The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:
Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization:
a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).
Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization
argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those one has met are a subset of the entire set.
Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
Irrelevant Conclusion:
diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Example
Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)
Special cases:
purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
fear (argumentum ad baculum),
conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam—appeal to authority)
to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy)
Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"
Affirming the Consequent
draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Billy is coughing. Therefore, Billy has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).
Denying the antecedent:
draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.
Begging the questionBegging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Example
Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.
Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.
Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur:
incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
Example
Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.
Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.
Special cases
post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
Example
Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.
Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may
generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.
cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation.
Example
Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore,
the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.
Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream.
Also called causation versus correlation.
Fallacy of many questions or loaded question:
groups more than one question in the form of a single question.
Example
Argument: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point. (See also Mu.)
Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms
Straw man:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Example
Person A claims: Sunny days are good.
Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.
-uses content from wikipedia but the catagories are well accepted
21 Feb 2011, 3:28 pm
Actually I think I've used all of them on him. 
