1. Slippery Slope

Source 1: To greatly exaggerate the supposedly inevitable future consequences of an action by suggesting one small step will initiate a process that will necessarily lead the way to a much bigger result.

Example: If you restrict my right to say whatever I want anywhere I want however I want this is the beginning of totalitarianism in America.

Example: If we let one homosexual couple live on our street before you know it our neighborhood will start to become like Greenwich Village in New York or the Castro District in San Francisco.

Source: http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html

Source 2: Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first

step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should

not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence,

an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q,

leading to w, leading to e.)[90] This is also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.

Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

Eugene Volokh's Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope (PDF version) analyzes various types of such

slippage. Volokh uses the example "gun registration may lead to gun confiscation" to describe six types of

slippage:

1. Cost-lowering: Once all gun owners have registered their firearms, the government will know

exactly from whom to confiscate firearms. Gun-control opponents argue against limits on the sale

of "assault weapons" because the confiscation of sportsmen's shotguns will soon follow.

Meanwhile, government officials defend their inflexible enforcement of a regulation, even in

circumstances that some see as unfair, because allowing an exception would open the

floodgates.

2. Legal rule combination: Previously the government might need to search every house to

confiscate guns, and such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Registration would eliminate that problem.

3. Attitude altering: People may begin to think of gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right,

and thus regard gun confiscation less seriously.

4. Small change tolerance, colloquially referred to as the "boiling frog": People may ignore gun

registration because it constitutes just a small change, but when combined with other small

changes, it could lead to the equivalent of confiscation.

5. Political power: The hassle of registration may reduce the number of gun owners, and thus the

political power of the gun-ownership bloc.

6. Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass

other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

Slippery slope can also be used as a retort to the establishment of arbitrary boundaries or limitations. For

example, someone who is unfamiliar with the possible negative consequences of price ceilings might

argue that rent prices must be kept to $1,000 or less a month to be affordable to tenants in an area of a

city. A retort invoking the slippery slope could go in two different directions:

Once such price ceilings become accepted, they could be slowly lowered, eventually driving out the

landlords and worsening the problem.

If a $1,000 monthly rent is affordable, why isn't $1,025 or $1,050? By lumping the tenants into

one abstract entity, the argument renders itself vulnerable to a slippery slope argument. A more

careful argument in favor of price ceilings would statistically characterize the number of tenants who

can afford housing at various levels based on income and choose a ceiling that achieves a specific

goal, such as housing 80% of the working families in the area.

Sometimes a single action does indeed induce similar later action. For example, judiciary decisions may

set legal precedents.

2. Dogmatism (ayaw nanai, more on religion man gud ni. Dili kayo mu apply sa law. Sori).

3. Hasty Generalizations

Source 1: Drawing a conclusion, especially a sweeping one, from insufficient evidence.

Example: I knew a gay guy once who was not very masculine; this just goes to show that gay guys are more effeminate than straight men.

Example: A black family moved into my neighborhood once, and they were financially quite well-off, better than we were; this proves that black people actually are economically equal to whites.

Source: http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html

Source2: A hasty generalization is a broad claim based on too-limited evidence. It is unethical to assert a broad claim when you have only anecdotal or isolated evidence or instances. Consider two examples of hasty generalizations based on inadequate data:

- Three congressional representatives have had affairs. Therefore, members of Congree are adulterers.

- An environmental group illegally blocked loggers and workers at a nuclear plant. Therefore, environmentalists are radicals who take the law into their own hands.

In each case, the conclusion is based on limited evidence. In each case the conclusion is hasty and fallacious."(Julia T. Wood, Communication in Our Lives, 6th ed. Wadsworth, 2012)

"It was a rainy day in Harvard Square, so the foot traffic through the atrium from Mass Ave to Mount Auburn Street was heavier than it might have been if the sun were out. A lot of people were carrying umbrellas, which most of them furled inside. I had always thought that Cambridge, in the vicinity of Harvard, might have had the most umbrellas per capita of any place in the world. People used them when it snowed. In my childhood, in Laramie, Wyoming, we used to think people who carried umbrellas were sissies. It was almost certainly a hasty generalization, but I had never encountered a hard argument against it."(Robert B. Parker, Sixkill. Putnam, 2011)

"It is not uncommon for an arguer to draw a conclusion or generalization based on only a few instances of a phenomenon. In fact, a generalization is often drawn from a single piece of supporting data, an act that might be described as committing the fallacy of the lonely fact. . . .

