BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Ad Hominem, and Genetic Fallacy, with Circular Reasoning as the most egregious example at 13.7% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 391 faulty-reasoning hits from 539 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.2% and a BS Rank of 9% (18,666 of 20,449 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. 
It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. 
Form 
An argument from fallacy has the following general argument form: 
If P, then Q. 
P is a fallacious argument. 
Therefore, Q is false. 
Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. 
A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. 
The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false. 
That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent. 
But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy. 
Examples 
Alice: All cats are animals. 
Ginger is an animal. 
Therefore, Ginger is a cat. 
Bob: You have just fallaciously affirmed the consequent. 
You are incorrect. 
Therefore, Ginger is not a cat. 
Alice: I speak English. 
Therefore, I am English. 
Bob: Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. 
By assuming that speaking English and being English always go together, you have just committed the package-deal fallacy. 
You are incorrect. 
Therefore, you are not English. 
Both of Bob's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy. 
Ginger may or may not be a cat, and Alice may or may not be English. 
The fact that Alice's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, proof that her conclusion is false. 
Charlie: Bob's argument that Ginger is not a cat is fallacious. 
Therefore, Ginger absolutely must be a cat. 
That one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not prove one's own position either, as this would also be an argument from fallacy, as is the case in Charlie's argument. 
Further 
Argumentum ad logicam can be used as an ad hominem appeal: by impugning the opponent's credibility or good faith, it can be used to sway the audience by undermining the speaker rather than by addressing the speaker's argument. 
William Lycan identifies the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". 
Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present. 
Thus in some contexts it may be a form of begging the question, and it is also a special case of ad lapidem. 
See also 
Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) 
Argumentation theory 
Genetic fallacy 
Logical extreme 
Logical fallacies 
Reductio ad absurdum 
Straw man 
Vacuous truth 
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 
References 
[References omitted as they are not part of the main article text] 
Further reading 
[Further reading links omitted as they are not part of the main article text] 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.5%Wikipedia: 1.8%Confirmation Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Wikipedia: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 3.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Wikipedia: 4.2%Negativity Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Wikipedia: 4.2%Ad Hominem11.3%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Wikipedia: 2.6%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 3.3%Wikipedia: 3.6%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 13.7%Wikipedia: 2.2%Circular Reasoning13.7%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 4.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 13.0%Wikipedia: 4.8%Begging the Question13.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Wikipedia: 0.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 3.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 10.6%Wikipedia: 1.6%Genetic Fallacy10.6%This article: 7.8%Wikipedia: 0.8%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Wikipedia: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

539 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers17%attributed speech449writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBob • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBob • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAlice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBob • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBob • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBob • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCharlie • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Lycan • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

William Lycan

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words38% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%William Lycan: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.