critical thinking logical fallacies list

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - Logical Fallacies

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, logical fallacies, critical thinking and decision-making logical fallacies.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: Logical Fallacies

Lesson 7: logical fallacies.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/how-critical-thinking-can-change-the-game/content/

Logical fallacies

If you think about it, vegetables are bad for you. I mean, after all, the dinosaurs ate plants, and look at what happened to them...

Let's pause for a moment: That argument was pretty ridiculous. And that's because it contained a logical fallacy .

A logical fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid . They can involve distorting or manipulating facts, drawing false conclusions, or distracting you from the issue at hand. In theory, it seems like they'd be pretty easy to spot, but this isn't always the case.

Watch the video below to learn more about logical fallacies.

Sometimes logical fallacies are intentionally used to try and win a debate. In these cases, they're often presented by the speaker with a certain level of confidence . And in doing so, they're more persuasive : If they sound like they know what they're talking about, we're more likely to believe them, even if their stance doesn't make complete logical sense.

False cause

One common logical fallacy is the false cause . This is when someone incorrectly identifies the cause of something. In my argument above, I stated that dinosaurs became extinct because they ate vegetables. While these two things did happen, a diet of vegetables was not the cause of their extinction.

Maybe you've heard false cause more commonly represented by the phrase "correlation does not equal causation ", meaning that just because two things occurred around the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other.

A straw man is when someone takes an argument and misrepresents it so that it's easier to attack . For example, let's say Callie is advocating that sporks should be the new standard for silverware because they're more efficient. Madeline responds that she's shocked Callie would want to outlaw spoons and forks, and put millions out of work at the fork and spoon factories.

A straw man is frequently used in politics in an effort to discredit another politician's views on a particular issue.

Begging the question

Begging the question is a type of circular argument where someone includes the conclusion as a part of their reasoning. For example, George says, “Ghosts exist because I saw a ghost in my closet!"

George concluded that “ghosts exist”. His premise also assumed that ghosts exist. Rather than assuming that ghosts exist from the outset, George should have used evidence and reasoning to try and prove that they exist.

Since George assumed that ghosts exist, he was less likely to see other explanations for what he saw. Maybe the ghost was nothing more than a mop!

False dilemma

The false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy where a situation is presented as being an either/or option when, in reality, there are more possible options available than just the chosen two. Here's an example: Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan doesn't answer. She then thinks, "Oh, Ethan must not be home."

Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers the door or he isn't home. In reality, he could be sleeping, doing some work in the backyard, or taking a shower.

Most logical fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically . Make sure to ask questions: Is logic at work here or is it simply rhetoric? Does their "proof" actually lead to the conclusion they're proposing? By applying critical thinking, you'll be able to detect logical fallacies in the world around you and prevent yourself from using them as well.

Logical Fallacies

Definition of a 'fallacy'.

A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth.

A formal fallacy is defined as an error that can be seen within the argument's form. Every formal fallacy is a non sequitur (or, an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.)

An informal fallacy refers to an argument whose proposed conclusion is not supported by the premises. This creates an unpersuasive or unsatisfying conclusion.

What are Logical Fallacies?

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning or argumentation that can undermine the validity of an argument. They are often used to mislead or distract from the truth, or to win an argument by appealing to emotions rather than reason. It's important to be aware of these fallacies in order to critically evaluate arguments and avoid being misled.

These mistakes in reasoning can be both intentional and unintentional, often leading to false or misleading conclusions. They undermine the strength and credibility of an argument, making it difficult to persuade others or arrive at accurate judgments.

There are two main types of logical fallacies: formal and informal. Formal fallacies involve errors in the structure or form of an argument, while informal fallacies arise from errors in the content, context, or delivery of the argument.

Logical fallacies can be difficult to identify, as they often involve seemingly reasonable arguments that, upon closer examination, reveal underlying flaws. To avoid falling prey to logical fallacies, it is essential to develop critical thinking skills and a solid understanding of the principles of logic and argumentation. By doing so, one can more effectively evaluate arguments and engage in rational discourse, leading to more accurate and reliable conclusions. | More

Books About Logical Fallacies

A few books to help you get a real handle on logical fallacies.

Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)

We all talk, argue, and make choices every day. Sometimes, the things we or others say can be a bit off or don't make complete sense. These mistakes in our thinking can make our points weaker or even wrong.

Logical fallacies are mistakes in how we reason or argue a point. They can be small mix-ups or times when someone tries to trick us on purpose.

By learning about these errors, you can better spot them when you hear or read them. As you read on, you'll learn more about these tricky mistakes and how to steer clear of them.

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Imagine you're piecing together a puzzle. Each piece needs to fit perfectly for the whole picture to make sense. In conversations and debates, our arguments are like those puzzle pieces. They need to fit well together, making our points clear and strong.

However, sometimes, a piece might be bent or out of place, making the whole picture a bit off. That's how logical fallacies work in our discussions. They're like those misfit puzzle pieces that can make our whole argument seem less clear or even wrong.

Logical fallacies, in simple terms, are errors or mistakes in our reasoning. You might come across them when you're chatting with a friend, watching the news, or even reading a book.

Some of these mistakes happen because we don't know better, while others might be used intentionally to mislead or persuade.

Let's say you're discussing which ice cream flavor is the best. Your friend might say, "Well, my grandma thinks vanilla is the best, so it must be!" This kind of reasoning isn't strong because one person's opinion, even if it's your grandma, doesn't prove a point for everyone.

This is an example of a fallacy called appeal to authority . It’s just one of the many logical fallacies you'll come across.

When we talk about logical fallacies, we often categorize them into two main types: informal and formal.

Informal Fallacies

Think of these as mistakes or errors in reasoning that arise from the content of the arguments rather than the structure.

They're called 'informal' because they deal with everyday language and common conversations. These fallacies often involve statements that might sound true initially, but upon closer inspection, they don't hold up.

Examples include the ad hominem argument or fallacy, where someone attacks the person rather than their argument, or the appeal to authority , where someone assumes a statement is true because an expert or authority says so.

Formal Fallacies

These are a bit more, well, formal. They deal with errors in the structure or form of an argument.

It doesn't matter what the content of the argument is; if it's structured wrongly, it's a formal fallacy. You can think of these like a math problem: if you don't follow the right steps, you won't get the right answer.

An example of a formal fallacy is the affirming the consequent , which goes like this: "If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained." While the statements might sound logical, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

In a nutshell, while informal fallacies stem from the content of arguments and often arise in casual conversations, formal fallacies are all about structure, and they can be spotted regardless of the topic being discussed.

All fallacies can be proven wrong because they have flawed reasoning or insufficient supporting evidence, make an irrelevant point, or don't have an actual argument. Even if it seems like they come to a logical conclusion, they do so in an illogical way.

Common Logical Fallacies

Let's look at some of the most common logical fallacy examples.

Ad Hoc Fallacy

This is a fallacy where someone makes up a reason on the spot to support their argument, even if it doesn't make sense.

