Technique Library — Capito

Logical fallacy 14

Straw man Misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. 14% False dichotomy Presents only two options when more exist. 11% Ad hominem Attacks the person rather than the argument. 9% Slippery slope Claims one event will inevitably trigger a chain of negative consequences. 8% Circular reasoning Uses the conclusion as a premise in its own justification. 5% Non sequitur Draws a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises. 7% Hasty generalisation Draws a broad conclusion from too few examples. 9% Appeal to tradition Argues something is correct simply because it has always been done that way. 6% Appeal to novelty Argues something is better simply because it is new. 5% Whataboutism Deflects criticism by pointing to an unrelated wrongdoing elsewhere. 12% Red herring Introduces an irrelevant point to distract from the issue. 10% Loaded question Asks a question with a false or disputed assumption built in. 8% Moving the goalposts Shifts the required standard of evidence after it has been met. 6% Nirvana fallacy Rejects a workable solution because it isn't perfect. 7%

False authority 8

Unnamed expert Cites vague or anonymous authority to lend credibility. 18% Credential mismatch Invokes expertise from an unrelated field. 6% Bandwagon Implies something is correct because many people believe it. 7% Appeal to authority Uses an expert's status to close down debate rather than engage with the argument. 15% Institutional shielding Hides a claim behind an institution's name without linking to specific evidence. 16% False consensus Claims a majority view exists without evidence to support the claim. 11% Anonymous sourcing Attributes claims to unnamed insiders with no way to verify. 13% Outdated authority Cites a real expert or study whose conclusions have since been revised. 8%

Framing & omission 9

Selective framing Presents facts in a way that emphasizes a predetermined conclusion. 19% Omission Leaves out key context that would change the reader's interpretation. 16% Loaded language Uses emotionally charged words to bias the reader's perception. 22% Euphemism Uses softer language to minimize or obscure the severity of something. 14% Misleading headline The headline implies something the article body doesn't support. 17% One-sided sourcing All sources share the same perspective; opposing views are absent. 20% False balance Presents two sides as equally credible when evidence strongly favours one. 12% Buried lede The most important fact appears late or briefly while less significant details lead. 11% Context collapse A quote or event is presented stripped of the context that would change its meaning. 13%

Emotional manipulation 12

Fear appeal Exploits fear to bypass rational evaluation. 17% Outrage bait Deliberately provokes anger to drive engagement over reflection. 13% Moral panic Frames an issue as an urgent threat to social values. 10% Appeal to emotion Uses emotional language to drive a conclusion rather than make an argument. 21% False urgency Creates a sense of emergency to force a decision before proper evaluation. 9% Catastrophising Presents an uncertain outcome as a guaranteed worst-case scenario. 11% Sentimental appeal Uses emotional stories to bypass the argument and reach the conclusion directly. 14% Dehumanisation Describes a group of people in ways that reduce their humanity. 7% Us vs them Divides the world into two camps — one good, one bad — removing all nuance. 15% Guilt tripping Makes the reader feel personally responsible for a problem to drive a reaction. 8% Flattery Compliments the reader to lower their guard before making a claim. 6% Nostalgia appeal Romanticises the past to make the present seem broken by comparison. 10%

Data & evidence issue 10

Cherry-picking Selects only the data that supports the argument. 12% Misleading statistic Uses technically accurate numbers in a way that creates a false impression. 14% False equivalence Treats two unequal things as if they were the same. 9% Misleading correlation Treats two things that occur together as if one caused the other. 10% Unverifiable claim Makes a specific claim with no source attached that can be checked. 16% Fabricated claim States something demonstrably false as fact. 5% Sample size abuse Draws firm conclusions from a dataset too small to support them. 9% Base rate neglect Presents a number without the baseline needed to understand what it means. 11% Undefined metric Cites a number without defining what it actually measures. 13% Anecdotal evidence Uses a single personal case to support a general claim. 18%

Rhetorical device 7

Appeal to nature Claims something is good or bad based on whether it is 'natural'. 8% Repetition Repeats a claim to make it feel more true through familiarity. 15% Question as assertion Uses a rhetorical question to imply a conclusion without stating it. 11% Weasel words Uses vague qualifiers to imply a claim without committing to it. 19% Appeal to inevitability Frames an outcome as unavoidable to make alternatives seem pointless. 12% Thought-terminating cliché Uses a stock phrase to shut down further questioning. 10% Strategic vagueness Uses deliberately ambiguous language so different readers read in different meanings. 14%