24 A. Common informal fallacies with legal illustrations

1. Hasty generalisation — concluding from too few instances. "Two judges in this bench took bribes; therefore the whole judiciary is corrupt." Law students commit this when they read one case and write "Nepali courts always hold…"2. False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) — assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. "After the new Criminal Code, crime reporting rose; the Code caused crime to rise." (It may have improved reporting.)3. Begging the question (circular reasoning) — assuming the very point to be proved. "The accused is guilty because he committed the crime."4. *Ad hominem* — attacking the person instead of the argument. "My learned opponent's submission must be wrong; he has lost most of his cases." (A person's qualities do not determine the truth of their argument.)5. Appeal to emotion (ad misericordiam) — substituting pity, fear or popularity for proof. Arguing a negligence case purely by weeping over the victim without proving duty, breach and causation.6. Appeal to authority (ad verecundiam) — citing an authority outside its field ("an economist says the accused is innocent").7. Straw man — refuting a distorted version of the opponent's argument instead of the real one.8. False dilemma — presenting only two options when more exist: "either we acquit, or crime will flood the streets."9. Slippery slope — claiming, without proof, that…