Other types of fallacies
This fallacy uses a shifted meaning, where the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example:
"I can say any thing bad about taekwondo."
Does this mean your cannot say anything bad about taekwondo because it is all good, or does it mean there are bad things to say but you are not permitted to say them. Be particularly wary of this fallacy while browsing the Internet, since it is easy to misread the emphasis of what has been written.
As mentioned in the arguments topic, there is a difference between an argument and an explanation. If in trying to establish A as true, B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is used to give an after-the-fact explanation that does not apply to other situations. Often it will appear to be an argument. For example, if we assume that the master treats all his students equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
"The master healed my headache."
"So, will he heal others who have headache?"
"Maybe, the ways of the master are mysterious."
Affirmation of the Consequent
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication displayed in the arguments topic. This is the converse of Denial of the Antecedent fallacy. For example:
Argumentum ad Lazarum
Argumentum ad Logicam
This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember, fallacious arguments may arrive at true conclusions. For example:
"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, the result shows that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so are you telling me that 16/64 is not equal to 1/4?"
Argumentum ad Nauseam
This fallacy is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. This fallacy uses constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over until you are sick of hearing it. For example:
"Democrats care more for the poor than do republicans."
Argumentum ad Novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem. It is the fallacy of asserting that something is better, or more correct, simply because it is new, or newer than something else. For example:
Argumentum ad Numerum
This fallacy is closely related to Argumentum ad Populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that the proposition is correct. For example:
Audiatur et Altera Pars
People often argue from assumptions that they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all your assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.