1. fallacies involving ambiguity
1.1. fallacy of equivocation
1.1.1. when multiple meanings of a word are used in a context where validity requires a single meaning for that word
1.2. fallacy of amphiboly
1.2.1. multiple meanings of a sentence are used in a context where validity requires a single meaning and the multiple meanings are due to sentence structure
1.3. fallacy of composition
1.3.1. either an invalid inference from the nature of the parts to the nature of the whole or an invalid inference from the attributes of members of a group to attributes of the group
1.4. fallacy of division
1.4.1. either an invalid inference from the nature of the whole to the nature of the parts or an invalid inference from the nature of a group to the nature of its members
2. fallacies involving unwarranted assumptions
2.1. begging the question
2.1.1. when an argument assumes the point to be proved
2.2. false dilemma
2.2.1. when one uses a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered.
2.3. appeal to unreliable authority
2.3.1. appeal to an authority when the reliability of the authority may be reasonably doubted.
2.4. false cause fallacy
2.4.1. when one possible cause of a phenomenon is assumed to be a cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible causes
2.5. complex question fallacy
2.5.1. asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question
3. informal fallacies
3.1. formal fallacy is an error in reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form
3.2. informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not involve the explicit use of an invalid form
4. fallacies of irrelevance
4.1. argument against the person (ad hominem)
4.1.1. attacking the person who asserts a statement rather than providing a critique of the statement itself
4.2. abusive ad hominem
4.2.1. attempt to discredit an argument or view by launching a personal attack
4.3. circumstantial ad hominem
4.3.1. attempt to discredit an argument by calling to attention the situation of those who advance it
4.3.1.1. if someone has something to gain from the argument if the conclusion is accepted
4.4. tu quoque
4.4.1. discredit an argument by suggesting that the opponent is hypocritical
4.5. straw man
4.5.1. arguer attacks a misrepresentation of the opponents view
4.6. appeal to force (ad balculum)
4.6.1. conclusion is defended by a threat to the wellbeing of those who don't accept it
4.7. appeal to the people (ad populum)
4.7.1. attempt to persuade a person or people by appealing to the desire to accepted or valued
4.8. appeal to pity
4.8.1. attempt to support a conclusion by evoking pity in the audience
4.9. appeal to ignorance
4.9.1. claim is true because it hasn't been proven false
4.9.1.1. or
4.9.1.1.1. claim is false because it hasn't been proven true
4.10. red herring
4.10.1. premises of argument are logically unrelated to the conclusion