A fallacy a poor argument

its aim is to distract us from the argument in question, and to mislead us into taking a position that is not supported by evidence or reason
it persuades us in an illegitimate way
it is a mistake in reasoning
A good argument one that persuades is in a legitimate way, giving evidence and reason to support it's claim
the structure enables us to see the conclusion that follows the premise
Difference between fallacy an unsound argument :
fallacy deceitful, tempts us to be persuaded
unsound argument does not
Three different kinds of fallacies :
used to distract attention from the weak point of an argument
can appear to be sound because of a false link to a really sound argument
Distraction used by con artists
can be persuasive because of their tendency to distract our attention away from the weak points of an argument
illegitimate appeal to emotion
Emotion confuse emotion with reason
provide a motive for belief rather than supporting reasons
Structural appear to be sound because of a counterfeit resemblance to the form or structure of a valid argument
DISTRACTION FALLACIES
Begging the question (conclusion is Equivocation (use words Faulty analogy (comparison, partial
Slippery Slope Argument Strawman (visualise a scarecrow) begged) ambiguously) Complex Question likeness)
occurs when a word or expression
small aspect is blown up into a shifts meaning from one premise to
reasoning in a chain with conditionals strawman, only so that it can be another; i.o.w. when a word is used
(if X, then Y), where at least one of broken down - makes the opposing first in one sense in obne part of an when the pr5ocess of reasoning
the if-then premises is false or view look absurd by making the argument, and then in a different applied to one set of circumstances
doubtful, so that the conclusion does arguers position look strong and arguer takes for granted the truth of sense in another part of the same fallacy based on many questions - or characteistics is applied to another
not follow vice-versa what he is trying to prove argument usually 2 or more are combined set that is or seems similar
can be identified by looking for 2
false premises : (1) the one that
inaccurately presents the opponents an analogy in an argument only
view, and (2) the implicit premise that conclusion follows from the premise succeeds when the analogy is
attention distracted from the weak you either accept the :unacceptable in the trivial sense that it only a trick is used to roll 2 or more suitable to the case - if the analogy is
premise straight to th bottom of the position" or you must support the restates the premise in different claims are misleading and questions into one and demand a unsuitable, the argument is based on
slope (conclusion) arguers position words ambiguous yes or no answer faulty analogy
to test : push it to its limits and look
closes the door on critical and open at all aspects of the two things or
no other alternatives offered circular reasoning debate the
casesstrength
being of the analogy depends
compared
on the number of similarities between
to recognise, consider a question in two cases or concepts, as well as the
an argument - if they premieditate a reklevance of the similarities
audience is none the wiser at the particular answer and in doing so mentioned in the premises leading
feeble attempt end of the argument bias a critical debate, it's this fallacy up to the conclusion
ocurs when what is supposedly
proved by the conclusion is already
assumed to be true in the premise

Ad hominem arguments
does not tackle the issue at hand
arguer makes a personal attack on
the character, circumstances or
interests of the person who is
advancing a claim in an attempt to
discredit him/her - can work in 3
ways :
(1) personal attack that makes claims
about certain characteristics of an
individual that are almost impossible
to change e.g. age, height, weight,
disability
(2) attack on individuals
circumstances - attempt to discredit a
person for his/her political, social
affiliation, dietary choice, religion etc.
False appeal to authority
when the arguer cites a famous
person or person in authority to get a
point aqcceptd, rather than
grounding their conclusion on solid
evidence
the "expert" quoted is usually not an
expert in the field under discussion
EMOTION FALLACIES
Appeal to force or coersion Appeal to the masses False dilemma Hasty generalisation
arguer appeals to the threat of force,
coersion or violence in order to
induce the acceptance of a also called false dichotomy or when a generalisation is dawn on the
conclusion (not minipulation) excluded middle basis of insufficient evidence
an attempt to persuade an audience
based on popular feelings, mass
sentiment or enthusiasm or
patriotism, rather than offering presentation of an either-or choice, occurs in moral discourse where a
often used by people in a position of relevant evidence or good reasons where there ae actually more moral principle is drawn on the basis
authority and power for accepting a conclusion alternatives of insufficient evidence
can be njurious to people's careers rests on a confusion between a generalisation is drawn on the
and damaging to their emotional well negatives and opposites, and basis of too small a sample, or an
being confuses emotion with reason excludes any middle ground atypical case - stereotypes and other
poor inferences have bee4n drawn
about entire groups on the basis of
manifested in interpersonal black or white thinking, for or against either too little information, or a group
relationships etc. that is not representative

when evaluating arguments with

(3) deny the claims of an opponnt by premises based on generalisations
ocusing on the interests of the (quite legitimate), check whether they
person making the claim contain unfounded assumptions
confuse emotion with reason based on hasty heneralisations
STRUCTUAL FALLACIES
Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent
a conditional statement has the following form : if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent) - if I left my wallet at home
I would not have been able to pay for the groceries when someone argues that because the antecedent doesn't happen the consequent cannot happen
it is fallacious to deny the antecedent and to assume that this is a ground for denying the consequent
fallacy is committed when the consequent in a conditional statement is affirmed on the grounds that the fallacious reasoning occures when the arguer claims that because one causal factor did not happen, the effect
antecedent is true could not happen