at blackjack last time after I rubbed my rabbit's foot.
Therefore, I won at blackjack last time because I rubbed my rabbit's foot.

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "After this, therefore caused by this." It is a form of the false cause fallacy in which a person infers that
because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. Example: Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly on
the quiz. It must be her fault.

FALLACY 12), APPEAL TO FORCE (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD BACCULUM): This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy includes any
argument which threatens those who refuse to believe its conclusion. Example: You better believe abortion is wrong because if you don't, then
you will burn in hell forever.

FALLACY 13), APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: This fallacy is invalid. Argumentum ad ignorantium is the Latin name for appeal to ignorance, which
is arguing on the basis of what is not known or cannot be proven. (Sometimes called the "burden of proof" fallacy). This fallacy assumes that if
you can't prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there isn't a Loch Ness Monster, so there
must be one.

This fallacy includes any argument of this form:

We don't know X is false.

Therefore, we know X is true.

Or of this form:

We don't know X is true

Therefore, we know X is false.

Example 1: No one has ever really proven that there are no ghosts.
Therefore, there are ghosts.
Example 2: No one has disproven every UFO sighting. So at least one UFO sighting is real.

Example 3: No one has shown that Dr. Harwoods bank account is under a million dollars. Therefore, Dr. Harwoods bank account is not under a
million dollars.

FALLACY 14), THE EXISTENTIAL FALLACY: This fallacy is the least important for our purposes, since it applies in the fewest numbers of
arguments that we are likely to consider. This fallacy is invalid. The fallacy moves from only universal premises to a particular conclusion. In
other words, one cannot prove an I or O claim with premises made up of only A or E claims. An A claim has the form: All S are P. An E claim
has the form: No S are P. An I claim has the form: Some S are P. An O claim has the form: Some S are not P.

FALLACY 15), THE STRAWMAN FALLACY: One commits this fallacy whenever one attacks an argument that no one has ever made and that is
so weak that no one would probably ever make it. This fallacy is invalid, since the argument attacked is irrelevant. It's possible for the argument
attacked to be unsound and yet just as likely for the conclusion of the argument attacked to be true. So the strawman fallacy of attacking the
argument is irrelevant and thus invalid. For the same reasons, the strawman fallacy is weak.

Example One: Liberals think that murderers shouldn't be punished but should be given a handshake for overcoming being victims of society and
for showing much self-esteem. This is absurd. So, liberalism is false.

Example Two: Conservatives think that starving people -- especially starving children, who need to learn key lessons early in life -- shouldn't be
helped with free food aid because they should learn to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps instead of asking for a free handout, which will
only make them woefully dependent on others instead of committed to embracing the rugged individualism they will need to survive in the long
run in this cold, cruel world. This is absurd. So, conservatism is false.

The strawman fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to
ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones.

Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the
criminals.

FALLACY 16), HASTY GENERALIZATION: Logicians usually consider this fallacy invalid (but below we will explore a different interpretation
that would make this fallacy valid). This fallacy is committed when once fails to take enough time to collect a large enough sample or a
randomized enough sample on which to extrapolate scientifically.

Model: A is a representative sample of Bs.

X is true of all Bs is sample A.
Therefore, X is true of all Bs.

This fallacy is usually considered invalid, due to what is called the General Problem of Induction, which is that science seems to assume that the
future will be relevantly similar to the past. But there is no way to support this assumption scientifically without begging the question at issue,
since to say that the assumption has worked in the past and is therefore likely to work in the future is to beg the question of whether the past will
be relevantly similar to the future. But if scientists really simply assume that the future will be like the past, then this is a valid argument, since it
is impossible for both premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. One might rephrase the argument as: S is true of all Bs in sample A. If A
is representative sample of Bs, then X is true of all Bs. A is a representative sample of Bs. Therefore, X is true of all Bs.

Further, obvious claims of the form "A is a representative sample of Bs" are not always false. But when they are false, then the fallacy of hasty
generalization is created.

Hasty generalization is a generalization accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All men are rats!
Just look at the louse whom I married.

FALLACY 17), FALSE DILEMMA: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This fallacy claims you are facing a dilemma when you really are not. A
dilemma is a tough situation, when you are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. This fallacy falsely limits your choices. False Dilemma
(often called the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy). This fallacy assumes that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for
other possibilities; a false form of disjunctive syllogism. Example: "America, love it or leave it." (The implication is, since you don't love it the
only option is to leave it).

