Fallacies

How many legs does this elephant have?

Is this wave moving?
Fallacies
1. Fallacies What
of Relevance mistake!!!

2. Fallacies of
Insufficient
Evidence
What is a Fallacy?
 A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a
mistake in reasoning.

 Fallacies can be divided into two general types:

 Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises, though logically
relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient
evidence for the conclusion.
“There is nothing so stupid as an educated man,
if you get him off the thing he was educated in”
- Will Rogers
Fallacies of Relevance
 A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it
provides at least some reason for thinking that the
second statement is true or false.
 There are three ways in which a statement can be
relevant or irrelevant to another:
 A statement is positively relevant to another
statement if it provides at least some reason for
thinking that the second statement is true.

 Example:
 Dogs are cats. Cats are felines. So dogs are felines
Fallacies of Relevance
 A statement is negatively relevant to another
statement if it provides at least some reason for
thinking that the second statement is false.
 Example:
 Marty is a high-school senior. So, Marty likely has
a Ph.D.
 A statement is logically irrelevant to another
statement if it provides no reason for thinking that
the second statement is either true or false.
 Example:
 The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore,
marijuana should be legalized.
Fallacies of Relevance

 A fallacy of relevance occurs when an arguer offers

reasons that are logically irrelevant to his or her
conclusion.
Fallacies of Relevance
Personal Attack Appeal to Pity

Attacking the Motive Bandwagon Argument

Look Who’s Talking Straw Man

Begging the Question Red Herring

Scare Tactics Equivocation

Two Wrongs Make a Right

 Personal Attack
Personal Attack
When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim
by attacking the person’s character rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.

Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine, has argued against

censorship of pornography. But Hefner is an immature, self-
indulgent millionaire who never outgrew the adolescent
fantasies of his youth. His argument, therefore, is worthless.

1. X is a bad person.
Pattern
2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.
Personal Attack
 Even if it is true that Hefner is a bad person, that doesn’t
mean he is incapable of offering good arguments on the
topic of censorship.
 The fallacy of personal attack occurs only if:
(1) An arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim
(2) The arguer attacks the person who offers the arguments or
claim, rather than considering the merits of that argument or
claim.
Millions of innocent people died in Stalin’s ruthless ideological
purges. Clearly, Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators
of the twentieth century
No Fallacy
Personal Attack -EX
 "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to
companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be
wrong to do that."

 "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has

been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian
feminist. I don't see why we should extend an
invitation for her to speak at the World Conference
on Cancer."
 Attacking the Motive
Attacking the Motive
When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than
examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.
 Example: Professor Michaelson has argued in favor of
academic tenure. But why should we even listen to Prof.
Michaelson? As a tenured professor, of course he support
tenure.

1. X has biased or has questionable motives.

Pattern 2. Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected.
 Look Who’s Talking
Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque)
When an arguer rejects another person’s argument
or claim because that person is a hypocrite.

 Example:
Doctor: You should quit smoking.
Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr.
Smokestack!

1. X fails to follow his or her own advice.

Pattern
2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected.
 Two Wrongs Make a Right
Two Wrongs Make a Right
When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act
by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.

 Examples:
“I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Prof. A’s online quiz.
Half the class cheats on his quiz.”

“Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.”

1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts.

Pattern
2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.
Two Wrongs Make a Right
 Bill has borrowed Jane's expensive pen, but found he didn't
return it. He tell's himself that it is okay to keep it, since she
would have taken his.
 After leaving a store, Jill notices that she has underpaid by
$10. She decides not to return the money to the store
because if she had overpaid, they would not have returned
the money.
 Jane: "Did you hear about those terrorists killing those poor
people? That sort of killing is just wrong."
Sue: "Those terrorists are justified. After all, their land was
taken from them. It is morally right for them to do what they
do."
Jane: "Even when they blow up busloads of children?"
Sue: "Yes."
 Scare Tactics
Scare Tactics
When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener
and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of
the arguer’s conclusion.

 Example:
Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the
rightful rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to
send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim.

Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it

Remember
often causes us to think and behave irrationally.
 Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Pity
When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or
compassion, where such feelings, however understandable,
are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

 Example: Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your

classes and failed all my quizzes and assignments. First my
cat died. Then my girlfriend told me she has found someone
else. With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really
deserve an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and
change my grade to a C or a D?

1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.

Pattern
2. Therefore claim C is true.
Appeal to Pity
 "I should receive an 'A' in this class. After all, if I don't get
an 'A' I won't get the fellowship that I want."
 "I'm positive that my work will meet your requirements. I
really need the job since my grandmother is sick"

 Professor: "You missed the midterm, Bill."

Bill: "I know. I think you should let me take the makeup."
Professor: "Why?"
Bill: "I was hit by a truck on the way to the midterm. Since I had
to go to the emergency room with a broken leg, I think I am
entitled to a makeup."
Professor: "I'm sorry about the leg, Bill. Of course you can make
it up.“
: No fallacy
 Bandwagon Argument
Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure)
When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular,
accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant
reasons or evidence.

 Example: All the really cool IU students use

IPhone. Therefore, you should, too.

1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X.

Pattern
2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.
Straw Man

Description: Substituting a person’s actual

position or argument with a distorted,
exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the
position of the argument.

Logical Form:
Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted
way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.
Straw Man

Example:
Zebedee: What is your view on the Christian God?
Mike: I don’t believe in any gods, including the
Christian one.
Zebedee: So you think that we are here by
accident, and all this design in nature is pure
chance, and the universe just created itself?
Mike: You got all that from me stating that I just
don’t believe in any gods?
Straw Man

Explanation: Mike made one claim: that he does

not believe in any gods. From that, we can
deduce a few things, like he is not a theist, he is
not a practicing Christian, Catholic, Jew, or a
member of any other religion that requires the
belief in a god, but we cannot deduce that he
believes we are all here by accident, nature is
chance, and the universe created itself.
Straw Man

Explanation:
Mike might have no beliefs about these things
whatsoever. Perhaps he distinguishes between
“accident” and natural selection, perhaps he thinks
the concept of design is something we model after
the universe, perhaps he has some detailed
explanation based on known physics as to how the
universe might have first appeared, or perhaps he
believes in some other supernatural
explanation. Regardless, this was a gross
mischaracterization of Mike’s argument.
Straw Man
 Person A has position X.
 Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
 Person B attacks position Y.
 Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by

$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us
dry like that, Jones."
 Red Herring
Red Herring
When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising
an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original
issue has been effectively settled by the
irrelevant diversion.
 Example: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements
stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support
it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our
salaries affected."

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant
Pattern to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
Red Herring
also known as:
 beside the point,

 misdirection, changing the subject,

 false emphasis,

 the Chewbacca defense,

 irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis,

 smokescreen, clouding the issue,

 ignorance of refutation, judgmental language

Red Herring
 Example #1:
 Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your
spouse, why on earth would you have done
that?
 Ken: But what is morality exactly?
 Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by
cultures.
 Ken: But who creates this code?...
Red Herring
 Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed
this conversation off of his sexual digressions
to the deep, existential, discussion on
morality.
 Equivocation đánh tráo khái niệm, lập lờ nước đôi

Equivocation
When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two
(or more) different senses.

 (also known as: doublespeak)

 Description: Using an ambiguous term in more
than one sense, thus making an argument
misleading.

Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot

Remember
Because they often appear valid, but they aren’t.
 Equivocation

 Example:
 It is crime to smoke grass. Kentucky bluegrass is
a grass. Therefore, it is a crime to smoke
Kentucky bluegrass.
 In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed
almost very night. To be bombed is to be
intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940,
Londoners were intoxicated almost every night.

Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot

Remember
Because they often appear valid, but they aren’t.
Equivocation

The priest told me I should have faith.

I have faith that my son will do well in school
this year.
Therefore, the priest should be happy with me.

Explanation: The term “faith” used by the

priest, was in the religious sense of believing in
God without sufficient evidence, which is
different from having “faith” in your son in
which years of good past performance leads to
the “faith” you might have in your son.
 Begging the Question
Begging the Question
When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason)
the very thing he is seeking to prove as a conclusion.

