Study Guide: Logical Fallacies

I. Core Concepts
A. Relevance:

• Define what it means for one statement to be relevant to another.

• Explain and provide an original example for each of the three types of relevance:
• Positive Relevance
• Negative Relevance
• Logical Irrelevance

B. Logical Fallacy:

• Define a logical fallacy in the context of argumentation.

• What distinguishes a fallacious argument from a sound argument?

C. Fallacies of Relevance:

• What is the fundamental characteristic of a fallacy of relevance?

D. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence: (Note: This category is mentioned but not detailed in the
provided text. Based on the title, consider what it might entail, even without specific examples
from this source.)

• Based on the title, what do you infer are the key characteristics of fallacies of
insufficient evidence?

II. Types of Fallacies of Relevance

For each of the following fallacies:

• Define the fallacy in your own words.

• Explain the logical flaw that makes the argument fallacious.
• Provide the example given in the text.
• Create your own original example of the fallacy.
• Explain the "No Fallacy Committed" examples provided in the text for each relevant
fallacy type, clarifying why these are not instances of the fallacy.

A. Personal Attack Fallacy (Ad Hominem):

B. Attacking the Motive:
C. Look Who's Talking (Tu Quoque):
D. Two Wrongs Make a Right:
E. Scare Tactics (Appeal to Fear):
F. Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam):
G. Bandwagon Argument (Appeal to Popularity):
H. Straw Man Fallacy:
I. Red Herring Fallacy:
J. Equivocation:
K. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):
III. Distinguishing Fallacies from Sound Reasoning
• What are the key indicators that an argument might contain a fallacy of relevance?
• Explain the importance of focusing on the argument's content rather than irrelevant
personal or emotional factors.

Quiz: Logical Fallacies

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. Explain the concept of positive relevance and provide an example different from
those in the text.
2. What is a fallacy of relevance, and what makes the reasons offered in such an
argument problematic?
3. Describe the personal attack fallacy. How does it attempt to undermine an
argument?
4. Explain the fallacy of attacking the motive. Why is focusing on someone's motivation
often irrelevant to the truth of their claim?
5. What is the "look who's talking" fallacy? Provide a brief original example.
6. How does the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy attempt to justify a wrongful
action? Explain the logical flaw.
7. Define the scare tactics fallacy. What makes the threat irrelevant to the truth of the
conclusion?
8. Explain the straw man fallacy. Why is misrepresenting an opponent's argument a
fallacious tactic?
9. What is the red herring fallacy? How does it function to distract from the main
issue?
10. Describe the fallacy of begging the question. Why does it fail to provide genuine
support for its conclusion?

Answer Key: Logical Fallacies Quiz

1. Positive relevance occurs when a statement provides a reason to believe that
another statement is true. For example, "The sky is cloudy" is positively relevant to
"It might rain," as cloudy skies often precede rain.
2. A fallacy of relevance occurs when the reasons offered in an argument are logically
disconnected from the conclusion being drawn. These reasons do not provide
genuine support for whether the conclusion is true or false.
3. The personal attack fallacy rejects someone's argument by criticizing the person
making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It attempts to
discredit the argument based on irrelevant personal characteristics or history.
 4. The fallacy of attacking the motive criticizes a person's reasons for making an
argument instead of evaluating the argument's actual merits. While someone might
have a self-serving motivation, this does not automatically make their argument
false.
5. The "look who's talking" fallacy rejects someone's argument or advice because the
person offering it doesn't consistently follow it themselves. An example is a child
refusing to eat vegetables because their parent also dislikes vegetables.
6. The "two wrongs make a right" fallacy tries to justify a wrong action by claiming
that another similar or worse action has occurred. The fact that someone else did
something wrong does not negate the wrongfulness of the initial action.
7. The scare tactics fallacy attempts to persuade by threatening harm if the conclusion
is not accepted, and this threat is not logically related to the truth of the conclusion.
The threat aims to instill fear rather than provide rational justification.
8. The straw man fallacy misrepresents an opponent's actual argument, often by
exaggerating or simplifying it, and then attacks this distorted version instead. This
makes it easier to argue against, but it avoids engaging with the real argument.
9. The red herring fallacy diverts attention from the original issue by introducing an
irrelevant topic and then implying that this diversion somehow resolves the initial
point. This tactic aims to mislead the audience away from the central argument.
10. The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premise assumes the
truth of the very conclusion it is trying to prove. It essentially argues in a circle
without providing any independent support for the conclusion.

