Across
- 4. A personal attack on someone’s character or background that has nothing to do with the claim being argued.
- 9. When an arguer uses a word with built-in emotional evaluation to influence the conclusion.
- 10. When a speaker introduces irrelevant information to distract from the main argument by planting a false clue or shifting focus.
- 12. When a debater supports an action solely because it is traditional rather than because of its actual merits (a type of irrelevant reasoning).
- 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.
- 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).
- 17. When someone argues that one wrong action is acceptable because another wrong action has already been accepted; faulty justification.
- 18. When it is assumed that because one event occurred before another, it must have caused it—even if they are unrelated.
- 19. A fallacy of language where a word has two or more possible meanings, creating confusion in the argument.
- 20. When a word is used in different senses within an argument, shifting its meaning and causing confusion.
- 21. When an arguer uses irrelevant fear-based tactics to divert attention from the original argument (a type of irrelevant reasoning).
- 22. (deduction) When attributes of a whole are incorrectly applied to its parts; a deductive reasoning error.
Down
- 1. When a person’s argument is attacked by referencing their associations rather than addressing the actual argument.
- 2. When key words in an argument have indeterminate or unclear meanings.
- 3. A fallacy of acceptability where a debater uses evidence that is essentially the same as the claim itself; circular reasoning.
- 5. When too few or unrepresentative examples are used to support a claim; also called over-generalizing.
- 6. When an arguer misrepresents an opponent’s argument and then refutes the distorted version as if it were the real argument.
- 7. A problematic premise where a debater provides evidence that contradicts another statement or action they have made.
- 8. When two examples are compared even though they are not actually similar in the way required for the argument.
- 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.
- 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).
- 16. well When someone preemptively discredits a source before that source can present their argument.