D. damaging an opponent's argument. @
B. Damaging an opponents argument
There are many fallacies that lead to people believing things that are not true.
Do not use a strong or ridiculous claim that you can not support with evidence. Always use a good premises relevant to your thesis. By using supporting evidence you will avoid fallacies.
Fallacies can be created when individuals use faulty reasoning, such as making unsupported assumptions or using misleading language. These fallacies can then spread through repetition, confirmation bias, or manipulation of emotions. People may unintentionally perpetuate fallacies by sharing them without verifying the information, leading to their widespread dissemination.
They use false ideas or incorrect reasoning.
The use of fallacies and fallacious arguments is more the province of the religious. Atheists usually rely on facts, science, observation, reputable demonstrations and provable points rather than argument like "Everyone knows", "The Bible says"."We just can't see any other explanation but divine intervention" and such so common in in theist "explanations of worldly events.
This is not a type of logical fallacy B fallacies of close relationship. This is a made up phrase and has nothing to do with logical fallacy.The correct answers for types of logical fallacy are:A fallacies of relevanceC component fallaciesD fallacies of ambiguityE fallacies of omission
Irrelevant fallacies is what happen when people make question answer to not have what could be done in where happen have to begin an answer for an other fallacies, irrelevant right?
How is bias shown in an argument
Formal fallacies are errors in the structure of an argument, while informal fallacies are errors in the content or reasoning of an argument.
1-To avoid fallacy 2-for valid reasoning 3-to remove error or mistake 4-for power ful arguments 5-to use in slogans 6-to use in jokes 7-to make unanswerable situation 8-to make some one confuse 9-to use in poetry 10-to use in advertisement
to make you think you are making strong argument but engaged in flawed reasoning