Picture this: you're debating about climate change and its causes. Your friend, instead of using scientific evidence, says, "Well, it's just a cycle the Earth goes through. My grandpa said so!" This is an Ad Hoc Fallacy. The reason is made up on the spot and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

This is when someone attacks the person instead of their argument.

Imagine you're chatting about which game is the best, and instead of giving reasons, someone says, "Well, you wear glasses so that you wouldn’t understand!" That's not a good reason, right?

Anecdotal Fallacy

An Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when someone relies on personal experiences or individual cases as evidence for a general claim, overlooking larger and more reliable data.

Appeal to Pity

An Appeal to Pity Fallacy is an argument that attempts to win you over by eliciting your sympathy or compassion rather than relying on logical reasoning.

Straw Man Fallacy

Here, someone changes or oversimplifies another person's argument to make it easier to attack. It's like building a weak version of the original point and then knocking it down.

Person A: "I think we should have more regulations on industrial pollution to protect the environment." Person B: "Why do you want to destroy jobs and hurt our economy by shutting down all industries?" In this case, Person A never said they wanted to shut down all industries, but Person B set up a "straw man" version of Person A's argument to knock it down.

Ecological Fallacy

An Ecological Fallacy occurs when you make conclusions about individual members of a group based only on the characteristics of the group as a whole.

• Bandwagon Fallacy

This one's about popularity. Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it's true.

Remember when everyone believed the earth was flat? Being popular doesn't always mean being right.

Loaded Question

A loaded question fallacy is a trick question that contains an assumption or constraint that unfairly influences the answer, leading you toward a particular conclusion.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

This is when someone says that if one thing happens, other bad things will follow without good reasons.

Like if someone says, "If we let kids have phones, next they'll want to drive cars at 10 years old!" It's a big jump without clear logic connecting the two.

False Cause Fallacy

This is thinking one thing causes another just because they happen together.

Like believing every time you wear a certain shirt, your team wins. It's fun to think about, but the shirt probably isn't the reason for the win.

Appeal to Probability

An Appeal to Probability Fallacy is a misleading reasoning technique that assumes if something is likely, it must be certain to happen.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

We talked about this one earlier! Just because someone famous or important believes something doesn't make it true.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This is when someone makes a broad claim based on very limited evidence .

For instance, after seeing two movies with a particular actor and not liking them, you declare, "All movies with this actor are terrible."

False Dichotomy Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone presents only two options or solutions when more exist.

Example: "You're either with us, or you're against us." In reality, someone might be neutral or have a more nuanced opinion.

Proof Fallacy (Argument from Ignorance)

This is when someone assumes something is true because it hasn't been proven false or vice versa.

Example: "No one has ever proven that aliens don't exist, so they must be real."

Tu Quoque Fallacy

This fallacy points out hypocrisy as an argument against the claim. It's like saying, "You too!"

Example: "Why are you telling me not to smoke when you used to smoke?"

Post Hoc Fallacy ( Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

This fallacy assumes that if 'B' occurred after 'A', then 'A' must have caused 'B'.

Example: "I wore my lucky socks, and then passed my exam. My socks made me pass!"

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This fallacy happens when someone redefines a term to fit their own writing or argument or to exclude a counterexample.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and puts sugar in his porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

This cognitive bias is when someone focuses on a subset of their data and ignores the rest to make a point.

Looking at a large set of data and only selecting the bits that support your claim, like a shooter firing randomly at a barn wall, then painting a target around the shots that are closest together.

Middle Ground Fallacy

Middle Ground is the belief that a compromise between two conflicting positions must be the truth or the best solution.

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original argument.

For instance, when asked about pollution levels, a politician says, "We have some of the best parks in the country, and our citizens love spending time in nature."

False Analogy Fallacy

Any time someone says "X is like Y" to compare one thing with something else that isn't the same but does share similarities, they're making a false analogy .

For instance, saying cars and bicycles are the same because they both have wheels is an oversimplification.

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

This logical fallacy makes the mistake of using a claim to support itself . A is true because B is true.

Perhaps you've seen a commercial claiming a product is the best because so many people buy it. But when pressed on how they know so many buy it, they respond because the product is the best.

Accident Fallacy

An Accident Fallacy is the misuse of a general rule by applying it to a specific case it doesn’t properly address.

Begging the Question Fallacy

A begging-the question-fallacy occurs when the argument's conclusion is assumed in its premise. In other words, it's a form of circular reasoning where the thing you're trying to prove is already assumed to be true.

• Appeal to Ignorance

An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.

Fallacy of Composition

A fallacy of composition is the flawed reasoning that concludes what is true for individual parts must also be true for the entire group or system they belong to.

Equivocation Fallacy

An equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with two meanings in the same argument, leading to confusion or a misleading conclusion.

Naturalistic Fallacy

A naturalistic fallacy , also known as the appeal to nature fallacy, comes to a false conclusion by assuming that everything in nature is moral and right.

Why Do We Fall for Fallacies?

Everyone, at some point, has believed in something that turned out to be not entirely true. Just like when we believe in myths or fairy tales , there's something in our brains that can sometimes make us accept ideas without fully questioning them. This is where logical fallacies sneak in.

Firstly, our brains love shortcuts . These shortcuts, called heuristics , help us make decisions faster.

For example, if you've always had great pizza from a particular restaurant, the next time you think of pizza, your brain will likely suggest that place.

But shortcuts can also lead us astray. If someone speaks confidently, our brains might take a shortcut and believe them, even if what they're saying has mistakes.

Secondly, emotions play a big role . We're humans, after all! If someone tells a sad story, we might feel so touched that we don't stop to think if the story proves the point they're making.

Or if everyone in our group believes something, we might feel the need to fit in and believe it too. This is known as groupthink , a classic trap many fall into.

Lastly, sometimes it's just easier . Questioning everything and thinking critically can be tiring. So, there are moments when we might accept something because it's simpler or because we don't want to start an argument.

But here's the good news: by learning about logical fallacies and understanding why we sometimes fall for them, you can train your brain to spot and avoid these traps.

The History of Logical Fallacies

Back in the day, long before smartphones and computers, people gathered and debated big ideas in places like Greece. One of the smartest guys around then was a man named Aristotle . He's often thought of as the first person who cared about logical thinking.

Aristotle started to notice that some arguments, even if they sounded good, had problems in them. He began to point out these mistakes and gave them names. Many of the fallacies he talked about are still recognized today!

After Aristotle, many other thinkers also became interested in how we argue and reason. They noticed that these mistakes, or fallacies, weren't just random errors. They followed patterns.

Fast forward to modern times, and this study hasn't stopped. It's become even more important.

Today, with information everywhere - on TV, the internet, and social media - it's crucial to sort out what's reliable from what's not . Teachers, writers, and even politicians study logical fallacies to communicate better and avoid misleading people.