Essay Format Questions

1. Discuss the significance of understanding the concept of relevance in evaluating
arguments. How do fallacies of relevance undermine logical reasoning? Provide
specific examples from the text to illustrate your points.

Understanding the concept of relevance is significant in evaluating arguments because a

statement's relevance to another determines whether it provides a reason for thinking that second
statement is true or false. The sources explain that a statement can be positively relevant (counts
in favor of a statement), negatively relevant (counts against a statement), or logically
irrelevant (counts neither for nor against a statement). Evaluating arguments effectively requires
discerning whether the premises offered are relevant to the conclusion being drawn.

Fallacies of relevance undermine logical reasoning precisely because they offer reasons or
premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion being argued for. Instead of providing
genuine support for the truth or falsehood of the conclusion, these fallacies often rely on
emotional appeals, personal attacks, or distractions. This means the conclusion may be accepted
or rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with its actual logical merit.

Here are specific examples from the text illustrating how different fallacies of relevance
undermine logical reasoning:
• Personal Attack Fallacy: This fallacy rejects an argument by attacking the person
making the argument rather than the argument itself. For example, the statement "Nana
Addo, the former President of Ghana, has argued against political violence. But Nana
Addo is a beneficiary of political violence... His argument, therefore, is worthless" is
fallacious because Nana Addo's past or potential motivations do not negate the validity of
an argument against political violence. The relevance lies in the logical consistency and
evidence supporting the claim against political violence, not the speaker's personal
history.
• Attacking the Motive: This fallacy criticizes a person's motivation for offering an
argument instead of evaluating the argument's worth. The example, "Professor Asempah
has argued in favor of academic tenure. But why should we even listen to Professor
Asempah? As a tenured professor, of course he supports tenure", is fallacious because
Professor Asempah's personal benefit from tenure doesn't automatically invalidate the
reasons he might offer in its favor. The relevance should be in the merits and demerits of
academic tenure itself.
• Look who's talking: This fallacy rejects an argument because the person making it
doesn't practice what they preach. The dialogue between the doctor and patient about
smoking illustrates this. The doctor's smoking habits are irrelevant to the validity of the
advice to quit smoking. The relevance lies in the health consequences of smoking,
regardless of the doctor's personal behavior.
• Two Wrongs Make a Right: This fallacy tries to justify a wrong action by claiming
another act is equally bad or worse. Bart's response to Marge about hitting his sister
("Well, she pinched me") is an example. His sister's action does not make his hitting her
right or logically justifiable. The relevance lies in whether the act of hitting is inherently
wrong, not in whether someone else also committed a wrong act.
• Scare Tactics: This fallacy uses threats to persuade someone to accept a conclusion,
where the threat is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion. The diplomat's implied threat
of military action to support their claim to the San Marcos Islands is an example. The
potential for harm is irrelevant to whether they are the "rightful rulers." The relevance
should be based on historical, legal, or ethical justifications for their claim.
• Appeal to pity fallacy: This fallacy attempts to evoke feelings of pity to gain acceptance
for a conclusion. The student's plea to the lecturer to change their grade based on
personal hardships is an example. While the student's situation might be unfortunate, it is
logically irrelevant to their academic performance and whether they earned an F. The
relevance should be the student's demonstrated understanding of the course material.
• Bandwagon Argument: This fallacy appeals to the desire to be popular or accepted
instead of providing logical reasons. The example about cool kids smoking at East
Jefferson High School is fallacious because the popularity of smoking among a certain
group is irrelevant to whether it is a healthy or wise choice. The relevance should be the
health risks and other consequences of smoking.
• Straw man fallacy: This fallacy misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier
to attack. The example of Senator Biddle's argument against violent pornography being
distorted into favoring complete governmental censorship shows how the arguer attacks a
misrepresented, weaker version of the original argument. The relevance lies in addressing
Senator Biddle's actual argument about violent pornography.
 • Red Herring Fallacy: This fallacy distracts the audience by introducing an irrelevant
issue. The response about Mr. Ampong's presidency and the Declaration of Independence
to deflect criticism about him being a drug dealer is an example. Mr. Ampong's historical
contributions are irrelevant to the accusations of drug dealing. The relevance lies in
addressing the accusations directly.
• Equivocation: This fallacy uses a key word with two or more different meanings in the
same argument, relying on this shift in meaning for the argument's apparent success. The
example about "wee" meaning both marijuana and urine break demonstrates how the
argument's conclusion is based on the ambiguity of the word. The relevance lies in using
consistent definitions for terms throughout the argument.

