It is a term found both in the major and minor premises.

There could be four terms in the syllogism.

The major term is the term in the major premise and serves as the subject of the conclusion

There could be more than one meaning for the middle term.

If the middle term has more than one meaning, then one may commit the fallacy of equivocation.

If the major and minor terms are universal in the premises, they must also be universal in the conclusion.

If the minor term is particular in the premise but universal in the conclusion, one commits the fallacy of Illicit major term.

The middle term may be found in the conclusion.

The middle term must be taken universally at least once.

If the middle term is particular both in minor and major premises, then one commits the fallacy of undistributed middle term.

Two affirmative premises may yield to a negative conclusion.

A conclusion cannot be established for two negative premises.

If the two premises are particular, we can establish a conclusion.

If one of the premises is negative, then the conclusion is also negative.

If one of the premises is particular, then the conclusion is also particular.

An erroneous reasoning that comes from false premises or irrelevant conclusion which seems to be correct.

The fallacy of _____________ is committed when the meaning of words or phrases create a different meaning in the conclusion.

This fallacy of _______________ appears when the meaning of a particular word in a premise is different in use as given in the other premise.

This fallacy of ______________ is committed due to the different ways a word is emphasized or accented in a premise.

The fallacy of _______________ is committed due to the assumption that the whole has the characteristics of its parts.

The fallacy of ______________ is committed when one assumes that the parts have the characteristics of the whole.

The fallacy of _______________ is committed due to the premises that are not significant to their conclusion in an argument.

The Argumentum ad Baculum is a kind of fallacy in which a person's character or personality is attacked and not on the issue.

This is a type of fallacy in which one argues that an argument is wrong since it has not yet been proven as true, or it is true since it is not yet proven to be false.

This fallacy is committed when one argues using expressive language or other devices to excite passion (enthusiasm, happiness, anger, hate, lust or fear) of the people or the crowd.

This fallacy is committed when someone instead of proving his argument relies in soliciting the sympathy or pity of the listener.

This fallacy is committed when one resorts to using force or threat in trying to push others to accept the issue. Its purpose is to scare people to accept or to be convinced about something.

Is the fallacy that draws a conclusion from insufficient evidence.

"You cannot see God; therefore, there is no God." This kind of argument is an example of the Fallacy of False assumption.