1. 3.1 Fallacies in General Fallacies: Making Bad Arguments Appear Good.
They are the products of either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion.

2. 3.1 Continued
Formal Fallacies may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument. An example of a form is:
All a are b.
All c are b.
All a are c.

3. 3.1 Continued
Informal Fallacies can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.
Consider this example:
The Brooklyn Bridge is made of atoms.
Atoms are invisible.
Therefore, the Brooklyn Bridge is invisible.

4. 3.2 Fallacies of Relevance
Logical Irrelevance vs. Psychological Relevance:
The conclusion seems to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically.

5. 3.2 Continued Specific Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Force:
This always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, whether an individual or a group of people.

6. 3.2 Continued Appeal to Pity:
The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader or listener, whether directed toward the arguer or toward some third party.

7. 3.2 Continued Appeal to the People, Direct vs. Indirect:
The arguer uses the reader or listener’s desire for love, esteem, admiration, value, and similar emotions to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd.
In the indirect approach, the arguer aims his or her appeal at one or more individuals in the crowd, focusing on some aspect of the relationship to the crowd.

8. 3.2 Continued Arguments Against the Person:
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person’s argument by verbally abusing the first person.
In the ad hominem circumstantial, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to the opponent’s circumstances. The respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously.

9. 3.2 Continued
In the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.

10. 3.2 Continued
Accident: this fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.

11. 3.2 Continued
Straw Man: this fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of attacking it more easily, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.

12. 3.2 Continued
Missing the Point: this fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

13. 3.2 Continued
Red Herring: this fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. Either a conclusion is then drawn about this different issue or it is simply presumed that a conclusion has been established.

14. 3.3 Fallacies of Weak Induction
Relevant but Weak Premises:
The connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
Specific Fallacies of Weak Induction:
Appeal to Unqualified Authority: the cited authority or witness lacks credibility.

15. 3.3 Continued
Appeal to Ignorance: this occurs when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing.

16. 3.3 Continued
Hasty Generalization: this is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations.

17. 3.3 Continued
False Cause: this fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: This variety of the fallacy presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second.

18. 3.3 Continued
Non Causa Pro Causa: This fallacy is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession.

19. 3.3 Continued
Oversimplified Cause: this occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause.
Gambler’s Fallacy: this is committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related.

20. 3.3 Continued
Slippery Slope: this is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction, for which there is insufficient reason to think will actually take place.

21. 3.3 Continued
Weak Analogy: this fallacy, which affects inductive arguments from analogy, is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

22. 3.4 Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity and Illicit Transference
Fallacies of Presumption assume that which needs to be proven:
The fallacy of Begging the Question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion.

23. 3.4 Continued
Complex Question: this is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them.

24. 3.4 Continued
False Dichotomy: this is committed when a disjunctive (“either or . . .”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.

25. 3.4 Continued
Suppressed Evidence: this fallacy occurs when in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.

26. 3.4 Continued
Fallacies of Ambiguity: these rely upon shifts in meaning between the premise and conclusion.
Equivocation: this fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.

27. 3.4 Continued
Amphiboly: this fallacy is committed when occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

28. 3.4 Continued
Fallacies of Illicit Transference: these fallacies rely upon a deceptive similarity in linguistic structure.
Composition: this fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts to the whole.
Division: this fallacy is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts.

29. 3.5 Fallacies in Ordinary Language
Detecting Fallacies: the informal fallacies addressed here have been clear-cut, easily recognizable instances of specific mistakes. But when fallacies occur in ordinary usage, they are rarely clear-cut or easily recognizable. There are many, many ways of making mistakes in arguing, and variations upon those mistakes.

30. 3.5 Continued
Avoiding Fallacies: there is no single, simple, straightforward reason as to why people commit fallacies.
Intentional commission: these arguers often know full well that their reasoning is defective but they do it anyway because of the perceived, and perhaps real, benefits for themselves or others.
Mental carelessness: this happens when arguers have emotionals reason to favor or oppose some person or thing. They know better, but they allow their feelings to overrule their intellect.
Influence of “Worldview”: this determines how we apprise the world in which we and shapes what we find reasonable or not to believe.