Fault Library

A claim that an entity has done something illegal or wrong, typically made without definitive proof yet presented for consideration.

An assertion whose precise meaning, scope, or verifiability is obscured because a critical term within it is insufficiently defined for the context, inherently vague, or clearly open to multiple interpretations that are not disambiguated.

1. Regardless of whether it is accurate, the claim's terms have a clear common definition, allowing it to be proved or disproved based on objective evidence. 2. A statement asserting something as an objectively verifiable reality.

1. Regardless of accuracy, the claim cannot be definitively proved or disproved based on objective evidence, being based on values or beliefs and/or containing terms without a clear common definition. 2. A statement expressing a belief, judgment, value, or feeling.

A claim making a sweeping statement (often using universals like 'all,' 'every,' 'always,' 'never') without adequate qualification, making it hard to support and often inaccurate.

The annotator is not confident that the claim is either Factual or Opinion.

Text that critiques or attacks an entity rather than addressing the merits of their argument, position or idea.

Attacks an entity based on their character, rather than addressing the merits of their argument.

Attacks an entity based on their circumstances rather than the merits of their argument.

Attacks an entity based on their associations, rather than addressing their argument.

Accuses an entity of hypocrisy, rather than addressing the merits of their argument.

The fallacy of concluding that because Event B followed Event A, Event A must have caused Event B, without sufficient evidence.

Asserts a conclusion is true based on an authority whose expertise is not legitimate/relevant, or whose bias is undue, or where other expert viewpoints are ignored.

Argues a claim is true because it has not been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true.

The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

The conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.

Presents a situation as having only two options when other viable alternatives exist.

Improperly compares two things as equivalent by ignoring significant differences.

Mistakenly believing that past independent events influence future probabilities.

Argues something is correct because it aligns with an idealized past “golden age.”

Branching to a general conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

A question that contains a controversial or unjustified presupposition that biases the answer.

Assumes something is valid because it is 'natural.'

Preemptively discredits by presenting adverse information before introducing the subject.

Introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue.

Asserts a small step will inevitably lead to a significant (usually negative) chain of events without evidence.

Misrepresents an argument to make it easier to defeat.

Continuing a course because of past investments, rather than rational future assessment.

Occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent words.

Use of informal words or phrases not typically found in formal writing.

Use of formatting, intensifiers, repetition, or structure to highlight content.

Specifically italicized text for emphasis.

Characterizing something as more significant than warranted.

A question that guides or pressures toward a particular answer without being a loaded question.

Words or phrases with significant emotional connotations.

Connotations that depend on the reader’s biases.

Emotive language that is positive or laudatory.

Emotive language that is negative or insulting.

Recognizable phrase or text block propagated online, often for comedic or satirical effects.

Figure of speech applying a term to something to which it’s not literally applicable.

Emphasizing negative aspects to cast subject in a non-neutral way (beyond single words).

An “Opinion Claim” presented without subjective markers, reading like objective fact.

An OAEF that is speculative.

Presenting debatable matters with excessive assertiveness or finality, dismissing alternatives.

Language where intended meaning differs from literal (often ironic or exaggerated).

Language that is literally true but phrased to encourage a biased interpretation.

Quotation marks used to elicit doubt or attention, not for introducing unfamiliar terms.

A figure of speech using “like” or “as” to compare two different things.

Characterizing something as significantly less than warranted.

Language that creates strong sensory mental pictures.

The omission of information crucial for a fair and accurate understanding.

Presenting or conveying something without important details, nuances, or perspectives.

Refers to something the audience likely wouldn't reasonably know.

Contains obscure or poorly constructed text making intended meaning difficult to determine (excluding vague claim terms).

A hyperlink citation whose content does not accurately support the author’s claim.

Information presented without clear attribution (e.g., “experts say,” “studies show”).

The author clearly signals that a statement is their opinion (e.g., 'I think,' 'in my view').

The author fairly presents a significant counter-viewpoint, demonstrating intellectual honesty and balance.

A clause that could not be made more neutral through wording or structure.

A sentence that could not be made more neutral through wording or structure.

A term that couldn’t be replaced for something more neutral.