Ad Hominem
Type 1 · Category
SINC → VER (Axis)Attacking the person instead of the argument.
A category swap. Evidence about a speaker's sincerity is offered where the claim's own axis calls for veridical support — is it so in the world? Whether the speaker is honest and whether the claim is true are different kinds of question, settled by different methods; the move trades one for the other.
Example“You can't trust his budget figures — he lied about a fishing trip.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Type 2 · Composition
CAUSE misapplied (Operator)Because B followed A, concluding A caused B.
An operator applied past its license. The CAUSE relation needs more than sequence to compose legitimately; here bare temporal precedence is read as causation. The form looks like a causal claim, but nothing licenses it to be one.
Example“I wore the red socks and we won — the socks did it.”
Begging the Question
Type 2 · Composition
RESULT misused (Operator)Assuming the conclusion among the premises.
The RESULT of an inference is smuggled in as one of its inputs. The composition has the shape of a derivation but licenses nothing — the conclusion was already granted before the argument ran.
Example“It's reliable because it says so, and it wouldn't say so if it weren't reliable.”
Survivorship Bias
Type 3 · Validation
SELECTIVE method (Method)Judging from the winners while the losers are invisible.
The right question, the wrong habitat. Sampling is a legitimate validation method — but only over a frame that includes the failures. When the frame quietly excludes them, the method no longer warrants the conclusion drawn from it.
Example“Every founder I admire dropped out, so dropping out works.”
Hasty Generalization
Type 2 · rootType 4 · locus
ABSTR license (Operator) + INSTANCE → CATEGORY (Level)A broad rule drawn from too few cases.
A compound, and the one that explains why pure Stratification hosts no everyday fallacy. The inference crosses a level — instance up to category (Type 4 is the locus) — but what makes it illicit is the failed operator license: the abstraction lacks an adequate sampling warrant (Type 2 is the root). Supply the warrant and the level-crossing is legitimate; delete the crossing and there is nothing left to evaluate.
Example“Two of them showed up late, so the whole team is unreliable.”
False Dilemma
Type 5 · Frame
BINARY imposed (Contrast)Two options presented as if they were all of them.
A precondition failure. Before any distinction can be judged, the space of alternatives has to be correctly configured. Forcing a multidimensional field into a binary corrupts that space itself — the argument isn't wrong inside the frame; the frame is wrong.
Example“You're either with us or against us.”
Equivocation
Type 5 · Frame
FRAME drift over occurrences (temporal)A term quietly changes meaning mid-argument.
A frame failure over time. The opposition a word draws must hold steady across its uses; when the distinction drifts between occurrences, the terms no longer name the same contrast they started with — an identity-persistence failure (Paper III §6).
Example“Nothing is better than happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore…”
Appeal to Authority
Type 3 · ValidationType 2 · Composition
Invoking an authority to settle the claim — filed under two readings, by what does the illicit work.
Facet A · habitat mismatchAUTH / TESTIMONY misapplied (Method) Expert testimony used outside the expert's axis of competence. Testimony is a real validation method — it just doesn't warrant claims off its domain.
Facet B · evidential substitutionEVID[A] ↛ A (R9) The mere fact that a claim is authoritatively asserted treated as establishing it — the M[A] ↛ A schema in the flesh: a source-marking modulation collapsed into the claim it modulates.
Example“A Nobel physicist endorses this diet, so it works.” — competence off-axis, and assertion mistaken for proof.