This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.

ž”Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring class.”

žThis person is making a premature judgement based on only one day, and the first day of class is notoriously boring and full of rules and policies.

žThis assumes that “A” must have caused “B” since “B” happened right after “A”.

“žI drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.”

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. While it is possible, it’s not certain.

The conclusion that the writer should prove is already assumed or validated within the claim.

ž“Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.”

žThe terms “filthy and polluting” are subjective and imply some conclusions have already been determined.

This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.

ž“Donald Trump is a poor communicator because he doesn’t speak effectively.”

In this example, the conclusion that Trump is a "poor communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he doesn’t speak effectively" are basically the same idea.

This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.

žExample: We can either stop using cars which pollute the air, or we will destroy the earth.

žIn this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between. By doing this, we can be cornered into making a choice that may benefit somebody else.

žThis is an attack on the character of a person rather than the argument.

“My opponent has been married 5 times, and so clearly I am the best candidate for this position.”

The person’s marital history may have little to do with how that person will perform his or her job.

This move misrepresents an opponent's viewpoint, usually by oversimplifying or exaggerating, and then attacks that distorted argument.

žExample: People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

žIn this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position.

žThis is any diversionary tactic that avoids the real argument.

Example: The level of mercury in our seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish.

Claiming that something is true based on the grounds that there is no evidence to disprove it.

žExample: “There is no evidence available to disprove that Mr. Green is a communist spy.”

Positive evidence is required for proof.

This is comparing two things which may seem similar on the surface but are actually different in an important way.

“Based on graduation rates, private schools do a much better job at educating students than public schools.”

This comparison fails to recognize that the situation is much more complex; private and public schools are funded differently, and private schools do not have to accept all students like public schools do.

This involves hypocrisy, double standards, and special treatment. Rules and laws should apply to everyone equally, but sometimes we rationalize and justify why we should be excused in a special circumstances.

“I know stealing is wrong, but I really needed some earbuds and nobody is going to miss these anyway.”

Perhaps this also works in situations where political leaders support gun control and gun-free zones, but also have an armed security detail accompany them everywhere.