If you’re going to claim something then it should be clear:
1) what you’re claiming
2) what your reasons are for claiming it. (i.e. you need to justify the claim).
both these are relative to the ‘audience’.
Depending on the claim and who the audience is you might be able to get away with just mentioning the fallacy (or whatever) name—if, having provided only those details, both 1) and 2) will be clear.
Otherwise, you need to provide enough detail to satisfy 1) and 2). That may or may not involve explaining what the fallacy is about, and possibly what it is called.
There’s another concern here. Good communication generally requires that you don’t include (relative to the nature of the situation) extraneous or off-topic information. In some situations, it might be just enough to point out what was wrong with what the person said. Additionally explaining how their mistake was an instance of such and such a fallacy that could be inappropriate.
Here’s how I see it
If you’re going to claim something then it should be clear:
1) what you’re claiming 2) what your reasons are for claiming it. (i.e. you need to justify the claim).
both these are relative to the ‘audience’.
Depending on the claim and who the audience is you might be able to get away with just mentioning the fallacy (or whatever) name—if, having provided only those details, both 1) and 2) will be clear.
Otherwise, you need to provide enough detail to satisfy 1) and 2). That may or may not involve explaining what the fallacy is about, and possibly what it is called.
There’s another concern here. Good communication generally requires that you don’t include (relative to the nature of the situation) extraneous or off-topic information. In some situations, it might be just enough to point out what was wrong with what the person said. Additionally explaining how their mistake was an instance of such and such a fallacy that could be inappropriate.