english

12345678910111213141516171819202122
Across
  1. 4. A personal attack on someone’s character or background that has nothing to do with the claim being argued.
  2. 9. When an arguer uses a word with built-in emotional evaluation to influence the conclusion.
  3. 10. When a speaker introduces irrelevant information to distract from the main argument by planting a false clue or shifting focus.
  4. 12. When a debater supports an action solely because it is traditional rather than because of its actual merits (a type of irrelevant reasoning).
  5. 13. When only a limited set of options is presented, or when someone is forced to choose between two options even though more may exist; “either-or” fallacy.
  6. 15. When a debater argues that a person, product, or belief is valid simply because it is popular; celebrity endorsements often fall into this fallacy (a type of irrelevant reasoning).
  7. 17. When someone argues that one wrong action is acceptable because another wrong action has already been accepted; faulty justification.
  8. 18. When it is assumed that because one event occurred before another, it must have caused it—even if they are unrelated.
  9. 19. A fallacy of language where a word has two or more possible meanings, creating confusion in the argument.
  10. 20. When a word is used in different senses within an argument, shifting its meaning and causing confusion.
  11. 21. When an arguer uses irrelevant fear-based tactics to divert attention from the original argument (a type of irrelevant reasoning).
  12. 22. (deduction) When attributes of a whole are incorrectly applied to its parts; a deductive reasoning error.
Down
  1. 1. When a person’s argument is attacked by referencing their associations rather than addressing the actual argument.
  2. 2. When key words in an argument have indeterminate or unclear meanings.
  3. 3. A fallacy of acceptability where a debater uses evidence that is essentially the same as the claim itself; circular reasoning.
  4. 5. When too few or unrepresentative examples are used to support a claim; also called over-generalizing.
  5. 6. When an arguer misrepresents an opponent’s argument and then refutes the distorted version as if it were the real argument.
  6. 7. A problematic premise where a debater provides evidence that contradicts another statement or action they have made.
  7. 8. When two examples are compared even though they are not actually similar in the way required for the argument.
  8. 11. (part to whole) When it is falsely assumed that what is true of a part is also true of the whole; an inductive reasoning error.
  9. 14. When an argument claims that one step will inevitably lead to a chain of disastrous consequences without proper support (a type of hasty conclusion).
  10. 16. well When someone preemptively discredits a source before that source can present their argument.