Model form of the fallacy: Either X or Y is true. X is false. So, Y is true.

Example 2: Either X or Y is true. Y is false. So, X is true.

This fallacy follows the logical process of elimination. This fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for both premises to be true and the
conclusion false. The fallacy is unsound because the premise "Either X or Y is true." is false. Obviously, statements of the form "Either X or Y is
true" will not always be false. But when they are false, and when they are used in an argument using this process of elimination, then they create
the fallacy of false dilemma.fallacy of false alternative MX missile

FALLACY 18), FALSE ANALOGY: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This fallacy compares apples and oranges, as the old saying goes. It
compares two things that are not comparable. It draws an analogy which fails to fit. The fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for both premises to
be true and the conclusion false. But the fallacy is unsound because it has the false premise claiming that two things are analogous. So when that
premise claiming the two things are analogous is true, the argument is valid. But when that premise is false, it creates the fallacy of false analogy.
Model: A is analogous (that is, relevantly similar) to B in all respects. X is true of A. So, X is true of B.

For example: Eagle eggs are similar to human fetuses in that both are precious. We should have laws protecting eagle eggs from human
destruction. So, we should have laws protecting human fetuses from abortion. (This argument is a version of one by Steve Friend, a Pennsylvania
State Legislator in the 1980s.) One relevant difference between eagle eggs and human fetuses that the argument overlooks is that eagle eggs are
usually outside of the mother eagle but the human fetus is usually inside the human mother. Another relevant difference might be that human
mothers, but not eagles, have a moral right or privacy that includes intimate private parts like the womb.

Here's another example. Some stock analysts state that there's never just one cockroach, comparing bad news about a company to a cockroach.

This fallacy is an unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak analogy to prove its point. Example: This
must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.

FALLACY 19), BEGGING THE QUESTION: This fallacy is valid but it is, as a practical matter, impossible to know that it is sound; for in its
premises it assumes what needs to be proved (namely, the conclusion about which we are arguing).

Model: X is true. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for X to be true in the premise and false in the conclusion. This fallacy may look as if no one would use
or be fooled by such an argument. But Hitler and others used the infamous technique of the big lie, which is simply repeated over and over until it
gains credence even though it begs the question that was originally at issue. This fallacy assumes in the premises what needs to be proved, the
conclusion.

Begging the Question is an argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Some scholars also call this fallacy
circular argument.

Example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible.

My favorite example of begging the question comes from Larry of The Three Stooges, who says in one episode:

"I do not snore in my sleep. I stayed up awake all last night to see if I snored and I didn't."

FALLACY 20), INCONSISTENCY (ALSO CALLED: SELF-CONTRADICTION):

"Contradiction should awaken attention, not passion." ~ Proverb, Penn Jones Jr., Forgive My Grief Vol. 1 (Midlothian Mirror Inc., 1966), p. 7.

Inconsistency involves hypocrisy (failing to practice what you preach) or a contradiction. Here are some examples. Inconsistency: A
discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with
each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions.
Example 1: When you see me again it wont be me. ~ from Beyond Life and Death, Twin Peaks, ABC TV, first aired 6/10/1991.
Example 2: When Curt is driving on the road he curses the cyclists there and yells at them to use the sidewalk instead. When Curt is
walking on the sidewalk, he curses the cyclists there and yells at them to use the road instead.
Example 3: Some racists inconsistently believe that blacks are filthy, lazy, and untrustworthy yet believe that blacks are naturally
suited to cook, clean, and handle the children while white parents are away.
Example 4: Some sexists inconsistently believe that women are dull, inarticulate, passive, and are poor entrepreneurs yet believe
women are scheming manipulators with great verbal skills who can wrap men around their little fingers.
Example 5: Puritans inconsistently believe that sex is a dirty, disgusting, degrading act we should share only with someone we love.
Example 6: Nazis believed Jews were generally bankers or rich people and that Jews were generally revolutionary communists. Nazis
believed that Jews were mentally and physically inferior to the vast majority of Germans yet somehow controlled Germany and were
running Germany into the ground.
Example 7: Some say white men can't jump yet admit they enjoy watching the part of the Olympics where many whites excel at the
high jump.
Example 8: Some racists say that black genes prevent blacks from playing golf well yet they admit that Tiger Woods -- whom they
know to be partly black -- is the best golfer of the 21st Century.
Example 9: Some racists say no whites can rap worth a crap yet they admit that Eminem and Marky Mark (Mark Wahlberg) are great
rappers.
Example 10: Consider the case of a woman who represents herself as a feminist, yet refuses to believe that women should run for
Congress.
Example 11: Bumper sticker: The best things in life are not things.
Example 12: See CD14, track 6 of the Philosophy of Religion set of CDs for the galloping contradiction of ethical monotheisms
transcendent, unreachable God who nonetheless responds to prayers.

