Because of their variety of structure and application, fallacies are challenging to classify so as to satisfy all practitioners.
Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or content, such as classifying them as formal fallacies or informal fallacies, respectively.
Are there good reasons for holding that abortion is wrong?
[amazonshowcase_ac4a9f902dfa060e24ef42b62743b988] These then are some of the more common logical fallacies.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with premarital sex. An argument is rejected or regarded as mistaken or false because it comes from a bad or questionable source.
So is genocide and mass murder OK because nature has floods and tsunamis? A word or phrase is used in two different senses, or with two or more meanings. Examples: “You were born in Christian America, and that is why you are a Christian.” But this is irrelevant to the argument.
In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies, while formal fallacies may be clearly placed into the more precise category of logical (deductive) fallacies.
Yet, verbal fallacies may be placed into either informal or deductive classifications; compare equivocation which is a word or phrase based ambiguity (e.g., "he is mad", which may refer to either him being angry or clinically insane) to the fallacy of composition which is premise and inference based ambiguity (e.g., "this must be a good basketball team because each of its members is an outstanding player").
The issue is, are there good grounds for believing in Christianity?
“You are against abortion because you are a Catholic.” Whether or not one is a Catholic is beside the point.