[
  {
    "name": "Ad hominem",
    "category": "Relevance",
    "definition": "Attacks the person instead of answering the claim.",
    "example": "\u201cYou are an idiot, so your evidence is wrong.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Straw man",
    "category": "Representation",
    "definition": "Replaces a position with a weaker or more extreme version.",
    "example": "\u201cSo you want everyone to do whatever they want?\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "False dichotomy",
    "category": "Structure",
    "definition": "Presents two choices while excluding viable alternatives.",
    "example": "\u201cYou are either with us or against us.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Appeal to authority",
    "category": "Evidence",
    "definition": "Treats an authority\u2019s view as sufficient proof without examining the reasons.",
    "example": "\u201cA famous scientist said it, so it must be true.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Bandwagon",
    "category": "Evidence",
    "definition": "Treats popularity as proof.",
    "example": "\u201cEverybody believes it, so it is correct.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Slippery slope",
    "category": "Causation",
    "definition": "Claims one step will trigger an extreme chain without supporting each link.",
    "example": "\u201cIf we allow this exception, every rule will disappear.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Circular reasoning",
    "category": "Structure",
    "definition": "Uses the conclusion as its own support.",
    "example": "\u201cThe policy is right because it is the correct policy.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Appeal to emotion",
    "category": "Evidence",
    "definition": "Uses emotional pressure as a substitute for support.",
    "example": "\u201cIf you cared, you would agree with me.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Hasty generalization",
    "category": "Induction",
    "definition": "Draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence.",
    "example": "\u201cTwo developers missed the deadline; developers are unreliable.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Post hoc",
    "category": "Causation",
    "definition": "Assumes sequence proves causation.",
    "example": "\u201cThe update installed, then the network failed, so the update caused it.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Tu quoque",
    "category": "Relevance",
    "definition": "Deflects by accusing the critic of similar behavior.",
    "example": "\u201cYou did it too, so your criticism does not count.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Moving the goalposts",
    "category": "Burden of proof",
    "definition": "Changes the required standard after evidence is presented.",
    "example": "\u201cThat study is not enough; now prove it in every country.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "No true Scotsman",
    "category": "Definition",
    "definition": "Redefines a group to dismiss counterexamples.",
    "example": "\u201cNo real expert would disagree.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Genetic fallacy",
    "category": "Relevance",
    "definition": "Judges a claim only by its origin.",
    "example": "\u201cThat idea came from social media, so it is false.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Cherry picking",
    "category": "Evidence",
    "definition": "Selects favorable evidence while ignoring relevant contrary evidence.",
    "example": "\u201cThese two months prove the trend, so the other ten months do not matter.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Red herring",
    "category": "Relevance",
    "definition": "Introduces a distracting issue instead of answering the point.",
    "example": "\u201cWhy discuss the budget when the office paint is ugly?\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Loaded question",
    "category": "Framing",
    "definition": "Embeds an unproven assumption in the question.",
    "example": "\u201cWhen did you stop misleading your team?\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Equivocation",
    "category": "Language",
    "definition": "Changes the meaning of a key word during the argument.",
    "example": "\u201cA theory is just a guess, so scientific theory is unreliable.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Appeal to ignorance",
    "category": "Evidence",
    "definition": "Treats lack of disproof as proof.",
    "example": "\u201cNobody has proven it impossible, so it is true.\u201d"
  },
  {
    "name": "Composition / division",
    "category": "Structure",
    "definition": "Assumes what is true of a part is true of the whole, or vice versa.",
    "example": "\u201cEvery component is light, so the assembled machine must be light.\u201d"
  }
]