General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion
The author cites irrelevant data
General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion
draws a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence provided
General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion
It uses inapplicable information to draw a conclusion about the character of the witness
General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion
It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches
Internal Contradiction
bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other
Internal Contradiction
the author makes irreconcilable presuppositions
Internal Contradiction
introduces information that actually contradicts the conclusion
Internal Contradiction
claims presented support of the conclusion conflict with the other evidence provided
Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization
supports a general claim on the basis of a single example
Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization
generalizes on the basis of what could be exceptional cases
Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization
bases a broad claim on a few exceptional cases
Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false
treats failure to prove a claim as constituting denial of that claim
Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false
taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim
Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is true
treating the failure to prove a claim to be false as if it is a demonstration of the truth of that claim
Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the position is false
it confuses weakening an argument in support of a given conclusion with proving the conclusion itself to be false
Some evidence for a position is taken to prove that the position is true
the argument treats evidence showing mere plausibility as if it proves that the conclusion is in fact true
Source Argument
it is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than against the claim itself
Source Argument
the attack is directed against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself
Source Argument
it draws conclusions about the validity of a position from evidence about the position's source
Source Argument
Assuming that legislation should not be supported based on the character of some supporters of the legislation
Circular Reasoning
argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises
Circular Reasoning
presupposes what it sets out to prove
Circular Reasoning
it assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate
Mistaken Negation
taking the absence of an occurrence as evidence that a necessary condition for that occurrence also did not take place
Mistaken Reversal
mistakes being sufficient to achieve a particular outcome being required to achieve it
Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
from the assertion that something is necessary to a given goal, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for its achievement
Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
it acts as if something that is necessary for a good leader is something that is sufficient to create a good leader
Confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition
confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition
Assuming a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events
mistakes the occurrence of one event after another for proof that the second event is the result of the first
Assuming a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events
mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship
Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists
confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two
Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists
Assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated
Failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect, or an alternate cause for both the cause and effect
fails to exclude an alternative expiation for the observed effect
Failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect, or an alternate cause for both the cause and effect
overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute to both
Failure to consider that the events may be reversed
the author mistakes an effect for a cause
Straw Man
refutes a distorted version of an opposing position
Straw Man
misdescribing the opposing position, thus making it easier to challenge
Straw Man
portrays opponents' views as more extreme than they really are
Straw Man
distorts the proposal advocated by opponents
Appeal to Authority
the judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is not relevant
Appeal to Authority
the argument improperly appeals to the authority of the supervisor
Appeal to Authority
bases a conclusion solely on the authority of the claimant, without seeking further proof
Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers
popular sentiment is treated as definitive proof of a claim
Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers
the argument tries to undermine the claim by appealing to public opinion
Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers
a conclusion is judged to be false simply because most people believe it to be false
Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers
the author makes an appeal to public opinion without requiring an adequate basis for the conclusion of the argument
Appeal to Emotion
attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal
Appeal to Emotion
the argument appeals to emotion rather than reason
Survey Errors
uses evidence drawn from a sample that may not be representative
Survey Errors
bases a conclusion on survey responses that were gained through faulty questioning
Survey Errors
generalizes from an unrepresentative sample
Survey Errors
assumes that every polled individual provided a truth response
Error of Composition
assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself
Error of Composition
improperly infers that all union members have a certain attribute from the premise that most union members have that attribute
Error of Composition
takes the beliefs of one scientist to represent the belief of all scientists
Error of Division
presumes without warrant that what is true of a whole must also be true to each of its parts
Uncertain Use of a Term/Concept
depending on the ambiguous use of a key term
Uncertain Use of a Term/Concept
it confuses two different meanings of the word 'genius'
Uncertain Use of a Term/Concept
the author's conclusion depends on defining a key term in two different ways
Uncertain Use of a Term/Concept
equivocates with respect to a central concept
False Analogy
treats two very different cases as if they are similar
False Analogy
treats two things that differ in critical respects as if they do not differ
False Dilemma
fails to consider that some voters may be neither strong supporters nor strong opponents of the suggested amendment
Time-Shift Errors
treats a claim about the current state of affairs as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period
Time-Shift Errors
draws an unwarranted inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future
Relativity Flaw
Occurs when information about a relative relationship is used to draw an absolute conclusion, or when a relative conclusion is drawn from absolute information.
Numbers and Percentages Errors
the argument confuses an increase in market share with an increase in overall revenue
Numbers and Percentages Errors
Many errors in this category are committed when an author improperly equates a percentage with a definite quantity or when they use quantity information to make a judgment about the percentage represented by that quantity.
Time-Shift Error
This mistake involves assuming that conditions will remain constant over time, and that what was the case in the past will be the base in the present or future.
False Dilemma
This assumes that only two courses of action are available when there may be others.
False Analogy
This occurs when the author uses an analogy that is too dissimilar to the original situation to be applicable.
Uncertain Use of a Term/Concept
Using a term in different way is inherently confusing.
Error of Division
Occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of the whole to a part of the group.
Error of Composition
Occurs when the author attributes a characteristic of part of the group to the group as a whole or to each member of the group.
Appeal to Emotion
Occurs when emotions or emotionally-charged language is used in an attempt to persuade the reader.
Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Numbers
This error states that a position is true because the majority believe it to be true.
Appeal to Authority
This uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader.
Straw Man
This error occurs when an author attempts to attack an opponent's position by ignoring the actual statements made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process.
Circular Reasoning
Author assumes as true what is supposed to be proved. Premise and conclusion are identical in meaning.
Source Argument
This argument attacks the person instead of the argument they advance.
Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization
This error takes a small number of instances and treats those instances as if they support a broad, sweeping conclusion.
Errors in the Use of Evidence
Where evidence is used incorrectly.
Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is false
Just because no evidence proving a position has been introduced doesn't mean that the position is false
Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that position as true
Just because no evidence disproving a position has been introduced does not mean that the position is true. The lack of evidence against a position does not undeniable prove a position.