Basic Argument Structure

A good argument is built piece by piece, ensuring each is supported by the other. Understanding how arguments are put together helps you spot when a part of the argument doesn't make sense.

At the heart of any argument are two main parts: premises and conclusions .

Think of the premises as the foundation of the argument. They're the facts or reasons you give. The conclusion is the point you're trying to make based on those reasons.

Let's use a simple example. Imagine you say:

• All dogs bark. (This is a premise.)
• Rover is a dog. (This is another premise.)
• So, Rover barks. (This is the conclusion.)

In this case, the argument is pretty solid. Both premises support the conclusion. But, if you have a shaky premise like "All cats bark," your conclusion will be off, even if it sounds right.

Sometimes, arguments have more than two premises, or they might be more complicated. But no matter how big or fancy the argument is, the same rule applies: the premises must be solid to support a good conclusion.

Logical Fallacy Examples in Life

Logical fallacies might seem small or harmless, but they can influence our decisions, beliefs, and actions in significant ways.

Advertising

Consider the world of advertising. Ads often use emotional appeals or bandwagon techniques to convince you to buy a product.

"Everyone's using this toothpaste, so you should too!" or "This celebrity loves our shoes, and you will too!"

If we don't recognize these as bandwagon or appeal to authority fallacies, we might end up spending money on things we don't need.

Social Media

Then there's the realm of social media. We've all seen heated debates in comment sections.

People might attack someone's character instead of their ideas, which is the ad hominem fallacy. Or, someone might oversimplify another person's viewpoint, setting up a straw man argument to easily tear it down.

When we're unaware of these tactics, it's easy to get dragged into unproductive or hurtful conversations.

And it's not just online. In real life, we make decisions based on information from friends, family, news, and many other sources.

If we're not careful, we might base important choices on faulty logic. Like believing a certain health remedy works just because a famous person endorses it without checking the actual science behind it.

Tips to Avoid Falling for Logical Fallacies

Understanding logical fallacies is half the battle. But how do you avoid them in real life? It's a bit like avoiding potholes on a road. Once you know where they are and what they look like, you can steer clear.

Here are some handy tips to help you navigate the landscape of logic more safely.

• Stay Curious: Always be open to learning. The more knowledge you gather, the better you'll be able to recognize when something doesn't add up.
• Question Everything: Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it is. Like a detective, look for evidence and ask yourself if an argument makes sense.
• Slow Down: Our world is fast-paced. But sometimes, taking a moment to think before responding or making a decision can save you from falling into a logical trap.
• Stay Humble: Remember, it's okay to be wrong. If someone points out a flaw in your reasoning, thank them. It's a chance to learn and grow.
• Discuss with Others: Talking things out can be a great way to spot flaws. Different perspectives can shine a light on areas you might have missed.
• Educate Yourself: There are plenty of resources, including books and courses, that can deepen your understanding of logical thinking. The more you learn, the sharper your logic skills will become.
• Practice Makes Perfect: Like any skill, spotting logical fallacies gets easier with practice. Challenge yourself by analyzing arguments in articles, shows, or conversations. The more you do it, the better you'll get.

Remember, nobody's perfect. We all slip up from time to time. But with these tips in your toolkit, you'll be well on your way to clearer, more logical thinking.

Spot the Fallacy Quiz

Try to identify each fallacy based on the examples provided. The answers are provided at the end.

• "My mom said that broccoli is good for me, so it must be true."
• "Either you stand with us, or you’re against us."
• "She can’t be a great scientist. Have you seen how disorganized her office is?"
• "We know our product is the best because it’s the top-selling item in its category."
• "He can’t be a criminal; he comes from a nice family and attended a prestigious university."
• "Well, you smoke cigarettes, so you have no right to tell me not to eat junk food."
• "We can’t let the students have extra recess time; soon, they’ll want the whole school day to be a playground."
• "Everyone’s going to the big football game, so it must be amazing."
• "No one has proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real."
• "He’s never been to Asia, so he can't possibly know how to prepare Asian cuisine."
• "You can’t trust John’s political opinion because he’s just a mechanic."
• "We’ve always done it this way, so it’s the best way to keep doing it."
• "You believe in evolution? Well, that’s just a theory!"
• "If you cared about the environment, you wouldn't drive a car."
• "Since you didn’t deny the allegations immediately, you must be guilty."
• "We don’t know what causes thunder, so it must be the gods showing their anger."
• "This anti-aging cream must work; see all these photos of people who look younger after using it!"
• "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!"
• "If we allow people to protest, it will encourage lawlessness and chaos."
• "We can't believe in climate change. Think of all the jobs we will lose in traditional industries!"
• Appeal to Authority
• False Dichotomy/Black and White Fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy
• Slippery Slope
• Argument from Ignorance
• No True Scotsman
• Appeal to Tradition
• Black-and-White Fallacy
• Argument from Silence
• God of the Gaps/Argument from Ignorance
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
• Appeal to Consequence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Logical Fallacies

What is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is an error or flaw in reasoning. These errors can weaken arguments and can be intentional or unintentional. They often appear to sound convincing but are based on faulty logic.

Why do people use logical fallacies? Some people might use them unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge or clarity in thinking. Others might use them strategically to persuade or deceive, especially if they believe their audience won't recognize the fallacy.

Are all fallacies intentional? No. Many fallacies are the result of honest mistakes or oversights in reasoning. However, some can be used manipulatively in debates, advertisements, or persuasive speeches.

What’s the difference between an informal and a formal fallacy? Informal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning based on the content of an opponent's argument, often arising in everyday language. Formal fallacies are structural errors in an argument, regardless of the argument's content.

Can a statement be true even if it contains a logical fallacy? Yes. A fallacy indicates flawed reasoning, not necessarily a false conclusion. However, conclusions reached through fallacious reasoning should be critically evaluated.

How can I improve my ability to spot logical fallacies? Educate yourself on different types of fallacies, engage in discussions, analyze arguments in various media, and regularly practice identifying them. Over time, spotting most common logical fallacies will become second nature.

Are logical fallacies a modern concept? No. The study of fallacies dates back to ancient Greece, with philosophers like Aristotle detailing various types of flawed arguments.

Why is it essential to recognize logical fallacies? Recognizing fallacies can help you make better decisions, strengthen your own arguments, and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Can a logical fallacy be valid in some contexts? While the reasoning may be flawed, the underlying point someone is trying to make could still be valid. However, it's essential to separate the valid point from the fallacious argument.

Grasping the nuances of logical fallacies is more than just an academic exercise—it's a life skill.

In a world saturated with information, discerning sound arguments from flawed ones is invaluable. As you continue your journey in understanding and recognizing these fallacies, you're not only refining your ability to think critically but also empowering yourself to engage more constructively in discussions and debates.

Remember, pursuing clear, logical, critical thinking is a journey, not a destination. As you grow and learn, you'll become better equipped to navigate the complex landscape of ideas and arguments that surround us daily.

