1. Advanced Composition: Critical Reasoning & Writing
1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Name that Fallacy
Advanced Composition:
Critical Reasoning & Writing

2. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition: Attacking the person rather than the argument or the issue.
14. Ad Hominem
“Jones is arguing for prayer in school, but he has twice been convicted of assaulting members of clergy, so his argument is not valid.”

3. Definition: Individual offered as evidence, solely based on reputation
1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Individual offered as evidence, solely based on reputation OR
Individual offered as expert is not an expert on the issue in dispute
6. Appeal to Authority

4. Shifts the meaning of a word or phrase in a single argument
1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Shifts the meaning of a word or phrase in a single argument
1. Equivocation

5. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Make a claim from a sample that is too small or in someway unrepresentative of target population
4. Hasty Generalization

6. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Compares two or more things that are not in essence similar and suggests that since they share certain characteristics, they share others as well
6. False Analogy

7. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Conclusion of argument is hidden amongst its assumptions— assumes that very question being argued has already been proven
9. Begging the Question

8. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Shift attention from the merits of the argument to the source or origin of the argument
13. Poisoning the Well

9. Directly or implicitly threatening the audience
1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Directly or implicitly threatening the audience
16. Appeal to Fear

10. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Attack a view similar to but not the same as the one your opponent holds, a diversionary tactic
7. Straw Man

11. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Judges and labels the same act differently depending on the person or group who performs the act
8. Special Pleading

12. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Contrary possibilities are wrongly presented as though they are exhaustive and exclusive— either/or reasoning
10. False Dichotomy / Dilemma

13. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue
11. Red Herring

14. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Discredits an argument because the behavior of the person proposing it does not conform to the position s/he’s holding
12. Tu Quoque

15. A simplistic and improbably prediction based on series of steps
1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
A simplistic and improbably prediction based on series of steps
5. Slippery Slope

16. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
Because one event follows another event, the first event must be the cause of the second—false cause
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

17. 1. Equivocation
2. Non Sequitur
(“does not follow”)
3. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(“after this, therefore because of this”)
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Slippery Slope
6. False Analogy
7. Straw Man
8. Special Pleading
9.Begging the Question
10. False Dichotomy/Dilemma
11. Red Herring
12. Tu Quoque
(“you, too”)
13. Poisoning the Well
14. Ad Hominem
(“against the person”)
15. Appeal to Authority
16. Appeal to Fear
Definition:
The claim (conclusion) does not follow the premises (reasons)—it is irrelevant
2. Non Sequitur

18. Reminder:
The difference between post hoc and non sequitur fallacies is that, whereas the post hoc fallacy is due to lack of causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of logical connection.

19. Name the Fallacy:
`“You say ‘Why do I think [America] is in danger?’ and I say look at the record. Seven years of the Truman-Acheson Administration and what’s happened? Six hundred million people lost to the Communists, and a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000 American Casualties.” (From Nixon’s “Checkers” speech.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc / False cause

20. Name the Fallacy:
Since 9/11 we’ve tried and convicted few terrorists, therefore our defense system must be working.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc / False cause

21. Name the Fallacy:
He went to the movies on three consecutive nights, so he must love movies.
Non Sequitur

22. Name that Fallacy:
Sydney, I put aside all my other classes and worked really hard on this essay, so I should get an A.
Non Sequitur

23. Name that Fallacy:
“A group of self-appointed lifestyle police are pushing to control many aspects of our daily lives. If thy succeed, we lose out basic right of free choice. Today they’re targeting smoking. What’s next? Red meat? Leather? Coffee? If fifty million smokers can lose their rights anyone can.” (From an ad for the National Smokers Alliance.)
Slippery Slope.

24. Name that Fallacy America: Love it or Leave it.
False Dilemma—either/or.

25. Name that Fallacy:
You can’t expect insight and credibility from the recent book The Feminist Challenge because its author David Bouchier is, obviously, a man.
Personal Attack.

26. Name that Fallacy:
Politicians can’t be trusted because they lack integrity.
Begging the question.

27. Name that Fallacy:
“Clearly, you must recognize that in this case I’m firm. You are stubborn. He’s pig-headed.”
(Philosopher Betrand Russell.)
Special Pleading.

28. Name that Fallacy:
Anyone who truly cares about preserving the American way of life will vote Republican this fall.
Poisoning the well.

29. Name that Fallacy: “All Latinos are volatile people.”
(Former Senator Jesse Helms, on Mexican protests against Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearings on corruption south of the border.)
Hasty Generalization.

30. Name that Fallacy:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body." 
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field." 
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?" 
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion." 
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?" 
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
Appeal to Authority.

31. Name that Fallacy:
“You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyway, visiting my father. He's your dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
Appeal to Fear.

32. Name that Fallacy:
“Sydney, if I do not get an A in this class I will not be able to achieve my goal of transferring to UCSD in the fall. On top of that, I may lose my good driver discount on car insurance and this class costs a lot of money! If this happens, I can’t say what my parents will do…” (At least one student every semester…)
Appeal to Fear

33. Name that Fallacy:
“I give so much pleasure to so many people. Why can’t I get some pleasure for myself?”
(Comedian John Belushi to his doctor in justification of drug use.)
Equivocation.

34. Name that Fallacy:
“Just as instructors can prune sentences for poor grammar, so the principal was entitled to find certain articles inappropriate for publication—in this situation because they might reveal the identity of pregnant students and because references to sexual activity were deemed improper for high school students to see.”
False Analogy.

35. Name that Fallacy:
“He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel.”
Tu quoque “You also”

36. Name that Fallacy:
“Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can’t understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.
Straw Man.

37. Name that Fallacy:
"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
Red Herring.

38. Name that Fallacy: