Common Fallacies In Reasoning

Implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable and both have negative consequence.

Based on the principle of letting sleeping dogs lie. We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldnt challenge time honored customs or traditions.

Refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the common man or common sense provides the basis for the claim.

Attempts to use an opponents inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion.

Bases an inference on too small a sample or on an unrepresentative sample.

Assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in sme know respects that they are alike in other unknown respects.

Attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

Suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions the end results ofwhich are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope alway assumes a chain reaciton ofcause effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.

A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme even though the arguer does not advocate the extremem interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing t extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.

Wrongly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon.

Attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well known figure who supports the conclusion being offered.

This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually wer or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

Entails making an argument the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption.

The given statement is an example of Tu Quoque fallacy. Tu Quoque is a Latin term that means "you too." It is a type of logical fallacy where someone attempts to discredit an argument or criticism by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same behavior or action. In this case, the person is trying to dismiss their parents' advice against smoking grass by pointing out their parents' own habits of smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. This is a fallacy because it doesn't address the validity of the argument against smoking grass, but rather deflects attention by attacking the credibility of the parents.

allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).

Defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.

The given statement assumes that all members of the ZXQ sorority are rich or have rich parents based on the fact that the sorority itself is the richest on campus. This is a sweeping generalization because it makes a broad assumption about a group of people based on limited evidence. The statement does not provide any specific information about Muffin's financial situation or the financial backgrounds of other members in the sorority, making the conclusion invalid.

Stating a opponents argument in an extreme or exaggerated form or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portionof an opponents argument.

either black or white all or nothing fallacy assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive that is something iseither a member of one or the other but not both or some third category.

Mistakes correlation or association for causation by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.