Logical failures - exaggerations and generalizations

This group of logical fallacies differs from the other groups in that they are not Inevitably Logical failures and that each of them has a legitimate use. In other words, the failure here is not in the use of the technique but in the excessive use of the technique. Nor is refuting these fallacies necessarily refuting their use, but emphasizing the exaggeration and inaccuracy.

The slippery slope argument

This is an argument that relies on the domino method and allows the speaker to be content with proving some partial first step and then reach much larger results from it. In principle, this method is legitimate, and is actually just increased leverage (for an explanation of how to leverage an argument) After all, we all recognize the existence of snowballs and the butterfly effect. Where the legitimate explanation becomes a logical fallacy is when one or more patients in the chain are skipped, and the audience is relied upon to be impressed by the strength of the other links.

For example: "If we make marijuana legal, then more people will start using crack and heroin, and then we will have to make them legal as well." Case by case we will become a country of drug addicts on unemployment benefits. And from this it follows that marijuana should not be made legal"
If we wanted to make legitimate use of the technique, we would be satisfied with a less inflated argument: 'If we make marijuana legal, then any of the arguments that explain why the fight against it is worthless will be directed to the fight for the legalization of a stronger drug like LSD, and when that is more they will move on to the next drug, and if we get the The logic again and again in the end found that heroin and cocaine are also legal."

The extended analogy - the extension of the analogy

This fallacy happens when the discussion revolves around some general law, and the claimant assumes that the mere mention of two different situations, in a discussion about a general law, makes them equal in value - analogous.
Here is an example straight from an online discussion on the topic of marijuana legalization:
"I believe that one should never oppose the law by breaking the law"
"It is difficult to defend such a position: it means that you would not support Martin Luther King"
"Are you saying that the legalization of marijuana is as important as the black struggle for independence? How dare you!"

"...is a type of..." fallacies - it is of this type

This fallacy happens when you claim that two things are special cases of the same thing, but don't actually explain why that is so. For example:
"Isn't history based on faith? So, isn't the Bible a form of history?"
"Christianity is based on faith, Judaism is based on faith, so isn't Judaism a type of Christianity?"
"Cats are a carbon-based life form, dogs are a carbon-based life form, so aren't dogs a type of cat?"

 Unfounded generalizations

 Fallacies of composition - attributing the properties of a part to a whole

Inferring from the part to pay involves attributing properties that are common to several items, to a collection of items that includes them. or by attributing an attribute of some part of an object to the entire object. Examples:
"These bikes are only made of lightweight parts, so they are really easy to carry"
"A car uses less fuel, and emits less smoke than a bus, therefore, cars are more environmentally friendly than buses"

Dicto simpliciter – deduction from the general to the particular

You deduce from the general to the particular when you apply a general law to a particular situation, but the characteristics of the particular case do not match those that the general law requires, or the law itself is too general to begin with. For example:
"Orthodox in general don't like seculars, you're ultra-Orthodox, so of course you don't like seculars"
Often, this fallacy is committed by people who try to decide moral and legal questions by mechanical use of general laws.

Fallacy of division - attributing whole properties to a part

This fallacy is the opposite of attributing properties of a part to a whole. It fails because it assumes that a property of a particular thing must also be a property of its parts, or that a property of a collection of items is found in each individual item.
"You study at a prestigious college, so you must be rich"
"Ants can destroy trees, hence this ant can destroy trees"

 Register now for the rhetoric and persuasion course