FALLACY 21), NON SEQUITUR: Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning: "It does not follow." In this fallacy the premises have no
direct relationship to the conclusion. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. Example: A
waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance.
 FALLACY 22), AMPHIBOLY: This is a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity where the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition
of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like the fallacy of equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result
from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement.. Example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog
through the window. Ouch! She should be reported for animal abuse.

***FALLACY 23), APPEAL TO EMOTION: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to persuade
the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is
oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Example: In 1972, there was a widely-printed advertisement printed by the Foulke Fur
Co., which was in reaction to the frequent protests against the killing of Alaskan seals for the making of fancy furs. According to the
advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great conservation stories of our history, a mere exercise in wildlife management,
because "biologists believe a healthier colony is a controlled colony."appeal to authorty; that little itch; raise your hand if your sure;
only if you're sure; too afraid even to raise your arm.***

FALLACY 24), QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: (In Latin: non causa pro causa, "not the cause of that"). This form of the false cause
fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I can't find the checkbook; I am sure
that my husband hid it so I couldn't go shopping today.

FALLACY 25), SLIPPERY SLOPE: This fallacy is similar to false dilemma. It essentially states "Either one avoid setting foot on the
slippery slope or else one will slide too far down the slippery slope and get hurt." If there
is a third alternative, then one committed the slippery slope fallacy and the fallacy of false dilemma.

Slippery slope is a line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will
inevitably follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises.
Example: We can't allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we do, it won't be long before they are in total control.

FALLACY 26), COMMON BELIEF: This fallacy is similar to the ad populum fallacy. It is sometimes called the "bandwagon" fallacy
or 'appeal to popularity". This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people
allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: "Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate.
Everybody knows that."

FALLACY 27), PAST BELIEF: This is a form of the fallacy of common belief (ad populum) and a form of the fallacy of appealing to
authority (the authority of tradition). The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past.
Example: We all know women should obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for centuries. Appeal to
the authority of tradition or time-honored beliefs

FALLACY 28), CONTRARY TO FACT HYPOTHESIS: This fallacy is committed when we state with an unreasonable degree of
certainty the results of an event that might have occurred but did not. Example: If President George H. W. Bush (President Bush #41)
had not gone into the Persian Gulf with military force when he did, Saddam Hussein would control the world's oil from Saudi Arabia
today.

FALLACY 29) TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT: This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an apparently wrong action by
charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example:
Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.

FALLACY 30), SLANTING: A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that
something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. Example: "I can't believe how much
money is being poured into the space program." This is slanted because 'poured' suggests needless spending.; ***scheme v. plan***
***urban planning v. urban scheming***

FALLACY 31), RED HERRING: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people
off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to
remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires.

FALLACY 32), FAILING TO FOLLOW OCCAM'S RAZOR: Occam's Razor is named after medieval logician William of Occam (also
known as William of Ockham), who lived from 1287 to 1347. He was an excommunicated Franciscan Friar. Occam's Razor cautions:
Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, if 2 theories or explanations both fit the evidence equally well and predict
with equal accuracy, then choose the simpler of the 2 theories or explanations. We should do so because every claim that an entity
exists has a probability greater than 0 of being wrong. So to claim that 2 entities exist instead of 1, when both theories fit the evidence
equally well and predict the future equally well, means that you are sticking your neck out unnecessarily by making an unnecessary
claim that has a realistic chance of being wrong. Following Occam's Razor is also called following the law of parsimony or economy.
Being parsimonious or economical here means avoiding the making of unnecessarily extravagant claims about how many things exist.
See the KSS Principle: KSS = "Keep it simple, stupid!" It is most rational to agree with those who follow Occam's Razor.

A leading example of how Occam's Razor is used is in arguments by atheists arguing against the existence of God (or gods). Atheists often argue
that science (including but not limited to Darwinism) explains (or can explain) all the phenomena or events we observe, that science presents such
explanations without God as part of any of the scientific explanations, and so it would multiply entities beyond necessity to claim that God exists
or some gods exist. See generally, Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion (Houghton, Mifflin Harcourt, 2006).
FALLACY 33), THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY: The Gambler's fallacy assumes that the gambler is "due to win" the next try at a random game (for
example, roulette) when the gambler has lost a few in a row. The fallacy normally takes the view that the longer the gambler's losing streak is, the
more likely it is that the gambler will win the next try at a random game of chance. The problem with this assumption is that a truly random game
leaves no room for the game to remember who has won or lost in the past. If the gambler has bet on number 7 in roulette and lost 5 times in a
row, the chances of the number 7 coming up the next time is still 1 in 38 (there are 38 numbers on most roulette wheels, which include the
numbers 1 through 36, 0 and 00). If the gambler loses 10 times in a row betting on number 7, the chances that the 11th roll of the roulette wheel
will produce a 7 as the winning number are still 1 in 38. The roulette wheel has no mind and hence no memory.

On the other hand, those who deny that the Gambler's Fallacy is a genuine fallacy ask us to consider the ideas of "the law of averages" and
"regression toward the mean." Further, defender's of the gambler committing the gambler's fallacy would ask us to compare the apparent memory
of the past in the random game found in the Monty Hall paradox. The Monty Hall paradox is that you increase your odds of winning by
switching from one randomly chosen box to another even though only 1 of the 2 random boxes has the prize to win. The set up is that you choose
1 of 3 boxes, only 1 of which has the prize, then Monty Hall eliminates one of the losing boxes and asks you if you wish to switch your choice to
the other remaining box after one losing box is taken away. You should switch, since 2/3 of the time your initial choice was wrong and only 1/3
of the time your initial choice was right (the winning box). So 2/3 of the time you will be switching into a winning choice and 1/3 of the time you
will be switching into a losing choice. Thus, your odds of winning move from 1/3 without a switch to 2/3 with a switch. This is a paradox
because it seems that it should be otherwise, since you appear to be randomly choosing between only 2 boxes, one of which has the prize and the
other of which fails to have the prize, apparently indicating that your odds of winning the prize would be 50% (50/50) whether you switch or
decide against switching. The situation, however, acts as if it remembers your previous bet with a 1 in 3 chance. You can empirically verify that
switching increases the odds of winning by conducting experiments going through the choices described above, for example, by having a friend
hide a penny under 1 of 3 playing cards and then choosing 1 of the cards, and then having your friend remove one of the other cards that has no
penny underneath it, then asking you whether to switch or not. If you switch, you'll find out over the long run that you win an average of about
2/3 (about 67%) of the time and when you decide against switching you'll find that you win over the long term only about 1/3 (about 33%) of the
time on average. It's amazing but true.

So where do you stand? Do you side with "The trend is your friend" and "Go with the flow"? Or do you side with a player or number being
"due," the old saying from Herodotus "Change is the one constant," the law of averages, and regression toward the mean? Herodotus is known as
The Dark One because of his obscure sayings such as "You can never step in the same river twice."

34. The Fallacy of Relativity & The Decoy Effect. See Ch.1 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational, where he notes that everything is relative
even when it shouldn't be.

35. The Fallacy of Anchor Prices, Herding, Arbitrary Coherence & Supply and Demand. See Ch.2 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

36. The Fallacy of Overvaluing Zero & Free (the Undue Cost of Zero Cost & Freebies). See Ch.3 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

37. The Fallacy of Being Happy to Do Things Except When Paid to do Them. See Chs.4-5 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

38. The Fallacy of Underestimating the Influence of Arousal. See Ch.6 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

39. The Fallacy of Procrastination. See Ch.7 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

40. The Fallacy of Overvaluing What We Own. See Ch.8 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. Is this sentimental attachment to our familiar
surroundings and belongings, and thus a case of emotion versus reason again?

41. The Fallacy of Distracting Options. See Ch.9 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

42. The Fallacy of Fulfillment of Expectations. See Chs.10-11 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational. Example: cheap placebos often work.

43. The Fallacy of Distrust. See Ch.12 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.***short term cost/benefit; risk/rewards ratio

44. The Fallacy of Dishonesty. See Chs. 13-15 of Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.

45. The Fallacy of Ignoring the IKEA Effect. See Dan Ariely.

46. The No True Scotsman Fallacy. See Wikipedia entry on this fallacy identified by British Philosopher Anthony Flew.

47. The Conjunction Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a person concludes that X and Y are true is more likely than X is true. For more on
this, see Michael Lewis, The Undoing Project (2016), Ch.12.