Like Aristotle, the Jains recognize fallacies in thinking (abhasas) because each point of view (naya) can also be misinterpreted or misconstrued. Each abhasa relates to a specific naya. Many abhasas overlap with Aristolian fallacies and are best avoided for effective thinking, arguing and writing.
NAIGAMBHASA is a fallacy of the Naigama naya (Popular Point of View). This Jain fallacy combines the Aristolian fallacies of composition and division. Just as generalizations can be misleading, emphasizing specifics can ignore the larger context.
SANGRAHABHASA is a fallacy of Sangraha naya (General Point of View). Not only do the deliberate generalizations of this fallacy miss the point, they can make the specifics generic. Arguments are ineffective when they ignore specific exceptions.
VYAVAHARABHASA is a fallacy of the Vyavahara naya (External Point of View). A strictly empirical understanding does not include the practical. Ideologies are great, but they can ignore the realities of employing those ideologies.
RIJUSUTRABHASA is a fallacy of the Rjusutra naya (Straightforward Point of View). This Jain fallacy assumes that an argument is true throughout time. Any number of changes over time or space can prove and disprove an argument.
SABDABHASA is a fallacy of the Sabda naya (Literal Point of View). The meaning of words and phrases can change due to context. Idioms are rarely literal, but when taken literally, the meaning changes.
SAMABHIRUDABHASA is the fallacy of the Samabhiruda naya (Etymological Point of View). When even the smallest the differences between synonyms is ignored, the meaning can change. The similar isn't always the same.
EVAMBHUTABHASA is the fallacy of the Evambhuta naya (Actualized Point of View). This Jain fallacies that the original definition of a word is not absolute. The meaning of some words changes over time, especially with slang.
When it comes to arguments, fallacies suck. They demonstrate a need to win rather than be correct.