Fallacy types you should be able to identify when you see them.
| Hasty Generalization (sample size/type) | Missing the Point (non sequitur) | Post hoc ergo propter hoc (taking sequence to be cause) | Slippery slope (multiple claims of chained causation | Weak or false analogy (X is like Y so treat X as Y) |
| Appeal to (wrong/false) authority | Ad populum (incl., "bandwagon") | ad hominem & et tu quoque (against the person & "and you do it too!") | Appeal to pity | Appeal to ignorance |
| Straw man (badly summarizing the opposing argument) | Red herring (a special case of non sequitur in which the premise seems logically related but is irrelevant to the conclusion reached) | False dichotomy ([only "either x or y") | Begging the question (restated conclusion as premise or assuming a debatable premise) | Equivocation (switching meanings of a key word) |
For a former sychology professor's explanation of these and other (less common) fallacies, click on this link. You will find other online discussions of the logical fallacies, as well. Take all these as indicators of how seriously intellectuals take the knowledge of these terms and their correct use in analysis. Ken Pope, the author of the site, has a very complex scholarly history, but I would approve your use of his site as evidence for most English 104 purposes because of what he says on the "About" page explaining his career as a licensed psychologist and once chair of the American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee.