1. Extreme or absolute phrasing. (Words like always and never which allow for no exceptions.)
2. Characterizations. Adjectives that attribute merit or adjectives that demean without factual support. (Outstanding authority John Smith". Discredited activist judge Jim Jones ")
3. Citation of anonymous authority. (A nationally famous physician states ")
4. Absence of contrary information. (Writer withholds or fails to discuss dissenting opinion and conflicting data.)
5. Ad-hominem arguments that appeal to feelings rather than reason.(Many rants are passionate and evoke prejudices while lacking factual substance.)
6. Ad-hominem phrasing that attacks the character of an individual.
7. Innuendo, insinuation an indirect statement that implies something without actually asserting it.
8. Metaphors and similes that grossly oversimplify, usually diverting attention from the inconvenient complexity of reality. (A great way to finesse flawed logic.)
9. Denial. The refusal to even consider well known conflicting information, dismissing it or ignoring it.
10. Sophism. Clever or fallacious argument that leads to a wrong conclusion. Sophism can look like a rational, reasonable argument, but usually ignores some facts and embellishes others to make a case. Connecting some of the dots, omitting others, to show a false pattern. Patternicity that imagines or creates meaning from noise.
11. Misapplied authority Seeking to attribute authority to the opinion of someone whose expertise does not extend to the topic. (Medical opinions of a Disk Jockey)
12. Fear mongering.
14. Sensational assertions.
15. Too good or too bad to be true.
16. Arguments that assert a conspiracy that would be hard to conceal -- one that would require the silent complicity of a large number of diverse people. (In real life, leaks happen, whistle-blowers surface, etc.)
1 | 2