FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because

one thing
follows another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same
afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A
recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high
schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of
the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."
example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove
that there is not.
example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working; not a single patient has returned to complain.

ABUSIVE:(argumentum ad hominem) Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack
on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.

Examples:

My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each
night!

Tony wants us to believe that the origin of life was an “accident”. Tony is a godless SOB who has spent more time in jail than in
church, so the only information we should consider from him is the best way to make license plates.

APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide
support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.
example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.

PROOF OF INTIMIDATION (Argumentum ad verbosium) Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to
intimidate your audience in accepting it, or accepting an argument without evidence or being intimidated to question the authority
or a priori assumptions of the one making the argument.
Logical Form:
Claim A is made by person 1.
Person 1 is very intimidating.
Therefore, claim A is true.
Examples:
Professor Xavier says that the egg certainly came before the chicken. He won the Nobel prize last year for his work in astronomy, and
the MMA world championship -- so I don’t dare question his claim.
Dr. Professor Pete said, with the utmost eloquence, masterful stage presence, and unshakable confidence, that 1+1=3. Therefore,
1+1=3.

FALSE ATTRIBUTION: Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Source Y, a fake or unverifiable source, is use to verify claim X.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Examples:
But professor, I got all these facts from a program I saw on TV once... I don’t remember the name of it though.

I had this book that proved that leprechauns are real and have been empirically verified by scientists, but I lost it. I forgot the name
of it as well -- and who the author was.

ANONYMOUS AUTHORITY: When an unspecified source is used as evidence for the claim. This is commonly indicated by phrases
such as “They say that...”, “It has been said...”, “I heard that...”, “Studies show...”, or generalized groups such as, “scientists
say...” When we fail to specify a source of the authority, we can’t verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to
anonymous sources are more often than not, either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent “facts” in order to deceive
others into accepting your claim. At times, this deception is done subconsciously -- it might not always be deliberate.
Logical Form:
Person 1 once heard that X was true.
Therefore, X is true.
Examples:
You know, they say that if you swallow gum it takes 7 years to digest. So whatever you do, don’t swallow the gum!
The 13.7 billion year-old universe is a big conspiracy.
I read this article once where these notable scientists found strong evidence that the universe was created 6000 years ago, but
because of losing their jobs, they were forced to keep quiet!
Exception: At times an accepted fact uses the same indicating phrases as the ones used for the fallacy; therefore, if the anonymous
authority is actually just a statement of an accepted fact, it should be accepted as evidence.
Climate change is happening -- and always has been. Scientists say the earth is certainly in a warming phase, but there is some
debate on the exact causes and certainly more debate on what should be done about it politically.

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true,
as a result.
Logical Form:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example #1:
If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.
Example #2:
If it’s brown, flush it down.
I flushed it down.
Therefore, it was brown.

COMPLEX QUESTION: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the
question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect
the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.

How many times per day do you beat your wife?

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?