ANONYMOUS AUTHORITY:

The term "anonymous authority" typically refers to a situation where someone presents information,
advice, or claims as authoritative or credible, but the source of that information is not disclosed or is
kept anonymous. In other words, it involves relying on the authority of an unspecified or unknown
source to support an argument or assertion.

This can be problematic in critical thinking and communication, as the credibility of an argument often
depends on the reliability and expertise of the source. When someone invokes an anonymous authority,
it becomes challenging for others to verify the information, assess the qualifications of the source, or
evaluate the trustworthiness of the claim.

Examples:

1. Someone claims, "I read online that experts say this product is the best, but I can't remember
where I saw it or who said it." In this case, the person is relying on an anonymous source
without providing any credible reference.
2. "A forum post said that this is the most effective remedy for a common cold." Relying on
information from online forums or social media without verifying the credibility of the source
could be considered an anonymous authority fallacy.
3. A speaker says, "Many experts agree with me, but I can't disclose their names." This form
involves making claims about expert consensus without providing any verifiable information
about the experts or their credentials.

HASTY GENERALIZATION:

A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn about a population or a whole group
based on insufficient or biased evidence. It involves making an unwarranted generalization without a
proper sample size or representative evidence. This fallacy often arises when one draws a conclusion
from a small or unrepresentative sample and assumes that it applies to the entire population.

Examples:

1. "I interviewed three people, and they all said the new policy is terrible. Therefore, everyone
must hate it." Drawing a conclusion about the entire population based on only three opinions is
a hasty generalization.
2. "I met two people from that city, and both were rude. People from that city must be
unfriendly." This is a hasty generalization as it draws a broad conclusion about an entire group
based on a small and possibly unrepresentative sample.
3. "I watched a TV show set in New York, and it seems like everyone there is wealthy and lives in
luxury apartments." Assuming that this portrayal in a TV show accurately represents the entire
population of New York is a hasty generalization.
FALSE ANALOGY

A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a comparison between two things is made, but the
comparison is flawed or the two things being compared are not genuinely similar in the relevant
aspects. In other words, a false analogy suggests that because two things are alike in one or a few ways,
they must be alike in other ways as well, even though the analogy is not valid.

Examples:

1. Managing a country is like running a business. If a CEO can run a successful corporation, they
should be able to run a country effectively." This analogy overlooks the significant differences
between managing a nation and running a business, such as the diverse needs and interests of a
population compared to the profit-driven goals of a corporation.
2. The way a cell functions is similar to how a computer program operates. If we can understand
computer programming, we should have no trouble understanding cellular biology." This
analogy is false because cells and computer programs operate in fundamentally different ways,
and the complexity of biological systems cannot be fully captured by comparing them to
computer programs.
3. Just as cars have fuel to run, computers need fuel to function. Therefore, just like cars, we
should expect our computers to emit exhaust fumes." The analogy between cars and computers
breaks down because the "fuel" for computers is not the same as the fuel for cars, and
computers don't produce exhaust fumes.

ACCIDENT

This fallacy occurs when a general rule or principle is misapplied to a specific case where exceptions or
special circumstances should be considered.

Examples:

1. You should not talk back to your kuya (older brother) no matter what; he is always right because
he is older than you.
2. The boss is always right, so you should never question any decision made by the boss, no matter
what the circumstances are.
3. Parents know best in all situations, so you should always follow their advice without questioning
it.
POST HOC

The post hoc fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because one event happened after another,
the first event must have caused the second event. In other words, it involves correlating two events
based solely on their temporal sequence without considering other possible factors or explanations.

Examples:

1. I wore my lucky socks, and then we won the game. Therefore, my lucky socks must have brought
us good luck. This implies that wearing the lucky socks caused the team to win, ignoring other
factors like the team's skill, the opponent's performance, and various game dynamics.
2. I took a new herbal supplement, and my cold went away. The supplement must have cured me.
This assumes that taking the herbal supplement caused the recovery, overlooking the possibility
that the cold may have resolved on its own or that other factors contributed to the healing
process.
3. After the new president took office, the economy improved. Therefore, the president's policies
must be responsible for the economic improvement. This correlates the president's term with
economic changes without considering other economic factors, policies from previous
administrations, or global economic trends.

WRONG DIRECTION

The logical fallacy of "wrong direction" or "fallacy of direction" occurs when an argument or statement
asserts a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables or events, but the direction of the
relationship is incorrectly or illogically stated.

Examples:

1. Incorrect: "The presence of police in an area causes high crime rates."

Correct: High crime rates may lead to an increased police presence in an area.
2. Incorrect: "The presence of police in an area causes high crime rates."
Correct: High crime rates may lead to an increased police presence in an area.
COMPLEX CAUSE

Even when there are other factors which also contributed to the event, the explanation is reduced to
one thing. In simple terms, a single cause is identified when the effect is actually caused by a number of
interacting objects or events.

Examples:

1. Incorrect Assertion: "Low student performance is solely due to ineffective teachers."

Problem: This oversimplification overlooks the complex causes of educational challenges,
including socioeconomic factors, access to resources, curriculum design, and individual student
needs. Blaming low performance solely on teachers oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
2. Incorrect Assertion: "The economic recession is solely caused by high taxes."
Problem: This oversimplified statement neglects the multitude of factors (such as global
economic conditions, consumer behavior, banking practices, etc.) that contribute to an
economic recession. It erroneously attributes the complex effect (recession) to a single cause
(high taxes).

IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION

Arguments that commit the irrelevant conclusion fallacy all end with a conclusion that is not related in
any necessary way to the premises.

Examples:

1. Main Point: "We need to focus on improving access to affordable healthcare for all citizens."
Irrelevant Conclusion: "Think about the economic benefits of a healthy population. Healthy
workers are more productive."
While the economic benefits of a healthy population might be valid, it doesn't directly address
the concern about improving access to affordable healthcare.
2. Main Point: "We need to collaborate more effectively on the team project."
Irrelevant Conclusion: "I always respond promptly to emails."
Responding to emails promptly is not directly related to the issue of improving collaboration on
the team project.
STRAW MAN

The straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's position or
argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument made by the
opponent, the person attacking sets up a weaker version (a "straw man") and attacks that instead. This
fallacy is a form of misdirection and can be a deceptive way to make an argument appear weaker than it
actually is.

Examples:

1. If someone says they love the color blue and someone else argues that red is better, asserting
that the first person obviously hates the color red, this would be a straw man argument.
2. You said that we need to reform the education system to provide more support for struggling
students, so you're saying we should just pass everyone, even if they don't learn anything?
3. You said that we should allocate more funds to improving public parks and recreational areas in
the city, so, you're saying we should ignore all other pressing issues like education and
healthcare just to have pretty parks? That's not practical!

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT

If argument A is true then argument B is true; or If argument B is true, therefore argument A is true.

Examples:

1. If it's raining, then the ground is wet. Therefore, if the ground is wet, it is raining.
2. If it's a holiday, then the office is closed. Therefore, if the office is closed, it’s a holiday.
3. If the cake is chocolate, then it will be delicious. Therefore, if the cake is delicious, the cake must
be chocolate.