Related posts:

• Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
• Genetic Fallacy (28 Examples + Definition)
• Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (29 Examples + Description)
• Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
• Appeal to Force Fallacy (Description + 9 Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Jessie Ball duPont Library

Critical thinking skills, watch the fallacies.

• Need Research Help?
• Research Help

Although there are more than two dozen types and subtypes of logical fallacies, these are the most common forms that you may encounter in writing, argument, and daily life:

Example: Special education students should not be required to take standardized tests because such tests are meant for nonspecial education students.

Example: Two out of three patients who were given green tea before bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to treat insomnia.

• Sweeping generalizations  are related to the problem of hasty generalizations. In the former, though, the error consists in assuming that a particular conclusion drawn from a particular situation and context applies to all situations and contexts. For example, if I research a particular problem at a private performing arts high school in a rural community, I need to be careful not to assume that my findings will be generalizable to all high schools, including public high schools in an inner city setting.

Example: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology. Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

Example: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed. Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.

Example: Japanese carmakers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2025.

In addition to claims of policy, false dilemma seems to be common in claims of value. For example, claims about abortion‘s morality (or immorality) presuppose an either-or about when "life" begins. Our earlier example about sustainability (―Unsustainable business practices are unethical.‖) similarly presupposes an either/or: business practices are either ethical or they are not, it claims, whereas a moral continuum is likelier to exist.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Hasty Generalization

Sweeping Generalization

Non Sequitur

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

False Dilemma

• << Previous: Abduction
• Next: Need Research Help? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2020 5:53 PM
• URL: https://library.sewanee.edu/critical_thinking

Research Tools

• Find Articles
• Find Research Guides
• Find Databases
• Ask a Librarian
• Learn Research Skills
• How-To Videos
• Borrow from Another Library (Sewanee ILL)
• Find Audio and Video
• Find Reserves
• Access Electronic Resources

Services for...

• College Students
• The School of Theology
• The School of Letters
• Community Members

Spaces & Places

• Center for Leadership
• Center for Speaking and Listening
• Center for Teaching
• Floor Maps & Locations
• Ralston Listening Library
• Study Spaces
• Tech Help Desk
• Writing Center

About the Library

• Where is the Library?
• Library Collections
• New Items & Themed Collections
• Library Policies
• Library Staff
• Friends of the Library

Jessie Ball duPont Library, University of the South

178 Georgia Avenue, Sewanee, TN 37383

931.598.1664

3 Fallacies

I. what a re fallacies 1.

Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature. If I counted twenty people in the room when there were in fact twenty-one, then I made a factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are round squares I believe something that is contradictory. A belief in “round squares” is a mistake of reasoning and contains a fallacy because, if my reasoning were good, I would not believe something that is logically inconsistent with reality.

In some discussions, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind of argument or inference. In our view, this definition of fallacy is rather narrow, since we might want to count certain mistakes of reasoning as fallacious even though they are not presented as arguments. For example, making a contradictory claim seems to be a case of fallacy, but a single claim is not an argument. Similarly, putting forward a question with an inappropriate presupposition might also be regarded as a fallacy, but a question is also not an argument. In both of these situations though, the person is making a mistake of reasoning since they are doing something that goes against one or more principles of correct reasoning. This is why we would like to define fallacies more broadly as violations of the principles of critical thinking , whether or not the mistakes take the form of an argument.

The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them and help explain other people’s mistakes.

There are different ways of classifying fallacies. Broadly speaking, we might divide fallacies into four kinds:

• Fallacies of inconsistency: cases where something inconsistent or self-defeating has been proposed or accepted.
• Fallacies of relevance: cases where irrelevant reasons are being invoked or relevant reasons being ignored.
• Fallacies of insufficiency: cases where the evidence supporting a conclusion is insufficient or weak.
• Fallacies of inappropriate presumption: cases where we have an assumption or a question presupposing something that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant conversational context.

II. Fallacies of I nconsistency

Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something inconsistent, self-contradictory or self-defeating is presented.

1. Inconsistency

Here are some examples:

• “One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever true or false.” – If there is something we know for certain, then there is at least one truth that we know. So it can’t be the case that nothing is true or false.
• “Morality is relative and is just a matter of opinion, and so it is always wrong to impose our opinions on other people.” – But if morality is relative, it is also a relative matter whether we should impose our opinions on other people. If we should not do that, there is at least one thing that is objectively wrong.
• “All general claims have exceptions.” – This claim itself is a general claim, and so if it is to be regarded as true we must presuppose that there is an exception to it, which would imply that there exists at least one general claim that does not have an exception. So the claim itself is inconsistent.

2. Self- D efeating C laims

A self-defeating statement is a statement that, strictly speaking, is not logically inconsistent but is instead obviously false. Consider these examples:

• Very young children are fond of saying “I am not here” when they are playing hide-and-seek. The statement itself is not logically consistent, since it is not logically possible for the child not to be where she is. What is impossible is to  utter the sentence as a true sentence  (unless it is used for example in a telephone recorded message.)
• Someone who says, “I cannot speak any English.”
• Here is an actual example: A TV program in Hong Kong was critical of the Government. When the Hong Kong Chief Executive Mr. Tung was asked about it, he replied, “I shall not comment on such distasteful programs.” Mr. Tung’s remark was not logically inconsistent, because what it describes is a possible state of affairs. But it is nonetheless self-defeating because calling the program “distasteful” is to pass a comment!

III. Fallacies of R elevance

1. taking irrelevant considerations into account.

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons, e.g., inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. An example would be when a student failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead, because “his parents will be upset.” Since grades should be given on the basis of performance, the reason being given is quite irrelevant.

Similarly, suppose someone criticizes the Democratic Party’s call for direct elections in Hong Kong as follows: “These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit because they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it.” This is again fallacious because whether the person advancing the argument has something to gain from direct elections is a completely different issue from whether there ought to be direct elections.

2. Failing to T ake R elevant C onsiderations into A ccount

For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay criticisms because we do not like them, even when those criticisms are justified. Or sometimes we might be tempted to make a snap decision, believing knee-jerk reactions are the best when, in fact, we should be investigating the situation more carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we are ignorant of it, then this lack of knowledge does not constitute a fallacy.

IV. Fallacies of Insufficiency

Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is provided in support of a claim. Most common fallacies fall within this category. Here are a few popular types:

1. Limited S ampling

• Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of 96. He said he ate instant noodles every day. So instant noodles cannot be bad for your health.
• A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.

In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a lot more data is needed to support the conclusion, e.g., studies show that many other people who eat instant noodles live longer, and those who encounter black cats are more likely to suffer from accidents.

2. Appeal to I gnorance

• We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty.

If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence showing that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to point either way, so a lack of evidence is not enough to prove guilt.

3. Naturalistic F allacy

• Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not stop them from playing.

Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency. Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient for normative conclusions, even if they are relevant.

There are many other kinds of fallacy of insufficiency. See if you can identify some of them.

V. Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption

Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant context. Some examples include:

• Many people like to ask whether human nature is good or evil. This presupposes that there is such a thing as human nature and that it must be either good or bad. But why should these assumptions be accepted, and are they the only options available? What if human nature is neither good nor bad? Or what if good or bad nature applies only to individual human beings?
• Consider the question “Have you stopped being an idiot?” Whether you answer “yes” or “no,” you admit that you are, or have been, an idiot. Presumably you do not want to make any such admission. We can point out that this question has a false assumption.
• “Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because by definition a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” This argument assumes that only a heterosexual conception of marriage is correct. But this begs the question against those who defend same-sex marriages and is not an appropriate assumption to make when debating this issue.

VI. List of Common Fallacies

A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. Example:

A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not exploited. B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good job.

ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against their existence. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as “scientific” involve such a fallacy. For example, the first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law, namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified. In situations such as this, we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find evidence for or against it.

ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need, e.g., a student argues that the teacher should let them pass the examination because they need it in order to graduate. Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts involving charity.

ad populum (appeal to popularity)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city’s “favorite.”

Affirming the consequent

Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from P that might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a faulty alarm clock.

Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.

Begging the question ( petito principii )

In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise. Example: “God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God.”

Complex question or loaded question

A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer they give to the question, will inevitably commit themselves to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.

A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people into agreeing to something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked, “Are you still as self-centered as you used to be?”, no matter whether you answer “yes” or ”no,” you are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question were indeed accepted in the conversational context, i.e., that the person being asked the question had been verifiably self-centered in the past.

Composition (opposite of division)

The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne might be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and David, considered individually. But it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate each other and the party will be ruined.

Denying the antecedent

Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.

This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.

Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right to argue in the light of smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have stopped working.

Division (opposite of composition)

The parts of a whole are assumed to have the same properties as the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is very effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they all are.

Equivocation

Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it pointed out. For example, some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish. Even if you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your desire to serve others. But surely the word “selfish” has different meanings in the premise and the conclusion – when we say a person is selfish we usually mean that he does not strive to serve others. To say that a person is selfish because he is doing something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others, is to use the term “selfish” with a different meaning.

False dilemma

Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. Example: “Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If they are my enemy, I should hate them. If they’re my friend, I should love them. So I should either love them or hate them.” Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

Gambler’s fallacy

Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, for example, if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.

Genetic fallacy

Thinking that because X derives from Y, and because Y has a certain property, that X must also possess that same property. Example: “His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no good.”

Non sequitur

A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a very general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said to be non sequitur.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc  (literally, “ after this, therefore because of this ” )

Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.

For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course, this inference is not warranted since this might just be a coincidence. However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

Red herring

Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised that diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the argument in a very misleading manner.

For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to many people’s lives. This would be an example of a red herring since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The positive psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the belief is true.

Slippery slope

Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1 , then they have to accept some other closely related claim C 2 , which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C 3 , eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.

This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.

An example: “The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush our teeth and do exercises every day.”

Attacking an opponent while falsely attributing to them an implausible position that is easily defeated.

Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong Kong, a typical “straw man” reply is to say that more democracy is not warranted because it is wrong to believe that democracy is the solution to all of Hong Kong’s problems. But those who support more democracy in Hong Kong never suggest that democracy can solve  all  problems (e.g., pollution), and those who support more democracy in Hong Kong might even agree that  blindly  accepting anything is rarely the correct course of action, whether it is democracy or not. Theses criticisms attack implausible “straw man” positions and do not address the real arguments for democracy.

Suppressed evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

VII. Exercises

Identify any fallacy in each of these passages. If no fallacy is committed, select “no fallacy involved.”

1. Mr. Lee’s views on Japanese culture are wrong. This is because his parents were killed by the Japanese army during World War II and that made him anti-Japanese all his life.

2. Every ingredient of this soup is tasty. So this must be a very tasty soup.

3. Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.

4. Professor Lewis, the world authority on logic, claims that all wives cook for their husbands. But the fact is that his own wife does not cook for him. Therefore, his claim is false.

5. If Catholicism is right, then no women should be allowed to be priests. But Catholicism is wrong. Therefore, some women should be allowed to be priests.

6. God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been shown to be unsound.

7. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of vitamin C. On each occasion, the cold cleared up within a few days. So vitamin C helped me recover from colds.

8. The union’s case for more funding for higher education can be ignored because it is put forward by the very people – university staff – who would benefit from the increased money.

9. Children become able to solve complex problems and think of physical objects objectively at the same time that they learn language. Therefore, these abilities are caused by learning a language.

10. If cheap things are no good then this cheap watch is no good. But this watch is actually quite good. So some good things are cheap.

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Everyday Psychology. Critical Thinking and Skepticism.

What are Logical Fallacies? | Critical Thinking Basics

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning or flawed arguments that can mislead or deceive. They often appear plausible but lack sound evidence or valid reasoning, undermining the credibility of an argument. These errors can be categorized into various types, such as ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and false cause correlations.

Impact on Critical Thinking, Communication, and Social Interactions

The presence of logical fallacies hampers critical thinking by leading individuals away from rational and evidence-based conclusions. In communication, they can create confusion, weaken the persuasiveness of an argument, and hinder the exchange of ideas.

In social interactions, reliance on fallacious reasoning can strain relationships, impede collaboration, and contribute to misunderstandings.

Benefits of Identifying and Managing Logical Fallacies

Learning to identify logical fallacies enhances critical thinking skills, enabling individuals to analyze arguments more effectively and make informed decisions. In communication, recognizing fallacies empowers individuals to construct more compelling and convincing arguments, fostering clearer and more meaningful exchanges.

Moreover, the ability to manage logical fallacies promotes healthier social interactions by minimizing misunderstandings, encouraging constructive dialogue, and fostering a more intellectually robust and collaborative environment.

RETURN TO THE MAIN RESOURCE PAGE: CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

Share this:

Critical Thinking - Writing Lab Tips and Strategies: Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies.

Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that may sound good but prove nothing.

Ad Hominem Argumen t :  Attacking the person instead of the argument.

Appeal to Closure :  The argument that the issue must be decided so that those involved can have "closure."

Appeal to Heaven : Arguing that one's position or action is right because God said so.  As Christians, we believe God has revealed his will through Scripture, but we can still fall into this fallacy if we attempt to justify ourselves apart from what the Bible says.  Even if we are being consistent with Scripture, we may still be accused of this fallacy.

Appeal to Pity : Urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand.

Appeal to Tradition :  It's always been this way, it should continue to be this way.

Argument from Consequences : The fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable.

Argument from Ignorance:  The fallacy that since we don’t know whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true).

 Argument from Inertia:  The argument to continue on as before because changing would be admitting that one is wrong and that one had sacrificed needlessly.

Argument from Motives:   The argument that someone must be wrong because their motives are wrong.  Also, the reverse: someone is right because their motives are right.

Argumentum ad Baculam:   Attempting to persuade through threats.  Also applies to indirect forms of threat.

