Hasty Generalization occurs when, reasoning inductively, we "jump to a conclusion" on the basis of a limited number of specific examples, or when the examples are irrelevant or
unrepresentative. Sexual and racial prejudice are particularly virulent forms of this fallacy.
False Analogy takes place when one compares two things that are superficially alike and draws the conclusion that what is or was true of one thing is or will be true of the other. Even though two items share two properties already, it is not necessarily true that they will share a third which only one is known to have. “A college is like a business and should be run like one.”
Either\Or Propositions (false dichotomies) try to force complex issues into apparent alternative positions. Valid inferences can be drawn only from alternatives that are exhaustive: "Either he voted Republican or he did not vote Republican" is quite different from "Either he voted Republican or he voted Democratic." People have a tendency to turn difficult issues into simple ones with two sides—black/white, right/ wrong, good/bad.
The Argumentum ad Baculum, or "appeal to force," occurs overtly in many dictatorships both of the right and of the left. It is used more subtly, however, in situations where one's business or job is threatened if one does not toe the government or corporate line.
The Argumentum ad Hominem, or argument directed to the man, occurs when one attacks the person who holds a particular view rather than the view. Such attacks are irrelevant and frequently degenerate into mere name calling. A second form of ad-hominem argument occurs when one appeals to the special circumstances or affiliations of one's opponent. For example, a Democrat might argue that his opponent, a Republican, cannot really call himself a Republican unless he supports the President’s large tax cut.
The Argumentum ad Populum, or appeal to the people, is used particularly by politicians and advertisers. This fallacy ignores the issue at hand to appeal to the in-group loyalties and fears of the audience. Appeals to prejudice and self-interest are also part of this appeal. For example, one might argue that people should be against any form of government regulation of business since America was founded on the principle of freedom from oppression.
The Argumentum ad Misericordiam, or appeal to pity, is frequently used in trials. This fallacy ignores the issue to appeal to the sympathy and pity of the audience. Students have been known to use it when they do not get papers in on time.
The Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance, is employed any time a person argues that something must be true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). For example, a frequently heard retort in an argument, say, about the existence of telepathy, is: "Well, you can't prove that it doesn't exist!" This is not a clinching argument, for our ignorance about how to disprove a proposition does not establish its truth or falsehood. Keep in mind that the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim.
The Argumentum ad Verecundiam, or appeal to authority, is fallacious when the authority appealed to is outside his field of expertise. A blatant example is the frequent advertising gambit of having a sports star or a movie star endorse a drink or an automobile.
The Fallacy of False Cause, or the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this), occurs when one falsely asserts a causal connection between two events. One may mistake the real cause of an event, or believe that simply because one thing happens before another it is the cause of that thing. Superstitions about black cats and broken mirrors are of this type.
The Fallacy of the Complex Question occurs when what seems on the surface to be a single question actually entails two questions, one of which has not even been asked. The humorous illustration, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" actually involves two questions: "Have you been beating your wife?" and "When did you stop?" Another: “Are we going to stop greedy oil companies from polluting the environment?”
Equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different senses in the same context. One might argue that science has discovered many natural laws and that this is proof of the existence of God, since a law implies a law giver. Here, of course, the word law is used in two different senses.
Amphibole and Accent are two fallacies that occur because of ambiguity in syntax or emphasis. The classic example of the first involves a story about Croesus, king of Lydia, who consulted the oracle of Delphi before going to battle with Persia. The oracle told him that the outcome would be the fall of a mighty kingdom. He confidently went to war. Guess who lost! The second fallacy occurs when the emphasis in a statement is shifted from one word to another: "We should not speak ill of our friends"; we should not speak ill of our friends."
The fallacies of Composition and Division occur when one argues that a thing or class as a whole has the properties of its constituent parts or members; or that the constituent parts or members of a thing or class have the properties of the thing or class as a whole. For example, one might argue that every member of the Rockets’ basketball team is an outstanding athlete and, therefore, that the Rockets have an outstanding basketball team. On the other hand, one might argue that the University of Texas is a renowned academic institution, and, therefore, Dr. Baker must be an outstanding professor since he teaches there. Another: "What's good for Microsoft is good for the USA."
Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning occur when one assumes in the premises what one is trying to prove in the conclusion, or when one attempts to prove the premises by the conclusion and the conclusion by the premises. For example: "The governor would never lie to the public because he is an honest man"; or, "I believe in God because I believe in the truth of the Bible; I believe in the truth of the Bible because it is the inspired word of God."
The Red Herring technique, also called Justification by Side Issue, is used to change the ground of the argument and direct attention from the issue at hand. A major example is the "everybody else does it" argument—cheat, exceed the speed limit, drink alcohol under age, and so on.
Tokenism occurs when one makes only a token gesture (does very little of what is required), but then shouts or brags about it as loudly as one can. For example, a company might point to a highly placed executive who is female to show how well they treat and promote women when, in fact, she is the only woman in an executive position in the whole company.
The Straw Man fallacy occurs when a person misinterprets an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, or when he attacks weaker opponents while ignoring stronger ones. For example, when opponents of gun control characterize those who are for some limitations on the ownership and use of weapons as radicals who would do away with hunting and Americans' constitutional right to bear arms, they are attacking a straw man.
The fallacy of the Slippery Slope consists in objecting to a particular action on the grounds that once an action is taken it will lead inevitably to a similar but less desirable action which in turn will lead to an even less desirable action and so on. For example, an argument against physician-assisted suicide is that eventually it could lead to the wholesale killing of the very ill or permanently disabled.
The Non Sequitur is a fallacy which includes most of those mentioned above. It is a fallacy in which the conclusion simply does not follow from the given premises.