• 11. Genetic Fallacy
• 12. Guilt by Association
• 13. Affirming the Consequent
• 14. Appeal to Hypocrisy
• 15. Slippery Slope
• 16. Appeal to the Bandwagon
• 17. Ad Hominem
• 18. Circular Reasoning
• 18. Composition and Division

Continuation from the previous article. You can read it here.

11. Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy happens when someone judges an idea as true or false solely because of where it came from, instead of evaluating the idea itself. The origin (genesis) of a belief is treated as evidence for or against its truth.

• This philosophy came from ancient religion, therefore it’s irrational.

Arguments like this are faulty because they attack or defend a claim based only on its source rather than its reasoning or evidence.

The source may justify skepticism, but it does not automatically validate or invalidate the claim, completely.

This fallacy can also appear positively:

• Jack’s views on art cannot be contested; he comes from a long line of eminent artists.

PS: Origins may explain why someone believes something- not whether the belief is true.

12. Guilt by Association

It is used to discredit an argument for proposing an idea which is shared by some socially demonized individuals or group.

So, if you here arguments like:

• My opponent is calling for a healthcare system that would resemble that of socialist countries. Clearly, that would be unacceptable
• We cannot let women drive cars because people in godless countries let their women drive cars.

These arguments try to argue that some groups of people are absolutely and categorically bad. ence, sharing even a single attribute with them would make them completely bad.

13. Affirming the Consequent

• If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
• The ground is wet.
  Therefore, it is raining.

This is an example of the abovementioned fallacy. It happens when someone begins with a statement in the form if A, then C, then incorrectly assumes that because C is true, A must also be true.

In this example, ground being wet does not prove that it rained. Ground could be wet for multiple other reasons like drain leak or flooding or a sprinkler or someone washing the pavement.

So the conclusion, The ground is wet, therefore it is raining. does not logically follow.

This is different from the valid form of reasoning called modus ponens, where we know if A, then C, and we also know A is true, so concluding C is justified.

A correct statement would be:

• If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
• It is raining.
  Therefore, the ground is wet

14. Appeal to Hypocrisy

This is also known as tu quoque, meaning “you too”. This fallacy involves countering someone’s argument by pointing out their faults of past or statement. (Pretty Smart ¹)

Doing this - diverts attention from the argument at hand to the person making it. Also a type of ad hominem attack.

15. Slippery Slope

This fallacy attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are undesirable. Although the sequence of events may be possible, but the argument claims each transistion is inevitable- and provides no evidence to support it.

• We shouldn’t allow people uncontrolled access to the internet. The next thing you know they will be frequenting pornographic websites, and soon enough, our entire moral fabric will disintegrate and we will be reduced to animals.

16. Appeal to the Bandwagon

AKA appeal to the people, this fallacy uses the fact that many people believe in something as evidence / shield that it must be true.

For example, most people in Galileo’s day believed that the sun and the planets orbited around Earth, so Galileo faced ridicule for his support of the Copernican model, which correctly puts the sun at the center of solar system.

Advertisements / politicans frequently use this method to lure people into accepting something solely because it is popular.

• All the cool kids use this hair gel; be one of them.

17. Ad Hominem

I think this is a pretty common fallacy which is used by the people online. It attacks a person rather than the argument he or she is making, with the intention of diverting the discussion and discrediting their argument.

• You are not a manager, stick to engineering

This type of personal attack is referred to as abusive ad hominem.

A second type, circumstantial ad hominem, attacks a person for cynical reasons, usually by making a judgment about their intentions.

• You don’t really care about lowering crime in the city; you just want people to vote for you.

An ad hominem attack sometimes succeeds at changing the subject by devolving into a tu quoque exchange. For example, John says, “This man is wrong because he has no integrity; just ask him why he was fired from his last job,” to which Jack replies, “How about we talk about the fat bonus you took home last year despite half your company being downsized,”
by which point the discussion has gone completely off track.

That said, there are situations where one may legitimately question a person’s credibility, such as during trial testimony.

18. Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when an argument assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. Instead of providing independent evidence for a conclusion, the argument simply restates the conclusion as a premise, sometimes in slightly different wording to make it appear like a separate point.

In essence, the reasoning follows the form x is true because x is true. Because the premise and the conclusion say the same thing, no real justification is provided.

• This law is fair because it is the right thing to do.

18. Composition and Division

The fallacy of composition occurs when one assumes that what is true for the individual parts of something must also be true for the whole. This ignores the fact that when parts combine, their interactions can create new properties or behaviors that were not present individually.

• Every module in this system passed its unit tests, so the fully integrated system cannot have any bugs. (composition)

Conversely, the fallacy of division occurs when one assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of each individual part.

• Our team is the best in the league, so any one of our players must be better than any player on the opposing team. (division)

Both errors arise from incorrectly transferring properties between a system and its components.

---

1. Just kidding ↩