Argumentum ex Silentio:   The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter.

Bandwagon:   The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right.  

Begging the Question : Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words.

Big Lie Technique:   Repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.

Blind Loyalty:   Arguing something is right solely because a respected leader or source says it is right. 

Blood is Thicker than Water:    Automatically regarding something as true because one is related to (or knows and likes, or is on the same team as) the individual involved. 

Bribery:  Persuading with gifts instead of logic.

The Complex Question : Demanding a direct answer to a question containing acceptable and unacceptable parts.  Example: "Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  "I never beat my--"  "Just answer me: Yes or no?"

Diminished Responsibility : The argument that one is less responsible for an action because one's judgment was altered.  Example:  "I was high, so I shouldn't be fined for speeding; it wasn't my fault."

Either-Or Reasoning:   Falsely offering only two possible alternatives even though a broad range of possible alternatives are available.

”E" for Effort:  Arguing that something must be right, valuable, or worthy of credit simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it.

Equivocation : Deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.

Essentializing : A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be what it is right now (E.g., "All ex-cons are criminals, and will still be criminals even if they live to be 100."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute.

False Analogy : Incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. 

Finish the Job:   Arguing that an action or standpoint may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done," falsely assuming all "jobs" are never to be questioned. 

Guilt by Association:  Trying to refute someone's arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates.

The Half Truth  (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information).Telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion.

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand:   Regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation because there is no alternative.

Just in Case : Basing one's argument on a far-fetched or imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. Plays on fear rather than reason.

Lying with Statistics : Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims.

MYOB   (Mind Your Own Business) Arbitrarily prohibiting any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. 

Name-Calling:   Arguing that, simply because of who someone is, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against his or her standpoint are automatically  racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. 

Non Sequitur : Offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand.

Overgeneralization:   Incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases.

The Paralysis of Analysis : Arguing that since  all  data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. 

Playing on Emotions : Ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone.

Political Correctness   ("PC"): Proposing that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. 

Post Hoc Argument : Arguing that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second.

Red Herring : An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue.

Reductionism : Deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences.

Reifying : The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material "things."

Sending the Wrong Message : Attacking a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who uses this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: Challenging opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument.

Slippery Slope : The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another."

Snow Job :   "Proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand.

Straw Man : Setting up a phony version of an opponent's argument, and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand.

Taboo : Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not open to discussion.

Testimonial : When a standpoint or product is supported by a well-known or respected figure who is not an expert and who was probably well paid for the endorsement.

They're Not Like Us :  Arbitrarily disregarding a fact, argument, or objection because those involved "are not like us," or "don't think like us."

TINA  (There Is No Alternative): Squashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant and any further discussion is simply a waste of time.

Transfer : Falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint.

Tu Quoque:  Defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse.

We Have to Do  Something : Arguing that in moments of crisis one must do something,  anything , at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation worse, rather than "just sitting there doing nothing." 

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire : Quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence.

For more in-depth discussion of these fallacies, refer to http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Subject Guide

I'm trying to think critically, but I'm a frog

• << Previous: Home
• Last Updated: May 17, 2023 3:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.grace.edu/CriticalThinking

Passion doesn’t always come easily. Discover your inner drive and find your true purpose in life.

From learning how to be your best self to navigating life’s everyday challenges.

Discover peace within today’s chaos. Take a moment to notice what’s happening now.

Gain inspiration from the lives of celebrities. Explore their stories for motivation and insight into achieving your dreams.

Where ordinary people become extraordinary, inspiring us all to make a difference.

Take a break with the most inspirational movies, TV shows, and books we have come across.

From being a better partner to interacting with a coworker, learn how to deepen your connections.

Take a look at the latest diet and exercise trends coming out. So while you're working hard, you're also working smart.

Sleep may be the most powerful tool in our well-being arsenal. So why is it so difficult?

Challenges can stem from distractions, lack of focus, or unclear goals. These strategies can help overcome daily obstacles.

Unlocking your creativity can help every aspect of your life, from innovation to problem-solving to personal growth.

How do you view wealth? Learn new insights, tools and strategies for a better relationship with your money.

9 Logical Fallacies That You Need to Know To Master Critical Thinking

When you learn about logic, language becomes a game you can win..

William James, who was known as the grandfather of psychology, once said: “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” All of us think, every day. But there’s a difference between thinking for thinking’s sake, and thinking in a critical way. Deliberate, controlled, and reasonable thinking is rare.

There are multiple factors that are impairing people’s ability to think critically, from technology to changes in education. Some experts have speculated we’re approaching a crisis of critical thinking , with many students graduating “without the ability to construct a cohesive argument or identify a logical fallacy.”

RELATED: How to Tell if ‘Political Correctness’ Is Hurting Your Mental Health

That's a worrying trend, as critical thinking isn’t only an academic skill, but essential to living a high-functioning life. It’s the process by which to arrive at logical conclusions. And in through that process, logical fallacies are a significant hazard.

This article will explore logical fallacies in order to equip you with the knowledge on how to think in skillful ways, for the biggest benefits. As a result, you'll be able to detect deception of flawed logic, in others, and yourself. And you'll be equipped to think proper thoughts, rather than simply rearrange prejudices.

What Is a Logical Fallacy?

The study of logic originates back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e), who started to systematically identify and list logical fallacies. The origin of logic is linked to the Greek logos , which translates to language, reason, or discourse. Logical fallacies are errors of reason that invalidate an argument. The use of logical fallacies changes depending on a person’s intention. Although for many, they’re unintentional, others may deliberately use logical fallacies as a type of manipulative behavior .

Detecting logical fallacies is crucial to improve your level of critical thinking, to avoid deceit, and to spot poor reasoning; within yourself and others. The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once said; “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”

RELATED: Fundamental Attribution Error: Definition & Examples

Throughout history, the world’s greatest thinkers have promoted the value of reasoning. Away from academia, reason is the ability to logically process information, and arrive at an accurate conclusion, in the quest for truth. Striving to be more reasonable or calm under pressure is a virtuous act. It’s a noble pursuit, one which in its nature will inspire your personal development, and allow you to become the best version of yourself.

Why Critical Thinking Is Important

It seems like humanity has never been so polarized, separated into different camps and stances; Democrats vs. Liberals, vegans vs. meat eaters, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, pro-life vs. pro-choice. There’s nothing inherently wrong with thinking critically, and taking a stand. However, what is unusual is the tendency for people to lean into one extreme or the other, neglecting to explore gray areas or complexity.

Many of the positions people take are chosen for them. It takes a lot of effort to research a point of view. And even then, we’re faced with the challenge of information overload, fake news, conspiracy, and even credible news which is dismissed as conspiracy. Far from academic debates or politicians facing off during leadership races, the ability to share respectful dialogue is an essential part of understanding our place in the world, and maintaining human relationships.

