The Fallacy Game Kemp

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.

Advertising is a rich source of Bandwagon arguments, with many products claiming to be "number 1" or "most popular", even though this is irrelevant to the product's merits.

An Ad Hominem attack is an attack on the character of your opponent rather than the issue at hand.

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premises, it is not solely determined by that strength.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

The problem with this fallacy is not formal, but is found in its disjunctive—"either-or"—premise: an argument of this type is fallacious when its disjunctive premise is fallaciously supported.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Notice that driving a car other than a Kia is compared to just running on a hamster wheel - boring and monotonous. There are very few similarities between running on a hamster wheel and driving a car.

The given statement is an example of the "Misuse of Statistics" fallacy. It claims that four out of five dentists recommend brand X gum, implying that it is the best choice for dental health. However, this statistic does not provide any evidence or reasoning behind why these dentists recommend brand X gum. It could be based on personal preferences, biased opinions, or even a paid endorsement. Therefore, the statement is misleading and does not provide a valid argument for choosing brand X gum.

not-available-via-ai

The given argument is an example of a sweeping generalization. The argument assumes that all birds can fly based on the premise that birds normally can fly. However, this assumption is incorrect as not all birds have the ability to fly. Penguins, like Tweety, are flightless birds. Therefore, the argument is making a broad generalization without considering the specific characteristics of different bird species.

The statement "If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog" is an example of a non sequitur. A non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises or evidence provided. In this case, there is no direct or logical connection between not buying a specific type of pet food and neglecting a dog. The statement makes an unsupported and illogical leap in reasoning.

This is an example of circular logic because the defense is arguing that the boy can't have killed his parents, because their death makes him an orphan.

This commercial implies that professional sport got better because athletes started drinking Gatorade rather than water.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.