Related:
Accident (fallacy),
Ad hominem,
Ad nauseam,
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise,
Affirming a disjunct,
Affirming the consequent,
Ambiguity,
Appeal to consequences,
Appeal to emotion,
Appeal to fear,
Appeal to flattery,
Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability,
Appeal to motive,
Appeal to nature,
Appeal to novelty,
Appeal to pity,
Appeal to probability,
Appeal to ridicule,
Appeal to spite,
Appeal to tradition,
Argument from authority,
Argument from fallacy,
Argument from ignorance,
Argument from silence,
Argument to moderation,
Argumentum ad baculum,
Argumentum ad crumenam,
Argumentum ad lapidem,
Argumentum ad lazarum,
Argumentum ad populum,
Association fallacy,
Bandwagon effect,
Bare assertion fallacy,
Base rate fallacy,
Begging the question,
Big lie,
Bivalence,
Bulverism,
Buzzword,
Card stacking,
Censorship,
Chronological snobbery,
Circular cause and consequence,
Code word (figure of speech),
Collectively exhaustive events,
Compound question,
Conjunction fallacy,
Continuum fallacy,
Converse accident,
Correlation does not imply causation,
Correlative-based fallacies,
Degrees of truth,
Denying the antecedent,
Denying the correlative,
Dichotomy,
Dicto simpliciter,
Dog-whistle politics,
Doublespeak,
Eldridge Cleaver,
Equivocation,
Etymological fallacy,
Euphemism,
Existential fallacy,
Fallacy,
Fallacy of composition,
Fallacy of distribution,
Fallacy of division,
Fallacy of exclusive premises,
Fallacy of four terms,
Fallacy of necessity,
Fallacy of quoting out of context,
Fallacy of the single cause,
Fallacy of the undistributed middle,
False analogy,
False attribution,
False dilemma,
False precision,
Faulty generalization,
Formal fallacy,
Framing (social sciences),
Fuzzy logic,
Gambler's fallacy,
Genetic fallacy,
Glittering generality,
Government-organized demonstration,
Half-truths,
Hasty generalization,
Historical revisionism (negationism),
Ideograph,
Ignoratio elenchi,
Illicit Conversion,
Illicit major,
Illicit minor,
Indoctrination,
Informal fallacy,
Inverse gambler's fallacy,
Ipse-dixitism,
Law of excluded middle,
Lawfare,
Lesser of two evils principle,
List of fallacies,
Loaded language,
Loaded question,
Logical fallacy,
Loki's Wager,
Masked man fallacy,
Mass games,
Misleading vividness,
Moralistic fallacy,
Morton's Fork,
Multivalued logic,
Mutually exclusive events,
Naturalistic fallacy,
Newspeak,
No true Scotsman,
Nolan chart,
Nondualism,
Overwhelming exception,
Perfect solution fallacy,
Perspectivism,
Plain folks,
Poisoning the well,
Post hoc ergo propter hoc,
Principle of bivalence,
Proof by assertion,
Proof by example,
Propaganda,
Propositional calculus,
Public relations,
Quantification,
Quantifier shift,
Questionable cause,
Reductio ad Hitlerum,
Regression fallacy,
Reification (fallacy),
Rogerian argument,
Sampling bias,
Slippery slope,
Slogan,
Sorites paradox,
Special pleading,
Spin (public relations),
Splitting (psychology),
Straw man,
Style over substance fallacy,
Suppressed correlative,
Syllogistic fallacy,
Texas sharpshooter fallacy,
Tu quoque,
Two wrongs make a right,
Vagueness,
Weasel word,
Wisdom of repugnance,
Wishful thinking,
Wrong direction,
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
The logical fallacy of accident, also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, is a deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to the generalization is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1]
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea".[1] For example, the sentence "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam" signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it.Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.
The logical fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form:Ambiguity is the property of being ambiguous, where a word, term, notation, sign, symbol, phrase, sentence, or any other form used for communication, is called ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguity is different from vagueness, which arises when the boundaries of meaning are indistinct. Ambiguity is context-dependent: the same linguistic item (be it a word, phrase, or sentence) may be ambiguous in one context and unambiguous in another context. For a word, ambiguity typically refers to an unclear choice between different definitions as may be found in a dictionary. A sentence may be ambiguous due to different ways of parsing the same sequence of words.Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.