Fallacies of Relevance 1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force). The arguer appeals to

Fallacies of Relevance

1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force).  The arguer appeals
   to force or the threat of force to compel acceptance of the
   conclusion.

2. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).  "The phrase argumentum ad
   hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the
   man.'"  The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other
   person rather than the other persons' argument.

3. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial).  In this case, one
   tries to convince the opponent to agree to the conclusion
   based on the opponents circumstances.  For example (from
   Copi), a hunter may claim an anti-hunter must say hunting is
   acceptable since the anti-hunter is not a vegetarian.

4. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).  "The
   fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the
   argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever
   been able to prove that there aren't any."

5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity).  The arguer
   appeals to pity where the conclusion is a matter of reason and
   not one of sentiment.

6. Argumentum ad Populam.  "the attempt to win popular assent to
   a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the
   multitude, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts."

7. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority).  This is
   especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that
   authority's expertise.  In the field of the authority's
   expertise, "this method of argument is in many cases perfectly
   legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the
   special field of that authority's competence may carry great
   weight and constitute relevant evidence. ... Although it does
   not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it."

8. Accident. "The fallacy of accident consists in applying a
   general rule to a particular case whose 'accidental'
   circumstances render the rule inapplicable."

9. Converse Accident (hasty generalization).  Making a general
   rule based on a few atypical cases.

10. False Cause.  This is mistaking a event to be the cause of
    some other event.  For example, the sun rises every day after
    my rooster crows; therefore, my rooster causes the sun to
    rise.

11. Petitio Principii (begging the question).  The conclusion of
    an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed.

12. Complex Question.  This is a question of the "Have you
    stopped beating your wife?" variety.

13. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).  An argument which
    supports one conclusion is made to prove a different
    conclusion.  Copi's example is a legislator who, in
    discussing a housing bill, argues only that decent housing
    for all is desirable, rather than whether the bill in
    question would achieve that goal.


Fallacies of Ambiguity.

1. Equivocation.  Using the same word in two different senses.

2. Amphiboly.  Arguing from premises which are ambiguous due to
   their grammatical construction.

3. Accent.  Stressing a word in a sentence which thereby changes
   the meaning.

4. Composition.  Attributing to the whole the properties of the
   parts.

5. Division.  Attributing to the parts the properties of the
   whole.