In each of these cases, the fallacy of relevance distracts from the genuine logical connections
needed to support a conclusion, thereby undermining sound reasoning. Recognizing these
fallacies is crucial for evaluating arguments critically and ensuring that our acceptance or
rejection of a conclusion is based on relevant and logical grounds.

2. Analyze the different types of personal attacks (personal attack fallacy and attacking
the motive). While both involve criticizing the person, how do they differ in their
approach and why are they considered fallacious? Use examples to clarify your
analysis.

You're asking for an analysis of two types of personal attacks: the personal attack
fallacy and attacking the motive. While both involve criticizing the person presenting an
argument, they differ in their specific approach and are considered fallacious because they
introduce irrelevant information into the evaluation of an argument.

Let's break down each fallacy and their differences:

Personal Attack Fallacy:

• The personal attack fallacy (also known as ad hominem) occurs when someone rejects
an argument or claim by attacking the person making the argument rather than the
argument itself.
• The focus of this fallacy is on some negative aspect of the person's character,
background, or circumstances, which is then used as a reason to dismiss their argument.
• Example from the source: "Nana Addo, the former President of Ghana, has argued
against political violence. But Nana Addo is a beneficiary of political violence, and has
made political violence statement before. His argument, therefore, is worthless". In this
case, the argument against political violence is dismissed based on Nana Addo's past and
potential benefits from such violence, which is irrelevant to the logical strength of his
current stance against it.
Attacking the Motive:

• Attacking the motive is the error of criticizing a person's motivation for offering a
particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim
itself.
• Here, the focus shifts to why the person might be making the argument, suggesting that
their underlying motive invalidates the argument.
• Examples from the source:
o "Professor Asempah has argued in favor of academic tenure. But why should we
even listen to Professor Asempah? As a tenured professor, of course he supports
tenure". The argument for tenure is dismissed by pointing to Professor Asempah's
potential self-interest as a tenured professor.
o "Barbara Simmons, president of the American Trial Lawyers Association, has
argued that punitive damage awards resulting from tobacco litigation should not
be limited. But this is exactly what you would expect her to say. Trial lawyers
stand to lose billions if such punitive damage awards are limited. Therefore, we
should ignore Ms. Simmons’s argument". Here, Ms. Simmons' argument is
disregarded because of her professional role and the financial benefits she might
derive from her position.

Differences in Approach:

• The personal attack fallacy directly attacks the person's character, history, or
circumstances as a reason to reject their argument. It's often a broader condemnation of
the individual.
• Attacking the motive, on the other hand, specifically targets the presumed
reason why the person is making the argument. It suggests that the argument is biased or
self-serving and therefore should be disregarded.

Why Both are Fallacious:

Both the personal attack fallacy and attacking the motive are fallacious because they commit
a fallacy of relevance. As we discussed previously, a statement is relevant to another if it
provides a reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false.

• In the case of the personal attack fallacy, the characteristics or past actions of the person
making the argument are generally logically irrelevant to the truth or validity of the
argument itself. Whether Nana Addo benefited from political violence in the past does
not change the potential validity of an argument against it.
• Similarly, in attacking the motive, the person's motivations for making an argument
are logically irrelevant to the actual strength and evidence supporting that argument.
Professor Asempah's self-interest in academic tenure doesn't automatically make his
arguments for it weak; those arguments should be evaluated on their own merits.
Likewise, Barbara Simmons' financial stake doesn't necessarily mean her arguments
against limiting punitive damages are incorrect.
The focus in evaluating an argument should be on the premises and the logical
connection between the premises and the conclusion, not on the person presenting the argument
or their potential reasons for doing so. By shifting the focus to the individual or their motives,
these fallacies distract from the actual argument and prevent a logical evaluation of the claims
being made.

3. Explore the psychological factors that might make fallacies of relevance, such as
bandwagon arguments and scare tactics, persuasive despite their logical flaws. Why
do people sometimes fall for these types of arguments?