 (also known as: assuming the initial point,

assuming the answer, chicken and the egg
argument, circulus in probando, circular
reasoning [form of], vicious circle)

Reason Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.

 Begging the Question

Example:
 Bungee – jumping is dangerous because it’s
unsafe.
 Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is
ethically impermissible to inflict death as
punishment for a crime.

Reason Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.

 Mini Quiz – Question 1
I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself
as a security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in this
area. I can only come up with two solutions. One, he is either
a member of the criminal element, or two, he is a frustrated
security guard who can never make it as a police officer and
figures he can take cheap shots at cops through the
newspaper (adapted from a newspaper call-in column).

Which fallacy?

A) Loaded Question
B) Personal Attack +Attacking the motive
C) Bandwagon Argument
D) Scare Tactics
Mini Quiz – Solution 1

The fallacy of personal attack.

The caller never responds to the previous caller's

arguments. Instead, he simply attacks his or her
character.

By criticizing the previous caller's motives, the arguer

also commits the fallacy of attacking the motive.
 Mini Quiz – Question 2
The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of the
suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. What do they want the U.S. to do with
them, put them on the beaches of Florida for a
vacation or take them skiing in the Rockies? Come
on, let's worry about the Americans. (adapted from a
newspaper call-in column)
Which fallacy?

A) Bandwagon Argument
B) Personal Attack
C) Straw Man
D) Scare Tactics
Mini Quiz – Solution 2

The fallacy of straw man.

The Red Cross, of course, is not suggesting that

the detainees be treated as vacationers. The caller
is misrepresenting the Red Cross's argument in
order to make it appear ridiculous.
 Mini Quiz – Question 3
Barbara Youngblood, a member of the Wilkes-Barre (Pa.) School
Board for twenty-three years, had six relatives on the school district
payroll before she was voted out of office in 2003. When questioned,
she offered the following justification for nepotism in public education:

"Every board member is pushing somebody for a job -- friends' kids,

neighbors' kids. . . . This happens not only in the School District.
People have relatives working in the same company. It's an everyday
happening. Is that a sin?" (Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, November
17, 2002)

what fallacy does Youngblood commit?

lí do mà không thể là 2 wr makes a right dc là vì đề không nêu rõ là relatives lm chiện
xấu để để Barbara dc vào mà là bà lấy lí do là ừ thì relatives nào cũng sẽ giúp đỡ nhau
nên việc này cũng bình thg
Mini Quiz – Solution 3

 Bandwagon argument.

The speaker attempts to justify nepotism--a

practice that creates clear conflicts of
interest and often results in the hiring of
less- qualified applicants--simply by
noting that it is widely practiced.
Fallacies of Insufficient
Evidence

Arguments in which the premises,

though logically relevant to the
conclusion, fail to provide
sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion.
 The Fallacies of Insufficient
Evidence
1. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
2. Appeal to Ignorance
3. False Alternatives
4. Loaded Question
5. Questionable Cause
6. Hasty Generalizations
7. Slippery Slope
8. Weak Analogy
9. Inconsistency
44
 Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority

Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.

My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a

lot of hogwash. I guest Einstein wasn’t as smart as everybody
thinks he was.
Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority
Tips

