Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.

some examples:

1. Ad Hominem:

   • Description: This fallacy involves attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
   • Example:
     • Argument: “We should consider stricter environmental regulations.”
     • Response (Ad Hominem): “You’re just saying that because you work for an environmental organization.”
   • Issue: Discrediting the person does not invalidate the argument.

2. Straw Man:

   • Description: In this fallacy, an opponent’s argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute.
   • Example:
     • Opponent’s Argument: “We need better gun control policies.”
     • Straw Man Response: “They want to ban all guns. We can’t let them take away our rights.”
   • Issue: Misrepresenting the opponent’s position avoids addressing the actual argument.

3. Appeal to Authority:

   • Description: Relying on an authority figure’s opinion as evidence for an argument.
   • Example:
     • Argument: “Vaccines are safe and effective.”
     • Response (Appeal to Authority): “Dr. Smith said it, so it must be true.”
   • Issue: Expert opinion alone does not guarantee correctness.

4. False Dilemma:

   • Description: Presenting only two extreme options when more possibilities exist.
   • Example:
     • Argument: “Either you’re with us or against us.”
     • Issue: Oversimplifying complex situations.
   • Issue: Oversimplifying complex situations.