The hot topics facing humanity aren’t going to be resolved by reactivity or over-emotionality . There should be room for all sorts of emotions to surface; it’s understandable to feel anger, grief, anxiety, etc, faced with global events. But critical thinking asks for a more reasoned, calm consideration, not getting completely carried away with emotions, but appealing to higher judgment.

Examples of When to Use Critical Thinking

It’s not always clear why critical thinking is so valuable. Isn’t it only useful for education, philosophy, science, or politics? Not quite. When applied appropriately, logic has a universal appeal in life. Examples include:

• Problem-solving : “The problem is not that there are problems,” wrote psychiatrist Theodore Isaac Rubin, “the problem is expecting otherwise, and thinking that having problems is a problem.” Life is full of problems. Fortunately, that means life is full of opportunities to problem solve. Critical thinking is an essential problem-solving skill, from managing your time to organizing your finances.
• Making optimal decisions : the more logical you are, and the less you fall into logical fallacies, the better your decision-making becomes . Decisions are the steps towards your goals, each decision making you closer to, or away from, what you really desire.
• Understanding complex subjects : with attention spans reducing due to social media and technology, it’s becoming rare to take time to attempt to understand complex topics, away from repeating what others have said. Whether through self-study or to comprehend global events, critical thinking is essential to understand complexity.
• Improving relationships : adding a dose of logic to your interactions will allow you to make better choices in relationships. Many “messy” forms of communication, from guilt-tripping to passive aggression, are illogical. By tapping into a more balanced point of view, you’ll better overcome conflict, argue your point (when necessary), or explain the way you feel.

The Most Common Logical Fallacies

When you begin to explore logical fallacies, language becomes a game. There’s a sense of having a cheat sheet in communication, understanding the underlying dynamics at play. Of course, it’s not as straightforward as a mechanical understanding — emotional intelligence, and non-verbal body language has a role to play, too. We’re humans, not computers. But gaining mastery of logic puts you ahead of the majority of people, and helps you avoid cognitive bias.

What’s more, most people fall into logical fallacies without being aware. Once you can detect these mechanisms, within yourself and with others, you’ll have an upper hand in many key areas of life, not least in a professional setting, or in any place you need to persuade or argue a point. The list is ever-growing and vast, but below are the most common logical fallacies to get the ball rolling:

1. Ad Hominem

Originating from a Latin phrase meaning “to the person,” ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the argument. This has a twofold impact — it deflects attention away from the validity of the argument, and second, it can provoke the person to enter a defensive mindset. If you’re aware of this fallacy, it can keep you from taking the bait, and instead keeping the focus on the argument.

Perhaps the most popular example of this in recent times is the viral interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman. Love him or hate him, Peterson is an embodiment of logic, sidestepping Newman’s ad hominem attacks and fallacies in a calm and controlled manner. 

2. Red Herring

You might have heard of this phrase in the context of fiction: a red herring is an irrelevant piece of information thrown into the mix, in order to distract from other relevant details, commonly used in detective stories. In a political context, you might see a politician respond to criticism by talking about something positive they’ve done. For example, when asked why unemployment is so high, they may say “we’ve made a lot of effort to improve working conditions in certain areas.”

A popular type of red herring in modern discourse is "what aboutism," a form of counter-accusation. If the person mentioning unemployment is a fellow politician, the same politician may say: “what about unemployment rates when your party was in charge?”

3. Tu Quoque Fallacy

Closely related to the above, and in some ways, a mixture of the ad hominem and a red herring, is the tu quoque fallacy (pronounced tu-KWO-kway and originating from the Latin “you too”). This is a counter-accusation that accuses someone of hypocrisy. Rather than acknowledging what's been said, someone responds with a direct allegation. For example, if you’re in an argument and your partner raises their voice, you may bring that to their attention, only for them to say: “you raise your voice all the time!”.

4. Straw Man

The straw man logical fallacy is everywhere, especially in dialogue on hot-topic issues, because it's effective in shutting down someone else’s perspective. The person runs with someone’s point, exaggerates it, then attacks the exaggerated version — the straw man — seemingly in an appropriate way. For example, when your partner asks if you could do the washing up, you might respond: “are you saying I don’t support you around the house? That’s unfair.”

On the global stage, one of the big straw man arguments in recent times is the rhetoric of the anti-vaxxer, applied to resistance to mandated vaccines, social distancing, or lockdowns. The simplified term is a way of positioning someone as extreme, even if raising valid points, or looking to open dialogue about the repercussions of certain political choices, made without the option for the population to have their say.

5. Appeal to Authority

If someone in a position of authority says something is true, it must be true. This type of logical fallacy is ingrained in the psyche in childhood, where your parents' (or adults around you) word was final. Society is moving increasingly in this direction, especially in the fields of science. But that doesn’t come without risk, as even experts are known not to get things right. 

In addition, many positions of authority aren’t always acting in pursuit of honesty or truth, if other factors (such as financial donations) have influence. While appeals to authority used to gravitate around religious leaders, a 2022 study found that, when linked with scientists, untrue statements are more likely to be believed, in what researchers call the Einstein effect .

6. False Dichotomy

Also known as the false dilemma, this logical fallacy presents limited options in certain scenarios in a way that is inaccurate. It’s closely linked to black-or-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking, presenting two extremes without options in between. This is perhaps one of the most invasive logical fallacies in navigating life’s demands. For example, you either go to the gym or become unhealthy.

These limitations require a dose of psychological flexibility and creative thinking to overcome. They require exploring other alternatives. In the example above, that would mean looking at other ways to become healthy and exercise, such as running outdoors or going swimming.

7. Slippery Slope Fallacy

Similar to the straw man fallacy, the slippery slope is a way of taking an issue to a hypothetical extreme and then dismissing it based on what could happen. The potential of one thing leading to another, and the repercussions of that chain of events, may cause the original issue to be overlooked. For example, if you fail to set a boundary in one situation, you’ll forever be stuck in accepting certain behaviors.

The issue with this fallacy is that a valid process of critical thinking is to look at what decisions can lead to in the future. Rather than dismiss outright, however, it pays to make reasoned decisions, avoid jumping to conclusions, and see how things unfold over time.

8. Sunk Cost Fallacy

This is the logical fallacy that, when having already invested in something, you continue to invest in order to get return on your sunk costs. Although using gambling terminology (such as chasing losses on roulette) the sunk cost can apply to any area of life. The investment itself doesn’t have to be financial. For example, investing lots of time and energy into a creative project, or a relationship.

The sunk cost fallacy causes people to overlook a true and accurate analysis of the situation in the present moment, instead choosing to continue because of past decisions.

9. Hasty Generalisation

Also known as an over-generalization or faulty generalization, this logical fallacy makes general claims based on little evidence. Before writing this article, I went to a new gym, where my toiletry bag was stolen. You could argue it’s bad luck for something like that to happen on your first visit. If I decide that the gym isn’t safe, and make a hasty generalization, I may end up not going again. But what if the rate of theft in this gym was below the average in the city, and I was just unlucky? What if it wasn’t stolen, but someone absent-mindedly put it in their bag?

