Statement #81 Discussion
4 comments (4 theads) All Discussions | Below is the statement as it appears with the fallacy marked as correct. You can see the totals of most frequent responses to this statement. And after reading the any discussion going on below, you can select your choice(s) for the correct answer. For now, whoever posts each statement can update corrections. |


Appeal to Common Practice
Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings) The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say "the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them." This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:
There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:
![]() |
Appeal to Fear
Ad Baculum AKA Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings) → Distracting Appeals The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe(PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your department chairperson because you fear he will make life tough for you. However, this does not provide evidence for the claim that the son deserves to pass the class. ![]() |
Burden of Proof
Ad Ignorantiam AKA Appeal to Ignorance Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings) → Distracting Appeals Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
![]() |
Confusing Cause and Effect
AKA Questionable Cause, Reversing Causation Category: Fallacies of Presumption → Casual Fallacies Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
In some cases it will be evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a person might claim that an illness was caused by a person getting a fever. In this case, it would be quite clear that the fever was caused by illness and not the other way around. In other cases, the fallacy is not always evident. One factor that makes causal reasoning quite difficult is that it is not always evident what is the cause and what is the effect. For example, a problem child might be the cause of the parents being short tempered or the short temper of the parents might be the cause of the child being problematic. The difficulty is increased by the fact that some situations might involve feedback. For example, the parents' temper might cause the child to become problematic and the child's behavior could worsen the parents' temper. In such cases it could be rather difficult to sort out what caused what in the first place. In order to determine that the fallacy has been committed, it must be shown that the causal conclusion has not been adequately supported and that the person committing the fallacy has confused the actual cause with the effect. Showing that the fallacy has been committed will typically involve determining the actual cause and the actual effect. In some cases, as noted above, this can be quite easy. In other cases it will be difficult. In some cases, it might be almost impossible. Another thing that makes causal reasoning difficult is that people often have very different conceptions of cause and, in some cases, the issues are clouded by emotions and ideologies. For example, people often claim violence on TV and in movies must be censored because it causes people to like violence. Other people claim that there is violence on TV and in movies because people like violence. In this case, it is not obvious what the cause really is and the issue is clouded by the fact that emotions often run high on this issue. While causal reasoning can be difficult, many errors can be avoided with due care and careful testing procedures. This is due to the fact that the fallacy arises because the conclusion is drawn without due care. One way to avoid the fallacy is to pay careful attention to the temporal sequence of events. Since (outside of Star Trek), effects do not generally precede their causes, if A occurs after B, then A cannot be the cause of B. However, these methods go beyond the scope of this program. All causal fallacies involve an error in causal reasoning. However, this fallacy differs from the other causal fallacies in terms of the error in reasoning being made. In the case of a Post Hoc fallacy, the error is that a person is accepting that A is the cause of B simply because A occurs before B. In the case of the Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause A is taken to be the cause of B when there is, in fact, a third factor that is the cause of both A and B. For more information, see the relevant entries in this program. ![]() |
Guilt by Association
AKA Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings) → Ad hominems (Genetic Fallacies) Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate). ![]() |
Ignoring a Common Cause
AKA Questionable Cause Category: Fallacies of Presumption → Casual Fallacies This fallacy has the following general structure:
In many cases, the fallacy is quite evident. For example, if a person claimed that a person's sneezing was caused by her watery eyes and he simply ignored the fact that the woman was standing in a hay field, he would have fallen prey to the fallacy of ignoring a common cause. In this case, it would be reasonable to conclude that the woman's sneezing and watering eyes was caused by an allergic reaction of some kind. In other cases, it is not as evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a doctor might find a large amount of bacteria in one of her patients and conclude that the bacteria are the cause of the patient's illness. However, it might turn out that the bacteria are actually harmless and that a virus is weakening the person, Thus, the viruses would be the actual cause of the illness and growth of the bacteria (the viruses would weaken the ability of the person's body to resist the growth of the bacteria). As noted in the discussion of other causal fallacies, causality is a rather difficult matter. However, it is possible to avoid this fallacy by taking due care. In the case of Ignoring a Common Cause, the key to avoiding this fallacy is to be careful to check for other factors that might be the actual cause of both the suspected cause and the suspected effect. If a person fails to check for the possibility of a common cause, then they will commit this fallacy. Thus, it is always a good idea to always ask "could there be a third factor that is actually causing both A and B?" ![]() |
648 Correctly Popped Fallacies
382 Incorrectly Un/Popped


Most Common Responses184 - Burden of Proof 102 - Ignoring a Common Cause 53 - Appeal to Common Practice 39 - Begging the Question 37 - Appeal to Belief 36 - Post Hoc 32 - Appeal to Fear 31 - Fallacy of Composition 24 - Guilt by Association 24 - Hasty Generalization 24 - Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief 18 - Special Pleading 14 - Misleading Vividness 14 - Biased Generalization 12 - Genetic Fallacy 11 - Red Herring 11 - Ad Hominem Tu Quoque 11 - Appeal to Emotion 11 - Appeal to Popularity 11 - Fallacy of Division 10 - Slippery Slope 10 - Appeal to Authority 9 - Appeal to Tradition 8 - Relativist Fallacy 6 - Appeal to Novelty 5 - False Dilemma 4 - Appeal to Flattery 4 - Middle Ground 4 - Circumstantial Ad Hominem 4 - Personal Attack 3 - Appeal to Pity 3 - Appeal to Ridicule 2 - Appeal to Spite 2 - Peer Pressure 2 - Ad Hominem 1 - Gambler's Fallacy 1 - Poisoning the Well |
Show All Comments On One Page Threads Sorted by Date - Sort by Likes |
+ |
Translate it in a form
An implied premise is an unstated reason or claim that supports and is generally required to support the main claim of the argument (i.e., the conclusion). As Aristotle pointed out, an argument should have at least two premises that lead to a conclusion. Here, there is only one premise and a conclusion, the second premise is hidden or implied.
What do these terms mean or translate into?
''I think'' means ''I'' is able to accomplish task ''T''
''Therefore I am'' Concludes therefore that I = Exists (E)
But there is a hidden premisses or implied premise which is Task T implies E, or T = E
So the argument form is actually valid, it is:
I = T
T = E
Therefore I = E
I can do the tast T
Task T Implies E
Therefore I = E
The problem is the implied premise but the argument follos once we figure out what is implied here.
+ Reply 0 comments downstream. ![]() | ||
+ |
Appeal to authority
This can be interpreted as someone quoting Descarte as absolute truth.
+ Reply 0 comments downstream. ![]() | ||
+ |
silly example..
begging the question seems relevant... Guilt by association? WTF? stupid.. no associations being made.. also as someone else pointed out.. fear... bs.. also its a strain to put common practice on this one... burden of proof, and begging the question seem most relevant
+ Reply 0 comments downstream. ![]() | ||
+ |
Appeal to Fear?
This is indeed a complex and interesting example, but how does an Appeal to Fear directly fit in? Thanks!
+ Reply 0 comments downstream. ![]() | ||
+ |
Login - High Scores - About - Trivium - Links - Contact
Donate To DontFallacy.Me - Support Dr. Labossiere
* Fallacious statements are usually paired with a random image of a person who never spoke those words.
This free site is for educational purposes, studying intellectual dishonesty. The images are being used under fair use. Sunflower by robstephaustrali. French News Anchor image owned by LCI.