Table 2-1 Summary Table of Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance	Fallacies of Presumption	Fallacies of Ambiguity
Appeal to force or argumentum ad baculum	Hasty generalization (insufficient induction)	Equivocation (+)
Appeals to people or argumentum ad populum Bandwagon appeal Snob appeal	False cause (non-cause as cause?)	Amphiboly (+)
Appeal to pity Appeal to desire	Appeal to ignorance (?)	Accent (?)
Arguments ad hominem (contra negantes princia?) Abusive ad hominem Circumstantial ad hominem Tu quoque	Begging the question (+) Complex question (many questions as one)	Division (loci from whole to part?)
Red herring	Accident or sweeping generalization (?)	Composition (loci from part to whole?)
Appeal to unqualified authority (locus ab auctoritate)	Slippery slope
	Weak or false analogy
	False dichotomy
	Suppressed evidence

In contrast to the above-listed informal fallacies, formal fallacies in the modern interpretation are formally invalid arguments that people tend to mistake for valid arguments.

Example: Every man is an animal, a donkey is an animal; therefore, a donkey is a man.

This would be regarded as a case of the “fallacy of undistributed middle” in the modern textbook, whereas Buridan treats it as a case of the “fallacy of accident” (which he obviously interprets differently than the modern author, who talks about “fallacy of accident” among informal fallacies).

Question: does the modern division between formal and informal fallacies coincide with the Aristotelian division between fallacies of words (in dictione) and fallacies apart from words (extra dictionem), despite the obvious discrepancies between their subdivisions?