is to insult indirectly,and to make or have that person look foolish or silly, usually emotions or feelings come into play.

Relies on the audience to picture the demeaningness

Here is an argument I have actually heard many times:

"When a woman walks around late at night wearing skimpy clothes, and especially if she has been drinking, she is asking for trouble. You wouldn't leave your car doors unlocked in the middle of the night and then complain when someone steals all the contents inside, would you?"

This is a real argument that is often used to blame victims of sexual assault, using the argument that dressing immodestly is comparable to leaving a car door unlocked (sometimes is is also compared to leaving a purse or wallet unattended in a public area). It is easy to tell the argument is fallacious because people are not cars, and leaving an inanimate object unguarded is not an appropriate comparison to a human being's decision to dress or carry on in a certain fashion.

Bob: "Thanksgiving at my house is something I look forward to every year. My family has been practicing this tradition for an entire century beginning with my great-great grandfather's family. The dishes are prepared like they were one hundred years ago. I believe that it is such a great tradition that I will want my children to carry on that tradition the way it was practiced a century ago. It is such an old tradition that it should be carried on."

Bob is saying here that simply because his family's Thanksgiving tradition is an older one then it should be carried on as a practiced tradition like it was when it was established as a tradition. Even though this tradition is important to Bob's family due to the way it has been practiced, that does not mean that it needs to be exactly like it was one hundred years ago. It can certainly still be somewhat similar to the way it was when it was created but does not need to be necessarily 100% authentic.

several questioned combined into one and requires a yes or no answerr.

Is your stupidity inborn?

Concealed Quantification is when the ambiguity of an expression permits a misunderstanding of the quantity spoken of.

An ambiguous statement is made loosely with the understanding that people will understand it as general.

"Women love chick flics."

The speaker intends to convince the audience that "most" women love chick flics. Although this is not specifically stated by the speaker, the intent is to portray that most women love chick flics. Using the word 'ALL' would seem to overstate the intended meaning. Even though it is plausible to assume that the speaker meant 'ALL' women love chick flics it would be a misunderstanding of the initial intent.

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a fallacy in which a person confuses correlation for causation. This happens when that person thinks that just because two things (events) occur simultaneously then it must be because one of the events caused the other and assumes a conclusion based on just the correlation. This fallacy leaves no room for outside factors when it comes to the conclusion.

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc translates to: With this, therefore because of this.

"Sarah should be elected class president because Tyler is lazy and Lisa is dumb."

Although the arguer provides reasons for why Tyler and Lisa should not be class president, this is not justification for why Sarah should be president. Since no information is given about Sarah, we do not know what commendable presidential qualities or despicable non-presidential characteristics she may possess. The negative characteristics of Tyler and Lisa have nothing to do with Sarah's characteristics.

Every schoolboy knows is a fallacy of reasoning that relies on the assumption that the argument being made is already common knowledge and therefore must be true.

Every school boy knows that The University of Michigan has the best band in the land.

This commits the Every schoolboy knows fallacy because it implies that everyone should already know that The University of Michigan has the best band in the land. If they did not know this or disagree with this than they are ignorant.

"As the most powerful country in the world, Americans should take more pride in our beautiful American flag. Basically everyone in this country is Patriotic, and patriotic citizens have the responsibility to openly display their patriotism. Everyone should hang a flag in their yard. More flags in our communities would lead to a greater sense of nationalism."

This argument is fallacious because it conceals the fact that not everyone in America is patriotic. The use of the term “basically” convinces whoever listens and/or responds to this argument that patriotism is within everyone in America, even though upon further analysis of the statement, it does not actually claim this and is not a hard generalization. Arguments cannot be made based on soft generalizations

Argumentum ad hominem (abusive)

"I don't think we should let the mayor allow a new Budweiser building to be built near our neighborhood. It's clear that he will benefit from having a new Budweiser building built. There is always more drunken behavior in the neighborhoods near Budweiser buildings and the mayor only wants to build a new Budweiser building because he owns a nearby Taco Bell, which would benefit from more drunken behavior in our neighborhood"

The conclusion the speaker is trying to reach is that we should not let the mayor allow the construction of a new Budweiser building. They support this conclusion by pointing out that the mayor will benefit from allowing the Budweiser building to be built. This makes it seem as though if he were to allow the building to be built he would be acting out of greed for his own personal gain. This is a fallacy because his benefit from the construction of a Budweiser plant is not enough to warrant that his allowance of it's construction is actually going to be a bad thing for anyone. The decision to construct the new Budweiser plant may benefit the mayor and still be good for everyone. Also the mayors choice could have nothing to do with how he benefits.

Person 1: Marijuana is good for the body. I don’t see why it has to be illegal when clearly there are no harmful effects of marijuana that have been proven by scientists.

Person 2: Marijuana is not healthy at all, despite your claims that it isn't harmful. Smoking marijuana leads to lung cancer.

Person 1: That’s just not true, man. There are no studies that prove that smoking marijuana leads to cancer in any way.

Person 2: Well, I guess you’re right, but still, I just don’t think inhaling marijuana is healthy!

In this argument, Person 1 backs up his idea cleverly by claiming that because of a lack of evidence (in this case, the lack of evidence for the link between lung cancer and marijuana smoke), something is proven untrue. This is a fallacious statement. Just because there is no evidence for something and it is not assumed to be true, that does not mean that it is actually untrue. It has the appearance of being a non-fallacious argument because Person 1's statement about the lack of proof is convincing. Just that statement about the lack of proof alone does not disprove that marijuana and cancer are linked.