You're asking about the psychological factors that make fallacies of relevance,
specifically bandwagon arguments and scare tactics, persuasive despite their logical flaws, and
why people sometimes fall for them. Let's explore this using the information in the sources.

Bandwagon Argument:

The source explains that a bandwagon argument "plays on a person’s desire to be popular,
accepted, or valued, rather than appealing to logically relevant reasons or evidence". Examples
provided include the pressure to smoke because "all the really cool kids" do and the social
disapproval implied for going to the library on a Friday night.

The primary psychological factor at play here is the strong human need for social acceptance
and belonging. People are often motivated by a desire to fit in with their peer groups, to be liked
and respected, and to avoid social isolation or ridicule. This desire can be so powerful that it
overrides a person's capacity for logical evaluation. If an argument suggests that adopting a
particular belief or behavior will make them more popular or accepted, individuals may be
inclined to agree with it, even if the belief or behavior itself lacks logical justification. The fear
of being perceived as an outsider or "not cool" can be a potent motivator, making the bandwagon
appeal psychologically effective.

Scare Tactics:

The source defines scare tactics as occurring "when an arguer threatens harm to a reader or
listener if he or she does not accept the arguer’s conclusion and this threat is irrelevant to the
truth of the arguer’s conclusion". Examples include the diplomat's implied threat of military
action and the gun lobbyist's warning about political consequences.

The key psychological factor driving the persuasiveness of scare tactics is fear. These arguments
trigger a primal emotional response related to safety and well-being. When faced with a
perceived threat, individuals may react emotionally rather than logically. The urgency and
intensity of the fear can cloud judgment and make people more likely to accept the conclusion
being offered as a way to avoid the threatened negative outcome. The irrelevance of the threat to
the truth of the conclusion is often overlooked in the face of this strong emotional manipulation.
The desire for security and the avoidance of pain or negative consequences can be powerful
motivators, making scare tactics psychologically effective in persuading people, even when the
logical connection is weak or non-existent.

In summary, people sometimes fall for these types of fallacies because they tap into fundamental
psychological needs and emotions:

• Bandwagon arguments exploit the social need for belonging and acceptance. The
desire to be part of a group and avoid social exclusion can lead individuals to accept
claims based on popularity rather than logical merit.
• Scare tactics leverage the emotion of fear. The urge to avoid harm or negative
consequences can override rational thinking, making individuals susceptible to accepting
conclusions based on threats, even if those threats are irrelevant to the truth of the
conclusion.

These psychological factors can be incredibly influential, often operating on a subconscious

level, which is why fallacies of relevance like bandwagon arguments and scare tactics can be
surprisingly persuasive despite their lack of logical support. Recognizing these psychological
appeals is an important part of developing critical thinking skills, as it allows us to evaluate
arguments based on their logical strength rather than our emotional responses or social desires.

4. Compare and contrast two different fallacies of relevance discussed in the text (e.g.,
straw man and red herring). How do they function to derail logical discussion, and
what strategies can be used to counter them?

You're asking me to compare and contrast the straw man fallacy and the red herring fallacy,
explain how they derail logical discussion, and suggest strategies to counter them, based on the
provided source.

Let's break down each fallacy:

Straw Man Fallacy:

• How it functions: The straw man fallacy occurs when an arguer distorts an
opponent’s argument or claim to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with
the actual argument, the arguer creates a misrepresentation (the "straw man") that is
weaker or easier to refute. They then attack this distorted version, giving the impression
that they have successfully countered the original argument.
• Derailing logical discussion: This fallacy derails logical discussion by shifting the
focus away from the opponent's real argument. The discussion becomes about the
misrepresented argument, which the opponent may not even hold. This prevents a
genuine engagement with the actual issues at stake and wastes time addressing a point
that wasn't originally made.
• Example from the source: "Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent
pornography. Obviously, the senator favors complete governmental censorship of books,
 magazines, and films. Frankly, I’m shocked that such a view should be expressed on the
floor of the U.S. Senate. It runs counter to everything this great nation stands for. No
senator should listen seriously to such a proposal". Here, Senator Biddle's argument
against violent pornography is distorted into a position favoring "complete governmental
censorship," a much more extreme and easier-to-attack stance.

