Appeal to Pity

ad misericordiam
(also known as: appeal to sympathy)
Description: The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of
pity.
Logical Forms:
Person 1 is accused of Y, but person 1 is pathetic.
Therefore, person 1 is innocent.
 
X is true because person 1 worked really hard at making X true.
Example #1:
I really deserve an “A” on this paper, professor.  Not only did I study during my
grandmother’s funeral, but I also passed up the heart transplant surgery, even though
that was the first matching donor in 3 years.

Argument from Ignorance

ad ignorantiam
(also known as: appeal to ignorance)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of
evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.”
Logical Forms:
X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:
Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven
that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare
ribs.

Equivocation
(also known as: doublespeak)
Description: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an
argument misleading.
Example #1:
I want to have myself a merry little Christmas, but I refuse to do as the song suggests
and make the yuletide gay.  I don't think sexual preference should have anything to do
with enjoying the holiday.
Explanation: The word, “gay” is meant to be in light spirits, joyful, and merry, not in
the homosexual sense.
Example #2:
The priest told me I should have faith.
I have faith that my son will do well in school this year.
Therefore, the priest should be happy with me.
Explanation: The term “faith” used by the priest, was in the religious sense of
believing in God without sufficient evidence, which is different from having “faith” in
your son in which years of good past performance leads to the “faith” you might have
in your son.

Fallacy of Composition
(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)
Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true
of some part of the whole.  This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.
Logical Form:
A is part of B.
A has property X.
Therefore, B has property X.
Example #1:
Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound.  Therefore, the building weighs
less than a pound.
Example #2:
Hydrogen is not wet.  Oxygen is not wet.  Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
Example #3:
Your brain is made of molecules.  Molecules do not have consciousness.  Therefore,
your brain cannot be the source of consciousness.

Fallacy of Division
(also known as: false division, faulty deduction, division fallacy)
Description: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact
that it is true of the whole.  This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition.
Logical Form:
A is part of B.
B has property X.
Therefore, A has property X.
Example #1:
His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his
doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.
Explanation: The size of one’s house almost certainly does not mean that the doors
will be smaller, especially by the same proportions.  The size of the whole (the house)
is not directly related to the size of every part of the house.
Example #2:
I heard that the Catholic Church was involved in a sex scandal cover-up.  Therefore,
my 102-year-old Catholic neighbor, who frequently attends Church, is guilty as well!
Explanation: While it is possible that the 102-year-old granny is guilty for some
things, like being way too liberal with her perfume, she would not be guilty in any sex
scandals just by her association with the Church alone.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as:  personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source,
name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)
Description: 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.
Example #1:
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!
Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the
lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument.  Ad hominem attacks
are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.
Example #2:
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 Force
argumentum ad baculum
(also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick)
Description:  When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a
reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.
Logical Form:
If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.
Example #1:
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to work weekends when nobody else in the company
does?
Boss: Am I sensing insubordination?  I can find another employee very quickly, thanks
to Craigslist, you know.
Explanation: Melvin has asked a legitimate question to which he did not get a
legitimate answer, rather his question was deflected by a threat of force (as being
forced out of his job).
Example #2:
Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?
Dad: Because if you don’t, you will spend your entire summer in your room with
nothing but your Bible!
Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that
would happen.
Appeal to Popularity
argumentum ad numeram
(also see:  appeal to common belief)
Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its
truthfulness.  This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common
sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not
so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and
money can buy popularity.
Logical Form:
Everybody is doing X.
Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.
Example #1:
Mormonism is one of the fastest growing sects of Christianity today so that whole story
about Joseph Smith getting the golden plates that, unfortunately, disappeared back into
heaven, must be true!
Explanation: Mormonism is indeed rapidly growing, but that fact does not prove the
truth claims made by Mormonism in any way.

False Cause
Post hoc
Ex: An athlete wears their ‘lucky socks” and wins the game.
(1) Cellphone usage has increased exponentially in the last 20 years.
(2) Researchers discoursed that the incidences of brain cancer have also increased
in that time.

Hasty Generalization
(also known as: argument from small numbers, statistics of small numbers, insufficient
statistics, argument by generalization, faulty generalization, hasty induction, inductive
generalization, insufficient sample, lonely fact fallacy, over generality,
overgeneralization, unrepresentative sample)
Description: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking
at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.
Logical Form:
Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.
Example #1:
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age
sixty-nine.  Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.
Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal
conclusion about the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man.
Example #2:
Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand. 
Therefore, it must be great.
Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked.  When a random
sampling of 1000 dentists was polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand.  The
four out of five result was not necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey; it just
happened to be a statistical anomaly common among small samples.

Begging the Question

petitio principii
(also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, chicken and the egg
argument, circulus in probando, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)
Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the
premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they
use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”.  That is NOT the correct
usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
Logical Form:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Example #1:
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as
paranormal activity.
Explanation: The claim, “paranormal activity is real” is supported by the premise, “I
have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.”  The premise
presupposes, or assumes, that the claim, “paranormal activity is real” is already true.