Evading the Issue:
You avoid the central point of an argument, instead drawing attention to a minor (or side) issue.
ex. You've put through a proposal that will cut overall loan benefits for students and drastically raise interest rates, but then you focus on how the system will be set up to process loan applications for students more quickly.
Ad hominem:
Here you attack a person's character, physical appearance, or personal habits instead of addressing the central issues of an argument. You focus on the person's personality, rather than on his/her ideas, evidence, or arguments. This type of attack sometimes comes in the form of character assassination (especially in politics). You must be sure that character is, in fact, a relevant issue.
Ex. How can we elect John Smith as the new CEO of our department store when he has been through 4 messy divorces due to his infidelity.
Ex. Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell's TV ad that featured a photo of Jean Chretien (with a contorted face) above a disparaging caption. The ad implied that Chretien would not make a good Prime Minister because of his physical appearance.
Keep in mind, however, that character/personality are sometimes relevant to an argument.
Ex. A political campaign that provides evidence of a politician taking bribes or being dishonest in declaring campaign financing.
Genetic Fallacy:
Looks at the origins of a person or an issue
Ex. Susan shouldn't be put in charge of this project. How can anyone born and raised in the tiny town of Dundas ON understand the problems/complexities of the transit system in a city as large as Vancouver?
Just like character, however, origins can sometimes be important.
Ex. We shouldn't put Mary in charge of the finances for the committee because she has been implicated in three financial scandals in the past that have ruined other committees.
Ad populum:
This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal, drawing on people's emotions, prejudices, and stereotypes. The emotion evoked here is not supported by sufficient, reliable, and trustworthy sources.
Ex. We shouldn't develop our shopping mall here in East Vancouver because there is a rather large immigrant population in the area. There will be too much loitering, shoplifting, crime, and drug use.
Hasty Generalization:
Generalization based on insufficient, unreliable, unverifiable evidence.
Ex. The statement that Canada is a world model for race relations fails to take into account the fact that, in several parts of the country, race relations are very poor.
Ex. The statement that women do not make effective CEO's because, historically, very few women have held such a post. (ignores the issue of the glass ceiling / history of equity discrimination)
Ex. The statement "UBC is the best university in the country" is a hasty generalization if you only support it with one point (i.e."It's the best university because it has a beautiful campus.")
Complex or Loaded Question:
Offers only two options to answer a question that may require a more complex answer. Such questions are worded so that any answer will implicate an opponent.
Ex. At what point did you stop cheating on your wife?
Ex. When did you last submit a falsified income tax form?
Gambler's Fallacy:
Assumes that the chances of something happening increases because it hasn't happened for a long time. This type of fallacy disregards the law of probability.
Ex. Let me handle this next sales pitch. My losing streak has to end at some point.
Setting up a Straw Person:
Here you address the weakest point of an opponent's argument, instead of focusing on a main issue. Or, you imply that an opponent is arguing something that he/she is not.
Ex. An instructor argues that in order to do well in a composition course, you have to work hard outside of class, and practice your writing. You respond by saying that not everyone can afford to pay a tutor.
Red Herring:
This type of fallacy manipulates the audience by avoiding the central argument, shifting attention to an irrelevant or unrelated issue. The user of a red herring intends to distract the audience from the important issues.
Ex. A teacher accused of sexually harassing a student might answer that he/she devotes many overtime hours in order to prepare her/his class material.
Lack of Contrary Evidence also known as an appeal to ignorance):
It indicates that something must be true because it has never been proven to be false.
Ex. The Bigfoot monster must exist because no one has ever proven that it doesn't.
Ex. The Bigfoot monster must not exist because no one has ever proven that it does.
Oversimplification:
Occurs when you avoid the complexities of an argument, or ignore the larger implications of the ideas being put forward.
Ex. The Harper government should invest the huge Federal surplus into university education. (Doesn't allow for fiscal realities/other financial needs of the nation.)
Bandwagon:
This is a type of the ad populum fallacy in that it draws on our irrational fears of being left out of "the group." Humans generally want to feel like they "belong" and often are suspicious of people who don't belong to the same group they do.
Ex. Every Torontonian cheering for the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team when they make a run at the playoffs, even when the team has played dismally all season.
Ad Misericordiam:
This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal to beg for mercy. It plays on the compassion of the audience. The plea is based on emotion, rather than on logic.)
Ex. Pleading with an instructor for an "A" on a paper, not because it's a good paper and you've worked hard all term, but because you need a high grade to keep a scholarship.
Ad Verecundiam ("to authority"):
This is appealing to weak (inappropriate) authority, or arguing that we should continue doing something because it's tradition
Ex. We should get completely drunk on Canada Day because we've done it since we were teenagers. (This doesn't allow for the possibility of change/maturity.)
Tu Quoque ("you too"):
This is where you accuse an opponent of the same thing he/she has accused you of (instead of addressing the accusation itself).
Ex.
accusation: "You should exercise."
reply: "Well, I don’t see you working out".
Ex.
accusation: "You are against gun control restrictions."
reply: "Yes, well you voted against the last crime bill, and gun restrictions were a part of it." (You evade the issue here by shifting the emphasis back to your opponent.)
Begging the Question:
It is a type of circular reasoning. You use your own claim to support the claim.
Ex. "This vital legislation on Aboriginal Peoples must pass now." (Assumes that the legislation is vital.)
Non Sequitor (also known as Guilt by Association):
In this type of reasoning, the conclusion does not follow from the premises set out in the argument.
Ex. All drug dealers conduct their business in East Vancouver.
Danny conducts his business in East Vancouver.
Therefore, Danny must be a drug dealer.
False Dilemma:
Offers only two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist.
Ex. "If you don’t like the way things work in Canada, you should just move to the United States." (This doesn't allow for other possibilities, such as enacting change.)
