False Dilemmaor False Dichotomyis a formal fallacybased on an “either-or” type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true - or one is acceptable and the other is not. Often, there are other alternatives which haven’t been considered, or both choices might be false or true.
If an arguer attempts to discredit court room testimony or a promise by pointing out that the witness or the person making the promise is a liar, then the arguer commits an argumentuum ad hominem (argument against the person) fallacy
The animal shelter is a place that values animal rights and never euthanizes animals, or the animal shelter is a place that kills innocent animals. You either like kids or you don’t. Other common logical fallacies: Ad Hominem Appeal to Emotions. Appeal to Authority Hasty Generalization Slippery Slope More info: List of Logical Fallacies
False Dichotomy - Definition and Examples - Logical Fallacy False Dilemma is a logical fallacy, when number of alternatives intentionally narrowed. Othe names - false dichotomy, no middle ground.
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise.
Let me give you an example of a false dichotomy: “You really should join me at that party tonight; if you won't, you'll sit home, bored as hell.” Here, the writer suggests that there's just one possibility besides joining him at the party.
A false dichotomy, also called a false dilemma or a bifurcation fallacy, consists of putting forth only two choices when actually at least one other option is logically possible. The fallacy of presumption comes from denying that other possibilities may exist.
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.
Dichotomy is defined as a sharp division of things or ideas into two contradictory parts. An example of dichotomy is grouping mammals by those that live on land and those that live in water. A separation or division into two; a distinction that results in such a division.
In the case of false dichotomy arguments, two options are presented as collectively exhaustive when they are actually not. False dichotomy fallacies ignore alternate possibilities....A false dichotomy argument has a pretty simple logical form:“Either X is true or Y is true”“X is not true”“So Y must be true”
Fallacies of presumption are arguments that depend on some assumption that is typically unstated and unsupported. Identifying the implicit assumption often exposes the fallacy.
A genuine (true) dichotomy is a set of alternatives that are both mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. A set of alternatives A and B are mutually exclusive if and only if no member of A is a member of B.
False Dilemma - (also known as: false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)
The common fallacies are usefully divided into three categories: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises, and Formal Fallacies. Many of these fallacies have Latin names, perhaps because medieval philosophers were particularly interested in informal logic.
A fallacy is an illogical step in the formulation of an argument. An argument in academic writing is essentially a conclusion or claim, with assumptions or reasons to support that claim. For example, "Blue is a bad color because it is linked to sadness" is an argument because it makes a claim and offers support for it.
Logical fallacy is the reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound. Logical fallacy can occur as accidental or can be deliberately used as an instrument of manipulation.
Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply except the conclusion without providing real evidence ; argument either relies on the premise that says The same thing as a conclusion, or simply ignores an important assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase "--------" has a sort of general criticism of arguments, to me that the arguer hasn't given very good reasons for the conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here.
Also called false cause. This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase that translates to "after this, therefore because of this. "Assuming that because B comes after a, a cause to be. Of course sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later - for example, if I register for class, my name later appears on the role, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause an event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
The arguer claims that was sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequences, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "---------", we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.
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.
One way of making our own argument stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that in opponent might make in this fallacy, are you were sets up a wimpy version of the opponents position interest to score points by knocking it down but just as being able to knock down a strong man, is very impressive, defeating the watered-down version of your opponents argument is very impressive either.
This fallacy assumes an either/or hypothesis or situation when there are more than two relevant alternatives and then argues against one of the possibilities, leaving the one she prefers.
Arguer will try to divert the attention of his opponent in the argument with an argument or claim that is not on point and then draw some conclusion based on this claim.
Offering info about another's character as evidence against the content of that other person's ideas or point of view. Shifting the focus of a discussion from reasons which are the evidence for a conclusion to info that is not relevant
Calling your opponent in a discussion a liar before the discussion has even started, has the effect of casting suspicion on whatever she might say thereafter , no matter how cogent and well argued.
Sampling errors can be made despite the best of intentions not to be hasty.
The picture of the pentagon at the center of the 9/11 missile conspiracy theory does not show the broken parts of the tail and fuselage.
if the conclusion of the argument depends on the occurrence of a chain reaction of events, and there is a good reason to believe that the chain reaction will actually occur , the argument commits a slippery slope fallacy.
If an arguer cites a statement by a recognized expert in support of a conclusion and the statement falls within the expert's range of expertise, then the arguer commits an appeal to unqualified authority
If an arguer attempts to discredit court room testimony or a promise by pointing out that the witness or the person making the promise is a liar, then the arguer commits an argumentuum ad hominem (argument against the person) fallacy. False. The argumentum ad hominem always involves two arguers. True.
In the argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, the circumstances cited by the second arguer are intended precisely to malign the character of the first arguer
If an arguer cites a statement in support of a conclusion and the statement reflects strong bias of its author, then the arguer commits an appeal to unqualified authority. True. In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer accuses the reader or listener of being ignorant. False.
If an attorney for the defense in an American or Canadian criminal trial argues that the prosecution has proved nothing beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant, then the attorney commits the appeal to ignorance
The fallacy of weak analogy always depends on an alleged similarity between two things or situations. True. If an argument from analogy depends on a causal or systematic relationship between certain attributes, and there is good reason to believe that this relationship exists, then the argument commits no fallacy. True.