"Some areas of inquiry have quite sophisticated guidelines for determining the sufficiency of a sample, such as in voter preference samples or television viewing samples. In many areas, however, there are no

such guidelines to assist us in determining what would be sufficient grounds for the truth of a particular conclusion."(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 4th ed. Wadsworth, 2001)

"A United States Judge indulged in a very hasty generalization when in the recent trial of an alimony case he interjected the remark that 'any man who gives all his salary to his wife is a fool.' Many men not fools, but wise and prudent, turn over their earnings to their wives as the most competent stewards of the household."("The Wife As the Family Treasurer," The Toronto Truth. July 29, 1895)

The Lighter Side of Hasty Generalizatios- "Next we take up a fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You can't speak French. I can't speak French. Petey Burch can't speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French."

"Really," said Polly, amazed. "Nobody?"

I hid my exasperation. "Polly, it's a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion."(Max Shulman, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. Doubleday, 1951)

Source: http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/hastygenterm.htm

4. Ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is

true.

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong .

Everyone's doing it.

In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.

Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.

Millions of people believe in God.

Explanation:

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent(strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument fordeductive

reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.

(source: Wiki)

5. Equivocation

Source 1: An argument that gives a lie an honest appearance, by insisting on what is only partially or formally true.

Example: I did not have sex with that woman (if by sex you mean penile-vaginal intercourse). [From Bill Clinton, in relation to the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky]

Example: I gave you everything I had to give you (right then and there when you asked me, but not of course everything I could have given you if I took into account what I maintain elsewhere).

Source: http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html

Source 2: Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the

misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is

intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

It is often confused with amphiboly; the difference is that equivocation arises from an ambiguous definition

of a word, while amphiboly refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation orsyntax.

Source 3:

Alias: Doublespeak

Type: Ambiguity

Example:

The elements of the moral argument on the status of unborn life…strongly favor the conclusion that this unborn segment of humanity has a right not to be killed, at least. Without laying out all the evidence here, it is fair to conclude from medicine that the humanity of the life growing in a mother's womb is undeniable and, in itself, a powerful reason for treating the unborn with respect.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

6. Poisoning the well

Source 1: Present an argument is such an emotionally dishonest and manipulative way that it is virtually impossible to respond without seeming to look dishonest or immoral one’s self.

Example: Of course, this liar will tell you that he didn’t steal my stuff. You can’t believe a thief. Go ahead and ask him. He’ll deny it.

Example: You are a sick, perverted person who reminds me of Joseph Goebbels. You’ll twist anything anyone has to say to make yourself look good. Try to convince me that you’re right that we should break up for the good of both of us if you possibly can.Source: http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html

Source 2: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.

If Adam tells Bob, "Chris is a fascist so don't listen to him", then Adam has committed the fallacy of poisoning the well; if Bob takes Adam's advice then he is also a victim of the fallacy of poisoning the well. Assuming that Chris isn't merely going to tell Bob that he isn't a fascist then there is a fallacy because it is irrelevant to the cogency of Chris' argument(s) whether he is or isn't a fascist. It is possible to be a fascist and also to have cogent arguments on some arbitrary matter, e.g. Chris may wish to persuade Bob that the Earth is not flat; being a fascist does not preclude the possibility of having a cogent argument that the Earth is not flat.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Source 3:

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class: Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist." Jill: "Yeah."

During Class: Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class: Bill: "See what I mean?" Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

Examples of Poisoning the Well

"Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."

"Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."

You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html