# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties.

# data[].attributes.body
“Making assumptions about a whole group  or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate.”

Tips to avoid: Avoid relying on opinions of few people compared to a large group.

# data[].attributes.body
a misleading clue or piece of information used to divert attention away from the real issue

Make sure everything your saying is not misleading

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, 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.

Tips: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition,

The arguer takes advantage of the reader's desires to make them blend in, making them feel cool and take their side over the other person.

Tip,

Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and so.

# data[].attributes.body
definition-Equivocation is switching between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is needed in the argument.

tip-Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and decide whether they could have more than one meaning and if they do make sure to stick to the one definition.

# data[].attributes.body
“The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion-but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. “

Tip to avoid: Separate premises from your conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Definintion

Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence.

Tip

Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- When you use your conclusion as a premise to prove that same conclusion, effectively assuming what you're trying to prove.

Tip-Make sure that none of your not going back over and repeating the same conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Trying to impress readers by using famous names.

Tip: Make sure that the names you list are experts on the topic you are discussing.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A chain reaction usually ends in a dire consequence taking place in every story, and one chain event always leads to another, and you can't just stop.

Tip to Avoid: Check your arguments for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B, then C,” and so forth, then these chains are reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations, but if the two things being compared aren’t relative it is weak.

Tip to Avoid: Identify what points are the most important to the claim, and see whether the two things you’re comparing share those points.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Comparing two objects that are not really similar to try to prove your point.

Tip:Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition/Summary

When you make assumptions about people and give them a label that is insufficient. Etc. All people who eat fast food are overweight.

Tip to avoid

Avoid experiences or opinions from other people. Try to avoid jumping to conclusions and gather more information.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-The arguer's conclusion doesn't match the particular argument.

Tip to avoid- See if your conclusion matches the argument you are trying to make based on only the reader’s point of view and perspective. If not, make sure you provide enough evidence and reasons to make sure your argument comes across.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- A weak analogy is the comparison of two things that are not alike in relevant respects.

Tip to Avoid- Identify the important properties of the two things you are comparing, and then see if they share those properties.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- Impressing a famous name or an authority, even though they aren't much of an expert.

Tip to Avoid-Make sure that the websites and people you cite are experts on the topic being discussed. Also, make sure you are explaining the evidence and giving reasons why those people have their opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-The arguer tries to convince the audience of something by using what is desired by most people

Tip to Avoid- Make sure that you don’t recommend that your audience should agree with you because everyone else does.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- Focusing on people rather than on argument or evidence, attacking their opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

Tip to Avoid- Make sure when you are arguing with your opponent, you don’t point out their personal flaws, but instead you target their reasonings and their opinions and why they are wrong. Unless, you are arguing with someone on personal character.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-Making the readers believe or accept their conclusion by making them feel sorry

Tip To Avoid- Don’t convenience the audience to agree with you only by pity, but instead by your evidence, reasons, and argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-Making stereotypes and assumptions on an entire group solely based on an inadequate sample.

Tip To Avoid- You should ask yourself what type of samples you are using. Ask yourself if you are using situations based on experiences you have had, or just others’ opinions. If you are doing either of these, you might need more evidence to support your argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- Saying that something is true only because it hasn’t been proven false.  Or saying something is false because it hasn’t been proven true.

Tip To Avoid- Make sure you clearly observe your opponent’s argument before you point out their lack of evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-A distraction from the main issue that is meant to divert attention from the main issue into something not as relevant or the topic at hand.

Tip To Avoid- Write your premises and conclusion so that they correlate with each other and you aren’t just going on a tangent that is away from your argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- The author makes it seem as if there are only two options possible and then eventually eliminates one to try to get the reader to believe it's the only option.

Tip-Think about if there are more options than just the two that you laid out.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The speaker says to the reader that their one point of opposition will have a great butterfly effect and manifest into extremely negative situations.

Tip to Avoid:

If you put several events in a series, analyze each individual cause and effect present and check whether it is reasonable or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Instead of comparing two somewhat similar ideas to each other, the speaker creates a claim based on the comparison of two very different things.

Tip to Avoid:

Point out the core properties of the idea that needs to be present in both, and double check that they are, in fact, there.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- While arguing the arguer starts bringing up a related topic to distract the other person from the main topic.

Tip- Be able to explain how each premise supports the conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Ad Hominem/Tu Quoque refers to the speaker attacking the opposing person’s character rather than their actual argument.

Tip to Avoid:

If you are not making an argument purely based on character, stray away from the opposing person speaking, and instead to the words they say.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The speaker gains support from more people by attaining “small wins” by dismantling weaker, unrepresentative arguments from the other side.

Tip to Avoid:

Ensure that your opponent’s claims are represented fully and in their strongest shape.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition

The appeal to pity takes place when the arguer makes them feel bad about choosing the other side and they have pity.

Tip

Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Making it seem like your opinion is Right because other people agree.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Attacks opponent, not their argument.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A causes B.

