Common Flaws in Arguments

Goals

  1. Present a CEME (Collectively Exhaustive Mutually Exclusive) classification schemed for identifying a flaw in an argument.

  2. Skillfully use this classification to identify flaws.

Flaws in Arguments

What:
A flaw in an argument is a mistake or rhetorical tactic—intentional or unintentional—that reduces the likelihood that the conclusion is the best one for the context.

Why:
Learning to identify flaws in arguments provides several important benefits:

  1. Improve Your Own Arguments
    You’ll be less likely to make reasoning errors and more likely to communicate clearly and credibly. This increases your persuasiveness and your trustworthiness.

  2. Protect Yourself from Bad Reasoning
    You’ll be better equipped to detect flaws in others’ arguments, helping you avoid believing false claims or taking actions that are not in your best interests.

  3. Help Others Reason More Clearly
    By recognizing and explaining flaws, you can mentor, coach, or guide others toward stronger reasoning and better decision-making.

  4. Respond Effectively in Real Time
    Identifying flaws quickly gives you the tools to counter weak arguments in live conversations or debates, increasing your influence and effectiveness.

How:
All argument flaws can be categorized into four main types: - Information Flaws - Reasoning Flaws - Contextual Flaws - Communication Flaws

By learning to recognize and classify these types, you can quickly diagnose problems and choose the best response. You can then apply more detailed classifications and tactics as needed.

Nomenclature

Argument

An argument is a claim supported by one or more premises intended to provide reasons or evidence for believing the claim.

Flaw in an Argument

A flaw in an argument is an error or weakness that reduces the strength or credibility of its conclusion.

Classification Scheme

A classification scheme is a system for organizing many items into categories based on shared features or functions.

CEME

A classification is CEME (Collectively Exhaustive and Mutually Exclusive) if and only if every item fits into one—and only one—category.

A CEME Classification: Flaws in Arguments

1. Information Flaws

These flaws arise from problems with the premises or evidence.

  1. False or Misleading Premises – Premises are inaccurate, biased, or deceptive.
  2. Missing Information – Key facts or counterexamples are omitted.
  3. Unsupported Claims – Premises are stated without sufficient evidence.
  4. Unprovable Claims - Using premises that cannot be proven true or false
  5. Cherry-Picking – Selective use of evidence to support a position.

2. Reasoning Flaws (Fallacies)

These flaws occur in the structure or flow of reasoning, even if premises are true.

Formal Fallacies

Errors in logical form—the argument’s structure is invalid. Here are some examples.

  1. Affirming the Consequent
  2. If A → B, and B is true, therefore A is true (invalid).
  3. Denying the Antecedent
  4. If A → B, and A is false, therefore B is false (invalid).
  5. Invalid Syllogisms – Logical errors in multi-premise deduction.

Informal Fallacies

Errors in content or context of reasoning, often emotionally or rhetorically driven. Here are some examples.

  1. Ad Hominem – Attacking the person instead of the argument.
  2. Straw Man – Misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to attack.
  3. Appeal to Emotion – Using fear, pity, or flattery instead of reasoning.
  4. Slippery Slope – Claiming without justification that one action will lead to a series of bad outcomes.
  5. False Dilemma – Presenting only two options when others exist.
  6. Circular Reasoning – Conclusion is included in the premise.
  7. Hasty Generalization – Drawing broad conclusions from limited data.

3. Contextual Flaws

These involve issues with how the argument fits the situation, audience, or goals.

  1. Irrelevance – The argument doesn’t address the question or issue.
  2. Shifting Goalposts – Changing the criteria mid-discussion.
  3. Red Herring – Distracting from the main issue.
  4. Inappropriate Expertise – Quoting experts outside their field or using fake authority.
  5. Unfalsifiability – Claims that cannot be proven wrong are immune to evidence.

4. Communication Flaws

These flaws affect the clarity, precision, or delivery of the argument.

  1. Vague Language – Ambiguous terms or fuzzy definitions.
  2. Loaded Language – Emotionally charged words that bias the audience.
  3. Equivocation – Using a word with multiple meanings inconsistently.
  4. Overgeneralization – Using terms like always, never, or everyone inappropriately.
  5. Obfuscation – Using complexity or jargon to confuse or hide weak logic.

Summary of Flaws

Category Focus Common Examples
Information Flaws Problems with premises/data False premises, missing info, cherry-picking
Reasoning Flaws Logical structure/content Formal fallacies, straw man, false dilemma
Contextual Flaws Misfit with situation/audience Irrelevance, red herrings, goalpost shifting
Communication Flaws Language and delivery issues Vagueness, equivocation, emotionally loaded language