Authority Assessment
1. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue?
2. Is the source biased?
3. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable?
4. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
5. Has the source been cited correctly?
6. Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion?
7. Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to
expert opinion?
8. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?
Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority
The Source is Not an Authority on the Subject at Issue?
 An authority is a person who possesses special
knowledge, competence, or expertise in a particular field.
Ex: My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of
relativity is a lot of hogwash. I guess Einstein wasn’t as
smart as everybody thinks he was.
the arguer’s barber is not an authority on Einstein’s general
theory of relativity  this argument commits the fallacy of
inappropriate appeal to authority.
 appeal to a person who is not a genuine authority on the
subject at issue.
Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority
The Source is Biased?
 we should be cautious about accepting a claim when the
person making the claim is biased or has some other
obvious motive to lie or mislead.
Examples:
Ned Bumpley has been paid $100,000 by the Sensational
Enquirer tabloid for his story that he is Bill Gates’s
illegitimate son. Given Mr. Bumpley’s reputation for
honesty, I think we should believe him, even though he has
produced no corroborating evidence and DNA tests fail to
suport his claim.
The testifier has an obvious motive to lie (financial gain)  biased
 fallacious
Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority
The Accuracy of the Source’s Observations is
Questionable.
 A source may also be unreliable if we have reason to
doubt the accuracy of his or her observations or
experiences.
Examples:
After taking LSD and drinking seven beers, Jill claims she
had a conversation with Elvis’s ghost in the alley behind
McDearmon’s Bar. I’ve never known Jill to lie. So, I think
we should believe her.
there are obvious reasons for doubting the reliability of the
witnesses’ observations or experiences.  Consequently,
these appeals to authority are fallacious
Inappropriate Appeal to
Authority
The Source Is Known to Be Generally Unreliable.
 It is reasonable to accept claims made in reputable
newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, radio and
television news programs, and Internet Web sites.
 But we must be cautious about accepting claims found in
sources that we have reason to believe are generally
unreliable.
Here is an example from the Weekly World News:
Scientists’ Research Reveals . . . It Takes 3 Million Years
for a Human Soul to Reach Heaven . . . And No One from
Earth Has Arrived There Yet!
 Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Ignorance
Claiming that something is true because no one has
proven it false or vice versa.
 Example:
 There must be intelligent life on other planets. No one has
proved that there isn’t.
 No one has proven that global warning is occurring.
Therefore, we must conclude that it is not occurring.

“Not proven, therefore false”

Remember If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almost
any conclusion.
Appeal to Ignorance
 Exceptions:
 Fruitless Searches: If a search is exhaustive (we
looked everywhere), or extensive (we tested for
years), then a lack of evidence can be sufficient
evidence.
 Special rules: e.g., innocent until proven guilty.

52
 False Alternatives
False Alternatives
Posing a false either/or choice.

Look, the choice is simple. Either you support a pure free

market economy or you support a communist police state.
Surely you don’t support a communist police state. Therefore,
you should support a pure free-market economy.

Fallacy of false alternatives can involve more than

two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a
Remember
conditional (if-then) statement.
 Loaded Question
Loaded Question
Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition.

Joe: Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Pete: No !
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you still cheat on exams?
Pete: No, I meant to say yes!
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you used to cheat on exams?
Pete: No
To respond to a loaded question effectively,
one must
Tip distinguish the different questions being asked
and respond to each individually.
 Questionable Cause
Questionable Cause
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing
is the cause of something else.

How do I know that ginseng tea is a cure for the

common cold? Last week I had a bad case of the
sniffles. I drank a cup of ginseng tea, and the next
morning my sniffles were gone.

1. A and B are associated on a regular basis.

Pattern 2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
 Hasty Generalization
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that
is biased or too small.

Do most Americans still believe in God? To find out, we

asked more than ten thousand scientists at colleges and
universities throughout America. Less than 40 percent said
that they believed in God. The conclusion is obvious: Most
Americans no longer believed in God.

1. A biased sample is one that is not representative of the

target population.
2. The target population is the group of people or things that
Pattern the generalization is about.
3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes.
 Slippery Slope
Slippery Slope
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly
harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous
outcome.

Dr. Perry has proposed that we legalize physician – assisted

suicide. No sensible person should listen to such a proposal.
If we allow physician – assisted suicide, eventually there will
be no respect for human life.
1.The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A,
is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D.
2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should
not be permitted.
Pattern 3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually
lead to D.
Slippery Slope
 Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
 Therefore event Y will inevitably (surely)
happen.

 "We have to stop the tuition increase! The

next thing you know, they'll be charging
$40,000 a semester!"
 Weak Analogy
Weak Analogy
Comparing things that aren’t really comparable.

Lettuce is leafy and green and tastes great with a

veggie burger. Poison ivy is also leafy and green.
Therefore, poison ivy probably tastes great with a
veggie burger, too.

1. List all important similarities between the two cases.

2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases.
Tip 3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are
more important.
 Inconsistency
Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.

 Note found in a Forest Service Suggestion box: Park

visitors need to know how important it is to keep this
wilderness area completely pristine and undisturbed.
So why not put up a few signs to remind people of this
fact?

