Fallacy type Similar type of valid or strong argument

Affirming the consequent Direct way of reasoning

If A, then B If A, then B
B A
Therefore, A Therefore, B

Denying the antecedent Indirect way of reasoning

If A, then B If A, then B
A is P Not B
Therefore, A is S Therefore, a is P

Arguing backwards in all Direct way of reasoning with all

All S are P All S are P
A is P All A are Q
Therefore, A is S Therefore, all A is P

Reasoning in a chain with some Reasoning in a chain with all

Some S are P All S are P
Some P are Q All P are Q
Therefore, some S are Q Therefore, all S are Q

Arguing backwards with no Direct way of reasoning with no

All S are P All S are P
No Q is S No Q is P
Therefore, no Q is P Therefore, no Q is S

Arguing backwards with almost all Direct way of reasoning with almost all
Almost all S are P Almost all. S are P
A is P A is S
Therefore, a is S Therefore, A is P

Reasoning in a chain with almost all

Almost all S are P
Almost all P are Q
Therefore, almost all S are Q

Critical Thinking
Content fallacies
- Lack relationship between the premises and the conclusion (content is taken
into consideration)
(Correlation: it’s no relationship between premises
Causal: A leads to B)
Fallacies of presumption
False dilemma = there aren’t only 2 things to choose
Hasty generalization (false premises) =assuming that all things remain unchanged overtime/ what’s
true for a member is true for the whole group
Necessary and Sufficient conditions: mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
(dubious premise)
The fallacy of slippery rope (A leads to B but it doesn’t mean it will happen this way) =
insufficient premises leading to false premises
The fallacy of Post-hoc: after it, because of it (you do st before, then st happen, you blame
all problem for the thing that you’ve done)
Fallacies of relevance
Personal attack: make use of st that sb did in the past, background to attack one person in
present (what sb did in the past and now is irrelevance)
Irrelevant appeals (appeal to tradition/ popularity/novelty/consequence
Weak analogy
Fallacies of ambiguity
Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only due to their imprecise use of
language
Once terms are clarified, fallacies of ambiguity are exposed
Deductive reasoning-logical fallacies
Slippery slope
False dilemma
Circular reasoning: A is B, therefore A is B (eg: “I told you to clean your room!”. “Why?”
“Because I told you”
Equivocation: the meaning of a certain word is unclear and it causes the meaning of the
entire argument to be invalid (eg: Hot dog are better than nothing. Nothing is better than
steak. Therefore, hot dogs are better than steak)
=> The best way to handle this fallacy is to get information. Ask for clear definition of any
critical terms could be used in different ways
Indictive reasoning: If A is true and B is true, the C is probably true. Bases on : past exp,
common sense
Form: Comparative argument (the two event being compared have to be similar) and
causal argument (which may be used to figure out the probable cause of an effect or events,
rely on finding a key difference)
 The cause may occur after effect. You need more than just a strong correlation to
prove causation.