3.Appeal to Authority
4.Appeal to Belief
5.Appeal to Common

7.Appeal to Emotion
8.Appeal to Fear
9.Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16.Ba ndwa gon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad

23.Di vi si on
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common

30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40.Spot l i ght

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh
tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly
agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the
Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains ©
Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution
restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you
have questions or comments about this work, please
direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters
(webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Labossiere
(ontologist@aol.com).

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must
understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an
argument consists of one or more premises and one
conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that
is either true or false) that is offered in support of the
claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is
also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and
inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such
that the premises provide (or appear to provide)
complete support for the conclusion. An inductive
argument is an argument such that the premises
provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support
(but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If
the premises actually provide the required degree of
support for the conclusion, then the argument is a
good one. A good deductive argument is known as a
valid argument and is such that if all its premises are
true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the
argument is valid and actually has all true premises,
then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or
has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A
good inductive argument is known as a strong (or
"cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the
premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This
differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong
about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an
"argument" in which the premises given for the

conclusion do not provide the needed degree of
support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument
that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true
premises and still have a false conclusion). An
inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy.
They are simply "arguments" which appear to be
inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided
enough support for the conclusion. In such cases,
even if the premises were true, the conclusion would
not be more likely to be true.

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.

Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in
Maine, though.)

Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is
rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person
presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an
attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting
the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument
the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the
following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character,
circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the
truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that
abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe
what you say."