Further, when we discover a fallacy in an argument, it does not imply the conclusion is false; instead, it means that the argument does not efficiently establish its conclusion. I therefore would have to construct arguments that display distinct fallacies.
Red Herring fallacies— Appeal to Emotion. Rather than providing reasons, this type of argument only incorporates meaningful language for aggravating empathy or resentment towards a specific assertion. Consider: You should not oppose Mitt Romney. It is Unrepublican. This isn’t excellent argument but absolute rhetoric. For this case, the argument rests upon the premise that you cannot be a loyalist if you do not agree with everything Romney says.
Fallacy of Causation. This is the fallacy of inferring that A caused B, from the premise that and A and B are interrelated. Consider: Our study finds obese people are avid readers of books on nutrition and weight loss. Therefore, a book on nutrition and weightless influences someone’s decision to be obese. For this case, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, because it is probable that the connection here is unintended. Alternative, it may be that reading a book on nutrition and weight loss should assist you reduce the excess calories instead of the way round.
The fallacy of Division. This is the fallacy of deducing that the parts of A must have a certain aspect, from the premise that A as whole has an aspect. Consider: Rick Santorum prematurely terminated his campaign. And that means his personal advisor is responsible for premature suspension of the campaign. Just because Santorum suspended his campaign doesn’t mean that his advisor made the decision to terminate his campaign prematurely. It is even possible that his advisor advised him against early campaign