1. Accident —

    General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover
  2. Amphiboly —

    Conclusion depends on ambiguous statement
  3. Appeal to authority —

    Arguer cites untrustworthy or unrelated authority
  4. Appeal to force —

    Arguer threatens reader/listener
  5. Appeal to ignorance —

    Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then conclusion is drawn
  6. Appeal to pity —

    Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener
  7. Appeal to the people (direct) —

    Arguer arouses mob mentality
  8. Appeal to the people (indirect) —

    Arguer appeals to reader/listener’s desire for security, love, respect, etc.
  9. Argument against the person (abusive) —

    Arguer verbally abuses other arguer
  10. Argument against the person(circumstantial)
  11. Argument against the person(tu quoque) —

    Arguer presents other arguer as hypocrite
  12. Begging the question —

    Questionably true premise is concealed
  13. Complex question —

    Multiple questions are asked as single question
  14. Composition —

    Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole
  15. Division —

    Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts
  16. Equivocation —

    Conclusion depends on multiple use of term
  17. False cause —

    Conclusion depends on nonexistent or minor causal connection
  18. False dichotomy —

    "Either ... or ..." statement hides alternatives
  19. Hasty generalization —

    Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample
  20. Missing the point —

    Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by premises
  21. Red herring —

    Arguer leads reader/listener off track
  22. Slippery slope —

    Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction
  23. Straw man —

    Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument
  24. Suppressed evidence —

    Arguer ignores evidence that outweighs given evidence and requires different conclusion
  25. Weak analogy —

    Conclusion depends on defective analogy