I.

Argumentum Ad Hominem: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking

the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an
argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of
the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

INFORMAL GUIDE TO AD HOMINEM

Person L proffers claim y.

Person L's circumstance or character is unsatisfactory (or desirable), or L does not act
in accordance with y.

Claim y is implausible or unlikely (in the case of unsatisfactory character), or

claim y is plausible or likely (in the case of desirable character).

II. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals
to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the

character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an
argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of
the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

A. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear
and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being
made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent
reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the
argument.

B. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is

often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats, per se, however,
are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.

C. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.

If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant

event x will happen.
Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening.
 Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.

III. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy

committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is
appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

A. Hence, assent or dissent to a statement or an argument is sought on the basis of

an irrelevant appeal to pity. In other words, pity, or the related emotion is not
the subject or the conclusion of the argument.

B. The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:

Person L argues statement p or argument A.

L deserves pity because of circumstance y.
Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.

IV. Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy
of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and
enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will
emphasize two forms.

A. "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to

what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society
thinks or believes.

(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in

these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

Person L says statement p or argument A.

Person L is in the elite.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.
B. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds
that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.

Statement p is true.

C. "appeal to emotion": the fallacy of using expressive and emotively laden

language to arouse emotion in support of a conclusion.

Emotions such as enthusiasm, pride, anger, or disgust are used to express

evidence for statement p
Statement p is true.