Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used. The resulting argument sounds like the (valid) first example above, but is in fact structured like the invalid ...
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
Logic is commonly defined in terms of arguments or inferences as the study of their correctness. [59] An argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion. [60] An inference is the process of reasoning from these premises to the conclusion. [43] But these terms are often used interchangeably in logic.
Logical Fallacies, Literacy Education Online; Informal Fallacies, Texas State University page on informal fallacies; Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (mirror) Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies, Information is Beautiful; Master List of Logical Fallacies, University of Texas at El Paso; Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). [1]Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. [2]
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [ 1 ]
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [1]The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, [2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.