Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on an inadequate sample.

Trying to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert.

The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down.

"My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"

Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent.

Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

The arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake.

"Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!"

If those protesters really loved their country, they wouldn't question the government.

Stacked Evidence

Ad hominen and tu quoque

The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices, then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option.

"President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime."

"Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death."

When the arguer claims that a chain reaction will take place but not enough evidence to support that.

When an arguer makes people feel sorry for someone in order for them to accept the conclusion.

Simply ignores an important assumption that the argument rests on.

"We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it."

"Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well."

If two things are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one.

"Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on the issue."

An important logical step may be missing in such a claim.

"I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!"

"Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk student's safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down."