Ad misericordiam - considered a bad argument.

It is when someone makes an appeal to the emotion of pity

instead of addressing an argument. Appeals to emotion in general are logically invalid and take many
forms (ex. Ad baculum). There’s nothing wrong in and of itself with being compassionate, in fact if you
never take into account someone's situation that's probably not very good. Nevertheless, for an argument
to properly parse, an appeal to pity or any emotion for that matter, is not going to work.
For example, John Argues that: if you sign a lease, you have an obligation to pay rent. Tim doesn’t like
this and responds that: My pet dog died last month I just don’t know if I can take paying rent right now. Pity is
not an argument.
Ad hominem- Ad hominem criticism is where, instead of criticizing the argument or ideas of the person with
whom you are conversing, you criticize the person themselves. And, in so doing, claim you have also
criticized their argument. Ad hominem criticisms are not always but are very frequently fallacious.
Unless the character or actions of the person making an argument are directly related to the matter at
hand, criticizing them and not their ideas is a fallacy. Ad hominem attacks are the bread and butter of
political advertising. Criticizing a candidate and saying that because their character is bad, their ideas
and policies are also bad.
Ad baculum – Ad baculum is a Latin Phrase meaning literally to the stick, which refers to a logical fallacy or in
other words a bad argument. In essence, ad baculum is using fear and intimidation to force your
opponent to concede an argument or at least to stop making that argument. There are many forms of
these of ad baculum. First, is using physical threats to force your opponent to accept to an argument.
Another common form of ad baculum is using the force of one's authority or position to force an
opponent to concede (ex. Boss and employee). And third, is to use social consequences as a means of
getting an opponent to concede an argument.
Ad populum – is when someone make an argument that something is true because many or most people believe
it. Remember that consensus (general view) is not an argument. Sometimes it holds no logical bearing.
Ad ignorantiam- it has basically two forms. First, when someone says something is true because it has not
been proven false. Second, when someone says it is false because it has not been proven true.
The first form, is to assert that something is true because there’s no evidence it is false. For example,
Tim argues that: “We don’t know that aliens do not exist, therefore, there are aliens. Tim’s argument is
invalid. Just because there's no evidence that aliens do not exist that does not mean they do exist.
The second form was popularized by Carl Sagan’s aphorism: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.” John argues that our planet is has sufficient conditions for life to arise. There are countless
other planets which have similar conditions. Therefore, it is likely that life exists on other planets. Tim’s
respond that “Yeah, but we don’t know if alien exist, so they probably don’t. Tim’s argument is invalid.
Just because we are ignorant or do not have evidence that does not mean it is categorically false.
Remember, ignorance is not argument.
Fallacy on equivocation- is basically a fallacy that depends on the double meaning of a word. It as an argument
that uses word to mean two different things. Or it is mistakenly equating two different meanings of one
word. For example: Some triangles are obtuse. Therefore, some triangles are not very smart. The fallacy
is the double meaning of the word obtuse (an angle more than 90 degrees; slow-witted or stupid person).
Fallacy on composition- It occurs when one argues that something must be true of the whole because it its true
of some parts of the whole. In other words, simply because parts have a certain property does not mean
that the whole does. For example: Each player on the team is good. Therefore, the team is good: All of
the atoms in my body are invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, I am invisible.
Fallacy on division- It is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. It is basically concluding that the parts
have the same properties as the whole. An error in a logic that occurs when one reasons that something
that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. For example: Water is a very safe
compound that puts out fires. Therefore, hydrogen and oxygen must be a safe compounds that put out
fires. ; This book is very heavy. Therefore, all the pages must be heavy. ; The average American Family
has 2.5 children. The Simpsons are an average American family. Therefore, the Simpsons have 2.5
children.
Fallacy of false cause- Correlation does not imply causation. It is basically assuming a casual link simply based
on the constant conjunction of two events. For example: Whenever I wear my hat backwards the Seahawks win.
Therefore, wearing my hat backwards will make the Seahawks win. ; People who smoke are more likely to have
lung cancer. Therefore, having lung cancer makes you more likely to be smoker (a non-cause pro cause).