Tip: Make sure you can explain A and explain why A caused B.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The conclusion of the main idea does cover a particular part, but not the main idea as a whole, and everything it includes.

Tip: Separate the main points from the actual conclusion by analyzing what similarities all points have.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The arguer takes advantage that people like to fit in and uses that to get the acceptance of the audience.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommended that the audience should agree with your conclusion just because everyone else likes it.

# data[].attributes.body
Def

Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Tip
Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
Red herring

1. The author goes on a tangent in the middle of an argument and usually never returns to the main point.

2. Make a list of your main points and anything that doesn't fit the main points; delete it from the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition/Summary

When you write an essay with strong points in each paragraph. Although when you write the conclusion you lose the main points that connect to your paragraph.

Tip to avoid

Use the conclusion to wrap up your essay, without adding in new points. Write your conclusion before you start the essay and gather main points to have supported topics.

# data[].attributes.body
False Dichotomy

1. The author introduces two points, eliminating one of the choices, so we are forced to side with only one point.

2. Think of 3 or more points that support an argument and talk about all of them equally.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Likes the appeal to authorities and focuses on the people rather than the argument or evidence.

Tip: Focus on your opponents reasoning rather than their personal character.

# data[].attributes.body
Begging the Question

1. The author asks the reader to accept the answer without presenting factual evidence or acknowledging the assumption used to support the argument.

2. Write out your main points and conclusion in an outline form to make sure your argument doesn't beg the question.

# data[].attributes.body
Equivocation

1. The author slides between two meanings of the same word, like “right,” which is significant to the argument.

2. Look at your argument and see the key words you use to double-check whether or not they have double meanings.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Using fancy names or supposed authority to support your claim without them having actual authority or understanding the concept

Tip: Make sure the authorities you use are legit and thoroughly explain your reasoning

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: By adding or referring to a respected source or authority, and explaining their position in the issue we’re working on, it adds a strength to the argument, unless you do it to try and impress the reader but not help your claim.

Tips: Make sure the authority you are citing is an expert on the subject you’re discussing and try to explain the evidence the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: To anticipate and respond in advance to the argument that an opponent might make, making your argument stronger.

Tips: State their arguments strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible so you can knock down the best version of your opponent.

# data[].attributes.body
“Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later

Tip:If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later!

# data[].attributes.body
“The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.”

Tip:Check arguments for chains of consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: An assumption about a whole group based on a small sample.

Tip: Remember to review the sample that you are using, consider using more evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The conclusion that the arguer draws does not match the argument.

Tip: Try to keep your premises and your conclusion separate.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Making an assumption that A caused B simply on the idea that A came before B.

Tip: Have something more to say, give an explanation of the process.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Assuming that a chain reaction will take place without enough evidence, not considering that you could stop halfway down the slope.

Tip: Make sure that there are not extensive chains of consequences that do not have reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition- Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate

Tip- Ask yourself what kind of “sample” your using if you are relying on the opinions or experiences of just a few people or your own experiences consider whether you need more evidence or a less sweeping conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-

The premises of an argument support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer draws.

Tip-

Separate your premises from your conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-

Sometimes two events that seem related in time are not related as cause and effect. This fallacy comes from the latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this”

Tip- The arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:A fallacy where instead of presenting facts for an argument, they try to appeal to the audience by trying to draw sympathy about a certain problem.

How to avoid: Read your argument again and see if you made any illogical argument about a pitiful event and rephrase it.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A fallacy where a claim is made because it hasn’t been proven false, rather than being proven true.

How to Avoid:Focus on providing direct evidence directly from a source.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:A fallacy where the opponent distorts your argument so that it is easier to attack.

How to avoid:Actively listen and understand your opponent’s argument so that you don’t have to distort it to refuse it.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-The arguer makes it look like there's only one choice when there is a lot more than one she or he only brings up two but then later on eliminates one of them.

Tip to Avoid-Look at your argument and make sure you are listing all the possible choices.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-Making the reader accept the conclusion without any real evidence.

Tip to Avoid-Write out your conclusion and premises and conclusion in an outline-like form so you can make sure you have enough evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition-A single word or a phrase having different meanings throughout the argument.

Tip To Avoid-Identify the most important words in your argument and make sure that if you choose words that don’t have different meanings throughout your essay, instead choose words that have the same meanings so that your argument makes sense.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition/Summary

One event, A, can cause, event B, like a cause and effect, with two. These events may not be related in any way. Etc. You get your eyebrow pierced, then your lung deflates.

Tip to avoid

Try to connect the topics by being more specific between the two different ideas. Like You got your eyebrow pierced, but it caused an infection spreading to your lungs.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition/Summary

An arguer will claim, usually with lack of evidence, a domino effect will take place usually ending with awful outcomes.