Red Herring Fallacy:

• How it functions: An arguer commits the red herring fallacy when they seek to
distract their audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claim or imply that this
diversion has settled the original point at issue. The irrelevant issue (the "red herring")
pulls the audience's attention away from the main topic of discussion.
• Derailing logical discussion: This fallacy derails logical discussion by changing the
subject. The introduction of an irrelevant issue diverts attention from the original
argument and prevents a resolution of that argument. The arguer essentially tries to win
the point by distracting everyone rather than by addressing the actual issue.
• Example from the source: "Many people criticize Mr. Ampong for being a drug dealer.
But Mr. Ampong was one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence
is one of the most eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these
criticisms are unwarranted". Here, Mr. Ampong's accomplishments as president and the
eloquence of the Declaration of Independence are irrelevant to the criticisms about him
being a drug dealer.

Comparison and Contrast:

• Similarity: Both the straw man and the red herring fallacies are fallacies of relevance.
In both cases, the arguer introduces information that is not logically relevant to the
conclusion they are trying to support or the argument they are trying to refute. This
irrelevance is what makes them fallacious. Both tactics serve to derail the logical
progression of a discussion.
• Key Difference: The primary difference lies in how the irrelevance is introduced and its
purpose:
o The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting the opponent's actual
argument to create a weaker, related but different argument that is then attacked.
The focus is still on the opponent's supposed position, albeit a distorted one.
o The red herring fallacy involves introducing a completely new and unrelated
issue to distract from the original argument. The focus shifts entirely to a different
topic.

Strategies to Counter Them:

To counter these fallacies, it's crucial to identify the irrelevance and bring the discussion back
to the original point.

• Countering the Straw Man Fallacy:

 o Clearly restate your original argument: Politely and clearly reiterate the
position you actually hold, emphasizing the aspects that were misrepresented.
o Point out the misrepresentation: Explicitly identify how your argument was
distorted and explain why the "straw man" argument is not your actual position.
You can say something like, "It seems you've misunderstood my argument. I'm
not saying X; I'm saying Y, which is different because..."
o Refuse to engage with the distorted argument: Avoid getting drawn into
defending the misrepresented argument. Keep redirecting the conversation back to
your original claim.
• Countering the Red Herring Fallacy:
o Identify the irrelevant issue: Point out that the new issue being raised is not
relevant to the original topic of discussion. You can say something like, "That's an
interesting point, but it doesn't seem to relate to what we were talking about
regarding..."
o Refocus the discussion: Gently but firmly steer the conversation back to the
original issue. You can say, "Let's get back to the main point about..." or "While
that's important, it's a separate issue. Can we finish discussing... first?"
o Don't get sidetracked: Resist the temptation to engage in a detailed discussion of
the red herring issue unless it can be clearly and directly linked back to the
original topic.

By being aware of these fallacies and employing these counter-strategies, you can help maintain
a more logical and productive discussion.

5. Evaluate the importance of identifying fallacies of relevance in everyday life, providing

examples of situations where recognizing these fallacies can lead to more informed
decision-making and critical thinking.

Identifying fallacies of relevance is crucial in everyday life because they can significantly
hinder our ability to make informed decisions and think critically. When someone uses a fallacy
of relevance, they are trying to persuade us with reasons that are not logically connected to their
conclusion. Recognizing these flaws in reasoning allows us to see through manipulative tactics
and base our judgments on sound evidence and logical connections.

Here are some examples of situations where recognizing fallacies of relevance can lead to more
informed decision-making and critical thinking:

• Political Discourse:
o Personal Attack (Ad Hominem): During a political debate, if a candidate attacks
their opponent's personal character instead of addressing their policy proposals,
recognizing this as a fallacy of relevance (specifically a personal attack) helps
voters focus on the actual issues. For example, if someone dismisses a politician's
 economic plan by saying, "Well, that's coming from someone who had marital
problems," a critical thinker will recognize that the politician's personal life is
irrelevant to the validity of their economic plan. This allows voters to evaluate the
plan on its own merits rather than being swayed by an irrelevant personal attack.
o Scare Tactics: A political campaign might use fear-mongering by suggesting dire
consequences if the opponent wins, even if those consequences are not logically
linked to the opponent's platform. Recognizing this as a scare tactic allows
citizens to assess the likelihood and relevance of these threats, rather than making
decisions based on fear alone. For instance, a campaign might claim, "If our
opponent is elected, our country will be immediately vulnerable to attack,"
without providing any logical connection between the opponent's policies and
increased national security risks.
o Red Herring: When questioned about a controversial policy, a politician might
bring up an unrelated positive achievement to distract from the criticism.
Identifying this as a red herring allows citizens to stay focused on the original
issue and demand a direct answer. For example, if a politician is asked about
rising unemployment rates and responds by talking about a successful
infrastructure project, recognizing the red herring prompts us to press for
information on the unemployment issue.
• Advertising and Marketing:
o Bandwagon Argument: Advertisements often appeal to the desire to be popular
or fit in by suggesting that "everyone" is using a particular product. Recognizing
this bandwagon fallacy helps consumers avoid purchasing products solely based
on their perceived popularity rather than their actual needs or quality. For
example, an ad might say, "Millions of people are using this new smartphone –
you should too!" Recognizing this as a bandwagon appeal encourages us to
consider the phone's features and our own needs, not just its popularity.
o Appeal to Pity: Some advertisements might use emotional stories of hardship to
evoke sympathy and persuade consumers to buy a product or donate to a cause,
even if the product or the organization isn't the most effective solution.
Recognizing this appeal to pity helps us evaluate the actual effectiveness and
merits of what is being offered, rather than being solely driven by emotion. For
example, an ad for a charity might focus intensely on individual suffering without
providing clear information on how donations are actually used and what impact
they have.
• Personal Relationships and Arguments:
o Look who's talking (Tu Quoque): In a personal disagreement, someone might
deflect criticism by pointing out that the other person has also done something
similar. Recognizing this "look who's talking" fallacy helps keep the focus on the
original issue and prevents hypocritical behavior from excusing wrongdoing. For
example, if a parent scolds their child for lying, and the child responds, "But you
lied last week!", recognizing the fallacy reminds both parties that one person's
past behavior doesn't negate the wrongness of the current action.
o Two Wrongs Make a Right: Someone might try to justify a wrong action by
claiming that someone else did something equally bad. Recognizing this fallacy
helps promote accountability and ethical behavior. For instance, if someone
 justifies cheating on a test by saying, "Half the class cheats anyway," recognizing
this fallacy highlights that widespread cheating doesn't make it right.

By developing the ability to identify fallacies of relevance, we become more discerning

consumers of information and more effective participants in discussions and debates. We are less
likely to be swayed by emotional appeals or irrelevant distractions, and we can focus on the
logical strength of arguments and the relevance of evidence when making decisions that affect
our lives and society. This leads to more reasoned judgments and a deeper understanding of the
issues we face.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Relevance: The property of one statement providing at least some reason for
thinking that another statement is true or false.
• Positive Relevance: A type of relevance where a statement counts in favor of
another statement.
• Negative Relevance: A type of relevance where a statement counts against another
statement.
• Logical Irrelevance: A type of relevance where a statement counts neither for nor
against another statement.
• Logical Fallacy: An error in reasoning that weakens or invalidates an argument.
• Fallacy of Relevance: A type of logical fallacy where the reasons offered to support
a conclusion are not logically connected to the conclusion.
• Personal Attack Fallacy (Ad Hominem): Rejecting an argument by attacking the
person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
• Attacking the Motive: Criticizing a person's motivation for offering an argument
instead of evaluating the argument's worth.
• Look Who's Talking (Tu Quoque): Rejecting someone's argument because they do
not practice what they preach.
• Two Wrongs Make a Right: Attempting to justify a wrong action by claiming that
another action is equally bad or worse.
• Scare Tactics (Appeal to Fear): Threatening harm to someone if they do not accept
a conclusion, where the threat is irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion.
• Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam): Inappropriately attempting to evoke feelings
of pity or compassion to support a conclusion.
• Bandwagon Argument (Appeal to Popularity): Arguing that something is true or
good because many people believe or do it.
• Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to
attack.
• Red Herring Fallacy: Introducing an irrelevant issue to distract from the original
point under discussion.
• Equivocation: Using a key word with two or more different meanings within the
same argument, where the argument's apparent success depends on this shift in
meaning.
• Begging the Question: Assuming the truth of the conclusion within the premises of
the argument.