Spot weak arguments in debates, media, and marketing.
assuming that a compromise or middle point between two extremes must be the truth
using a double meaning or ambiguous language to mislead or misrepresent the truth
arguing that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, or good
presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, the claim itself must be wrong
assuming that what is true for the whole must also be true for all of its parts
a circular argument where the conclusion is included in the premise
dismissing criticism by pointing out the opponent did the same thing
protecting a generalization by excluding counterexamples as 'not pure'
believing that past random events influence the probability of future ones
assuming what is true for a part must be true for the whole
judging an argument based on where it came from rather than its content
arguing that something is true or right because it is popular
introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue
manipulating feelings to win an argument instead of using logic
claiming the opponent must disprove a claim rather than proving it yourself
using a personal story or isolated example instead of valid evidence
misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack
using the conclusion as a premise to prove itself
claiming something is true just because an expert said it
making a broad claim based on a small or biased sample
assuming that because B followed A, A must have caused B
claiming one step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes
pretending there are only two options when more exist
attacking the person instead of the argument