Tip to avoid

Be sure the claims to your sentences are reasonable. Also have evidence to have a strong connected claim. Have A, B, and C reasons connected without sounding unreasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition/Summary

When two items, ideas, or scenarios are being compared with useful evidence to support the claim. Etc. Guns are like hammers because they both can be used to kill, we don't ban hammers so why ban guns. This is weak because guns can kill a mass group of people while a hammer is less likely to.

Tip to avoid

Make sure the two items you're comparing are relevant with reasonable connections.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition

In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

Tip

Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Two things aren’t really alike in relevant respects, if the analogy is weak and the argument relies on it, it  commits a fallacy of a weak analogy

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you are making and see whether the two things you are comparing both share the same properties

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you are making and see whether the two things you are comparing both share the same properties

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Trying to impress the reader by using a famous name or appealing to supposed authority who isn't much of an expert.

Tip: Make sure the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition :The arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked or fit in and use this desire to get the audience to accept their argument.

Tip: Make sure you don’t recommend the audience to believe your conclusion because everyone believes it.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: a logical fallacy where someone attacks the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

Tip: Make sure to focus on your opponents reasoning rather than their personal character.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices, but the arguer eliminates one of the two choices, so it seems that we are only left with only one option.

Tip to Avoid:

Examine your own arguments: If you're saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don't just ignore them-explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there's no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

An argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence.

Tip to Avoid:

One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you've just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in other words). If so, you're begging the question. The moral of the story: You can't just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you're trying to prove.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Tip to Avoid:

Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren't slipping and sliding between those meanings.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one!

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone's character-if your conclusion is "President Clinton is an untrustworthy person," premises about his untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

# data[].attributes.body
def

Making stereotypes and assumptions on an entire group solely based on an inadequate sample.

tip

You should ask yourself what type of samples you are using. Ask yourself if you are using situations based on experiences you have had, or just others’ opinions. If you are doing either of these, you might need more evidence to support your argument.

# data[].attributes.body
def

The arguer's conclusion doesn't match the particular argument.

tip

See if your conclusion matches the argument you are trying to make based on only the reader’s point of view and perspective. If not, make sure you provide enough evidence and reasons to make sure your argument comes across.

# data[].attributes.body
def

One particular event causes or leads to another.

tip

If you write that something causes something else, then you should have evidence to prove exactly how. You should have other evidence to support how something caused something else, and not just that one came after the other.

# data[].attributes.body
def

One thing leads to another until you hit rock bottom, no brakes in between.

tip

Make sure your argument has a chain of reactions and consequences, and not just mismatched and organized.

# data[].attributes.body
def

A weak analogy is the comparison of two things that are not alike in relevant respects.

tip

Identify the important properties of the two things you are comparing, and then see if they share those properties.

# data[].attributes.body
def

Impressing a famous name or an authority, even though they aren't much of an expert.

tip

Make sure that the websites and people you cite are experts on the topic being discussed. Also, make sure you are explaining the evidence and giving reasons why those people have their opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
def

The arguer tries to convince the audience of something by using what is desired by most people

tip

Make sure that you don’t recommend that your audience should agree with you because everyone else does.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: It’s a strategy of strengthening our arguments by anticipating what our opponents might say in response.

Tip to Avoid: Be cautious and attentive as your opponent presents their part of the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: When someone raises a side issue to divert attention from the main issue at hand.

Tips to Avoid: Don’t lay out a guide or premises for a conclusion so easily.

# data[].attributes.body
Defintion: In this situation, the person giving the solution makes the situation seem narrow. This forces the solution to become two options, but the person enforces only one of those two.

Tips to Avoid: Avoid listening to someone with an interest in only gaining for themselves instead of being caring.

# data[].attributes.body
Defintion: It’s when someone writes a conclusion without any real evidence.

Tips to Avoid: Avoid begging the question without any clear, formatted conclusion and evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Defintion: This is when you slide between 2 or more different meanings of a single word that is important to the argument.

Tips to Avoid: Write the same synonyms over and over.

# data[].attributes.body
def.  When the argument just restates the conclusion, or just assumes it's true, even though there is no real evidence.

tip. One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion in a short, outline-like form.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A logical fallacy where a broad conclusion is drawn from insufficient or unrepresentative evidence, often leading to incorrect or stereotypical judgments

Tip: Stop and think if it creates a large enough representation to justify a conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A fallacy that means failing to understand the most important part of something, whether it's an argument, a story, or a situation

Tip: Practice active listening

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A fallacy that is the logical error of assuming that because event B occurred after event A, meaning event A must have caused event B

Tip: Seek evidence beyond the correlation

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A fallacy that is an idea that one course of action will lead to something unacceptable or wrong

Tip: Focus on the immediate

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The appeal to pity occurs when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making them feel sorry for someone.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents and state their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: In a red herring, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake and often never returns to the original issue.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Tip to Avoid: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either.

Tip to Avoid: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent's argument, then you've really accomplished something.