Faulty generalizationsRed herring fallaciesConditional or questionable fallaciesCritical ThinkingCritical thinking involves making and assessing arguments. When thinking critically, logic and rationality come to the fore, and emotion should be put aside. Personal biases are allowed only insofar as objective evidence can support them. What matters is what you can prove, not what you feel or what you think should be true.Premise: a statement, or proposition, which forms the basis of an argument.Conclusion: a statement that can be logically drawn from a series of premises.Deductive argument: argument in which it is the intent of the author that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.Inductive argument: argument in which it is the intent of the author that if the premises are true, the conclusion probably follows.Syllogism: a series of two premises followed by a conclusion.Valid argument: an argument that has a structure/ form such that if its premises are true, its conclusion will necessarily also be true. Note that this does not mean that the conclusion *is* true, but only that *if* the premises are true, the conclusion will also be true.Sound argument: an argument that has a valid form, and premises that are true.Strong argument: the greater the chance that an inductive argument is true, the stronger it is.Weak argument: the lesser the chance that an inductive argument is true, the weaker it is.Fallacy: an error in reasoning.Whenever you are evaluating an argument:a) be as charitable to the opposition as is possible. Give the other side the benefit of the doubt, and the most generous interpretation possible.b) after showing that you fully understand your opponent’s position, and making it look as good as is possible, show why it is still wrong. Do this objectively, calmly, and rationally.c) Anticipate counter arguments to your position, point them out yourself, and provide a solution to those problems.Partial list of some formal and informal fallacies, courtesy of Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies(The idea that Wikipedia is academically useless is itself a fallacy.)A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without requiring an understanding of the argument's content.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.-Appeal to probability – assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.[2][3]-Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.[4]-Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]-Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multipleconditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]-Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[7]Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]-Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) orcannot be proven false (true).[13]-Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore-Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.-Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.-Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[14]-(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, youmust prove it is false;-Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with;-Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause-Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy ofthe heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[15]-Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[16]-Correlative-based fallacies oSuppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[17]-Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[18] oAmbiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated[19]-Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[20]-Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[21]-Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole[22]-Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[23]-False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality thereare more.[24]-If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms thatare selectively emotionally sensitive.-Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.-Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknownsin determining the probability of an event's taking place.[25]-Fallacy of