Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Fallacies (logical fallacies (logos) (hasty generalization (stereotypes…

- - - - making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate
    - - two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion
  - - - the arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the slippery slope, we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom.
    - - since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place
  - - - the equivocation here is on the word "right"
  - - - argument doesn't mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question
  - - - the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion or simply ignores an important assumption that the argument rests on
  - - - sometimes the arguer seems to make an illogical leap
  - - - the increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other
- - - - conclusion: "You should give me an A"
  - - - premise: classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well
      - conclusion: grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do
- - - - we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
    - - while Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions.
  - - - if you have evidence of X against dogma D, you have not understood D.
      - if you have evidence of X against dogma D, X must be wrong
      - if you have evidence of X against good dogma D, you are bad/evil
      - if you have evidence of X against dogma D, X does not apply to D by definition