1. argumentum ab auctoritate: an argument derived from authority.
2. argumentum ab inconvenienti: an argument drawn from the inconvenience or hardship involved.
3. argumentum ad crumenam: an argument directed to the purse or pecuniary interest.
4. argumentum ad hominem: an argument addressed to the man, or having a direct personal bearing; an argument deriving its force from the practice, prejudices, principles, etc., of the person addressed or immediately concerned.
5. argumentum ad ignorantiam: an argument addressed to ignorance, or based on an adversary's ignorance of facts.
6. argumentum ad invidiam: an argument appealing to envy or ill-will.
7. argumentum ad iudicium: an argument addressed to the judgment or common sense.
8. argumentum ad misericordiam: an argument appealing to feelings of mercy or pity.
9. argumentum ad populum: an argument appealing to the people, or to popular sympathies, prejudices, etc.
10. argumentum ad verecundiam: an argument appealing to reverence or respect, as for an accepted authority.
11. argumentum baculinum: the argument of the stick or club; the use of force for the purpose of convincing.
12. argumentum ex concesso: an argument derived from what has been conceded.
13. argumentum ad absurdum: an argument focused on the errors of the opponent's position instead of the merits of one's own.
14. argumentum ad captandum: an argument appealing to arousal of passions, similar to ad populum.
15. argumentum ex silentio: the argument from silence, a conclusion based on lack of contrary evidence.
16. argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need to be omniscient to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
17. appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then nothing more can be gained from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
18. appeal to tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
19. argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., The accused must be found guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or should be sentenced.
20. bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.
21. begging the question (or assuming the answer):
22. circular reasoning: stating in one's proof that which one is supposed to be proving.
23. composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans are conscious and are made of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte is a fraction of a word processor.)
24. confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More chess players are men, therefore, men make better chess players than women. )
25. excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He's either guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes." [note this may be begging the question, the original author failed to provide any reasonable examples of this alleged "fallacy"]
26. half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
27. loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
28. meaningless question: (e.g., How high is up? Is everything possible?) "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything were possible, then it would be possible for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not be possible, there may be an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities.
29. misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.)
30. non sequitur: Latin for "It doesn't follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
31. observational selection: pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure there's bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers are never mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning are good while in actually just the reverse is true.
32. post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.
33. proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's aren't real, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. [Another problem one. Failure to prove something exists is not proof that it doesn't.]
34. red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
35. reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity.
36. slippery slope:
37. statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
38. straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it.
39. two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. who are you to judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser is irrelevant to the discussion.