It is also a mistake to cling stubbornly to an old idea when new

information suggests that the idea is false.
Remember
Open-minded to new ideas = Learning
 Inconsistency
Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.

 Example: MM: Key, Yogi, what do you say we eat at

Toots’ tonight?
 Yogi: That place is old news. Nobody goes there
anymore. It’s too crowded.

It is also a mistake to cling cling stubbornly to an old idea when new

information suggests that the idea is false.
Remember
Open-minded to new ideas = Learning
Mini Quiz – Question 1
 What's to say against [cigars]? They
killed George Burns at 100. If he hadn't
smoked them, he'd have died at 75. (Bert
Sugar, quoted in New York Times,
September 20, 2002)

what fallacy does the arguer commit?

Mini Quiz – Solution 1

Questionable cause.

Given the proven health risks of cigar

smoking, it is unlikely that cigar smoking
caused George Burns to live to be 100.
Mini Quiz – Question 2
According to North Korea's official state-run news
agency, "a war between North Korea and the United
States will end with the delightful victory of North
Korea, a newly emerging military power, in 100
hours. . . . The U. S. [will] be enveloped in flames. . .
and the arrogant empire of the devil will breathe its
last". Given that this prediction comes from the
official North Korean news agency, it is probably
true. (Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof,
"Empire of the Devil," New York Times, April 4,
2003)

what fallacy does the arguer commit?

Mini Quiz – Solution 2

Inappropriate appeal to authority.

The North Korean news agency's claim is

implausible on its face. Moreover, as a state-
run news organization in a totalitarian
regime, the agency is simply a mouthpiece
of the government, and hence is biased.
Mini Quiz – Question 3
Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award
judgments so large that they put tobacco
companies out of business. Respecting the right
of tobacco companies to stay in business is akin
to saying there are "two sides" to slavery or the
Holocaust. (Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in
George F. Will, "Court Ruling Expresses Anti-
Smoking Hypocrisy," Wilkes-Barre Times
Leader, May 25, 2003)

what fallacy does the arguer commit?

Mini Quiz – Solution 3
Weak analogy.

Clearly there are major disanalogies between the

tobacco industry and either slavery or the
Holocaust.
To cite just three obvious differences:
(1)smoking is something that many people enjoy,
(2) no one is forced to smoke, and
(3) making all due allowances for the effects of
second-hand smoke, smoking primarily affects
only the health of the smoker, not innocent third
parties.
Mini Quiz – Question 4
Bob: Affirmative action isn't "reverse discrimination." It isn't
discrimination at all. Discrimination is adverse treatment
based on an assumption of a group's inferiority, and no one
claims that white males are inferior.

Peg: But what about sexual harassment? You admitted earlier

that sexual harassment is discrimination, but sexual
harassment doesn't always involve an assumption of
inferiority.

Bob: Granted, but sexual harassment is still discrimination

because it denies equal opportunity in employment.
what fallacy does the arguer commit?
Mini Quiz – Solution 4

Inconsistency.

Bob offers two different—and incompatible

definitions of "discrimination."
Mini Quiz – Question 5

It will be tragic if this country ever legalizes

gay marriage. Mark my words, once that
happens, it won't be long until polygamy and
incest are legal.

what fallacy does the arguer commit?

Mini Quiz – Solution 5

Slippery slope.

Although claims of this sort are often made,

the feared consequences strike us as
unlikely. The risks of individual and societal
harm are much greater with polygamy and
incest than they are with gay marriage, and
the societal taboos are considerably
stronger.
 Fallacy
An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments in which the premises are
logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
 Personal Attack
 Attacking the Motive
 Look Who’s Talking
 Two Wrongs Make a Right
 Scare Tactics
 Appeal to Pity
 Bandwagon Argument
 Straw Man
 Red Herring
 Equivocation
 Begging the Question
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
Arguments in which the premises,
though logically relevant to the
conclusion, fail to provide sufficient
evidence for the conclusion.
 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
 Appeal to Ignorance
 False Alternatives
 Loaded Question
 Questionable Cause
 Hasty Generalization
 Slippery Slope
 Weak Analogy
 Inconsistency