Being a private music teacher is a really fulfilling experience. I can think of a no better occupation than one that allows you to work from home and plan your own working schedule. This allows you more convenience and control over your schedule compared to other occupations.

Explanation: The person is supposed to be explaining how and why being a private music teaching is fulfilling, for e.g. being able to work with students from different backgrounds, and being able to combine passion with occupation. Instead, the person elaborates on practical reasons on why being a private music teacher which is not related to job fulfillment. This makes the argument fallacious.

Irrelevant Humour is when information that is not important to the argument is introduced to distract the reader from the main argument. It does not involve lying but a joke is usually brought into the argument to distract even though it has no credibility. It is used to try and win the readers and even if it succeeds it does not mean that the argument itself has been won.

You should always follow the three days rule, wait three days to call a girl after the first date. Where does this rule derive from, it comes from Jesus Himself. He waited three days after dying on the cross to come back, it was perfect. Jesus wants us to wait three days.

The person is arguing that a man should wait three days before calling back a female after the first date. To divert attention from the logic behind the three day rule he makes a funny reference to Jesus but this does not offer an appropriant premise for the conclusion.

This is a fallacy that considers the arguments of someone poor to be more sound and/or more ethical than the arguments of someone who is rich. It appears to be good reasoning because a lot of times we see poor people as having more wisdom and having been through more things in their life, therefore we assume that they are more knowledgeable than they really are and feel comfortable using their poverty as reasoning for an argument. It is not good reasoning because it just is not true, it can’t be proven and being poor is not sufficient or necessary for being correct or having wisdom.

Argumentum ad Lazarum is Latin for Argument to Lazarus. Lazarus was a beggar in a parable from The New Testament.

The argumentum ad misericordiam is a fallacy in which pity is used instead of reason(s) to sway an audience.

Argumentum ad misericordiam appears to be good reasoning because pity influences emotion. This fallacy encourages the audience to focus on the pitiful aspect(s) in the reasoning and not the true validity and/or soundness of the argument.

Argumentum ad misericordiam is actually not good reasoning because pity is not a good reason to make a concise decision on whether an argument is valid. Pity can cloud our judgment.

According to "Google Translate," and "About.com" argumentum ad misericordiam means argument for mercy or argument for pity.

Latin phrase which translates to "after this, therefore because of this." This is a logical fallacy. The fallacy says "Event y followed event x. So event x must have caused event y."

This fallacy appears to be good reasoning because the two events may be related and one event precedes the other. The event that occurs first can easily be mistaken for the cause of the second event because of the order.

However, just because these two events are in correlation with one another is not sufficient enough to state that the first event caused the second.

A Red Herring is a fallacious distraction. When a topic is brought up that an individual does not want to discuss, that same individual will smoothly try to change the subject of the argument and steer the other person/people in a new direction of conversation, a conversation that they think the other will be interested in discussing. The premises are irrelevant to the conclusion in this fallacy because the the speaker changes the argument and therefore changes the conclusion. The audience can identify the fallacious argument by noting the change in conversation that moves away from the topic being discussed. Though it appears to be good reasoning because it may trick the other person, the premise/s do not force the conclusion because the conclusion changes. The red herring can mislead an individual and change the argument without the individual even realizing it. This can potentially result in good reasoning if the speaker gets away with the argument. On the other hand, it is faulty reasoning because the speaker changes his/her conclusion.

Latin Word: Ignoratio Elenchi- Ignorance of refutation; irrelevant thesis.

Speaker: "If food prices keep going up, fewer people will be able to afford to eat. Eventually everyone will starve because they can't afford to buy any food."

This example states that rising food prices will preclude most people from being able to afford to eat. This is an example of runaway train because it sets only one way for people to obtain food: that which is commercially grown and sold at the grocery store. This fallacy forgets that some people grow their own food, belong to a co-op or shop at a local farmer's market. Further, eating is a necessity of the human condition. No one can survive without eating. The market for food will not out price consumers, nor would the government allow it. So rising food costs will not result in starvation.

Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were all politicians and have all lied to the American People about something. All politicians are liars.

In this example the arguer is trying to argue that all politicians are liars using the examples of recent presidents that we know have lied to the American people. The premise is that because these four men are politicians and told notable lies. While this conclusion may be true depending on one's definition of a liar, this argument is not the proper way to prove it. A generalization of every politician based on the actions of four men is a fallacious argument. The arguer would have to take every politician and find examples of all of them lying to prove the argument like this.

I happen to know that Santa Clause is real. You may not believe it, but can you give me any definite proof to the contrary?"

This example points out how ridiculous this form of argument is using an example that most sane adults know to be untrue. The arguer is trying to prove the existence of Santa Clause with the premise that if you cannot disprove something, it must be real or true. We know that Santa Clause cannot exist but there is no plausible proof that someone can give just as someone cannot disprove the "boogie man" or ghosts. An arguer needs to prove their own conclusion without demanding the other person to disprove it. Even if there were a Santa Clause, simply asking for proof of his non-existence is not a valid argument.

Thatcher's blame fallacy is committed when an event/decision is condemn of being horrible no matter the result. The event/decision is already destined to be awful in the arguer's eyes, either way.

To commit this fallacy, the arguer already has determined his/her side without really getting into the evidence of the situation. An example of this would be when a voter votes based only upon their party identification.