The opposite of a hasty generalization is to find the appropriate context for events. A logical conclusion, on the other hand, takes time. It’s reasonable, doesn’t jump in, and collects as much data as possible. If I go to the same gym, and something else is stolen, and I then see in Google reviews that others have had the same, it’d be logical for me to conclude there’s a high rate of theft.

How to Detect and Overcome Logical Fallacies

Both logic and critical thinking can be improved with practice. The knowledge of the nature of logical fallacies, and the above examples, will get you started. Deciphering when certain fallacies are active in real time is part of applied learning. Be conscious of applying the same level of rigor to your own level of reason as you do others.

There are a few components to detect and overcome logical fallacies. The first is self-awareness. As mentioned above, we’re humans, not machines. In situations where the stakes are high, we’re usually driven by factors other than logic, ulterior motives, or strong emotions that run the show. How often, when angry or triggered, do you say or act in ways you later regret?

Emotional regulation is useful in being calm enough to engage in critical thinking. But at times, logic isn’t the most skillful. For example, in conflict with a loved one, it’s more important to attempt to have compassion and understanding than to be the “most logical.” Sometimes, there are factors outside of reason that influence us, matters of the heart that can’t be captured, defined, or deconstructed by the mind.

Knowing how to apply logic, and when, is a vital skill. Through practice, over time, you’ll cultivate an even greater virtue — wisdom. A precious commodity in short supply, if you’re able to achieve wisdom and reason, the world is your oyster, a positive slippery slope to supercharge your growth.

KEEP READING

What is cognitive bias how to wave goodbye to mental distortions, hot stories, steve irwin’s wife reveals who targeted their family | uncovering the death of the crocodile hunter.

Australian zookeeper and conservationist Steve Irwin, renowned for his daring encounters with wildlife, captivated millions worldwide. His unexpected and tragic death deeply saddened many. Yet, shortly after his passing, a billion-dollar mining company posed a threat to his legacy. In response, his wife Terri and children Bindi and Robert fiercely defended his memory and conservation efforts.

The Real Reason Why Cameron Diaz Left Hollywood For Good

High school crushes meet again at 50th reunion - then, a phone call leads to them getting married, husband leaves family and goes missing without a trace - then, strangers deliver the truth to his wife, widow learns about her late husbands huge debt - then she gets a message from a stranger, keith urban's dark secret forced nicole kidman to make a difficult choice, kevin costner wishes he could tell whitney houston this.., how jennifer aniston saved reese witherspoon, kourtney kardashian's boyfriend travis barker ignored a deadly prediction, subscribe to our newsletter, the great takedown of nickelodeon’s dan schneider - how even small voices have the power for impact, chris gardner beyond the pursuit of happyness: the work begins, 100 powerful motivational quotes to help you rise above, wim hof: the iceman’s heroic journey to warming the hearts of millions, ke huy quan reunites with harrison ford after his 25 year nightmare.

Ke Huy Quan is back after 25 years but who forced him to quit in the first place? Ke was starring in the biggest movies in the world, working alongside Harrison Ford, when he suddenly vanished. But our team uncovers the nightmare Ke was living after he left. The world forgot about Ke for 25 years. Until he came back with a surprising Oscar nomination. Our team gets to the truth behind his disappearance and what he had to overcome to win his Oscar.

Copyright © 2024 Goalcast

Get stories worth sharing delivered to your inbox

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.14: Common Logical Fallacies

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58389
• Lumen Learning

Learning Objectives

• Explain common logical fallacies
• Differentiate between types of logical fallacies

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or a flawed structure that undermines the validity of an argument. A fallacious argument can make productive conversation impossible. Logical fallacies are often used by politicians and the media to fool people because they have the deceptive appearance of being reasonable—despite their exploitation of our emotional, intellectual, and psychological weaknesses. Having the ability to recognize fallacies in an argument is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences in your own writing.

This videos walks you through techniques for evaluating an argument and looks at some common fallacies.

Some of the most common types of logical fallacies are discussed below. Read each one carefully, then try to come up with your own example of how you’ve seen that fallacy. First are some fallacies that misuse appeals to logos or attempt to manipulate the logic of an argument:

Fallacies related to logos

Fallacies related to pathos.

See below for the most common fallacies that misuse appeals to pathos, or emotion.

Fallacies related to ethos

Beyond lying about their own credentials, authors may employ a number of fallacies to lure you to their point of view. Some of the more common techniques appear in the chart below. When you recognize these fallacies being committed you should question the credibility of the speaker and the legitimacy of the argument.

The first step to avoiding logical fallacies in your own writing is learning how to identify them in other writing. You can find examples of logical fallacies on the news, on the internet, and on the street. Sometimes these fallacies are egregious and obvious (think about the headlines you see in the tabloids), but other times the logical issues are less obvious.

In the following exercises, consider the fallacies you have learned about in this section. Try to apply those definitions to the following scenarios. Choose the fallacy that most accurately describes what’s going on in each statement.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...sessments/5174

In this video example, a student was asked to find logical fallacies in advertisements. Watch to see which fallacies he identifies, and consider if you’ve encountered media making similar arguments.

You can view the transcript for “Analyze This- Logical Fallacies” here (opens in new window) .

Contributors and Attributions

• Revision and Adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Logical Fallacies. Provided by : OWL at Excelsior College. Located at : http://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/ . Project : . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Practice Activity. Provided by : University of Mississippi. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Evaluating Appeals to Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Provided by : Lumen Learning. Located at : courses.lumenlearning.com/engcomp1-wmopen/chapter/text-evaluating-appeals-to-ethos-logos-and-pathos/. License : CC BY: Attribution
• What fallacies misuse appeals to logos. Located at : https://lcubbison.pressbooks.com/chapter/core-201-appeals-to-ethos-logos-and-pathos/#201aae6 . Project : Core Curriculum Handbook. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Evaluating an Argument. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/orc/what-to-do-after-reading/analyzing/evaluating-an-argument/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Analyze This Argument Video. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-analyze-this/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

How to teach students to identify logical fallacies

Teaching students about logical fallacies is a vital step to help them become adept critical thinkers. Logical fallacies can occur in our own thinking — when we jump to conclusions — and can also be employed willfully by people arguing in bad faith!

Students who can identify common logical fallacies will have the tools to both build stronger arguments and identify faulty arguments out in the wild. Let’s see just what makes an argument a logical fallacy before delving into some different examples.

What are logical fallacies (and what are they not)?

Logical fallacies are arguments in which the conclusion is the result of faulty reasoning. They are invalid arguments that can nevertheless sound convincing.

Arguments that can simply be disproved by facts are not logical fallacies. Logical fallacies have an error in how the argument is structured. Take these two examples:

Example 1: If you go out without an umbrella, you will get wet.

Example 2: If you go out without an umbrella, you will get wet. Then, you’ll drip water in the hallway, your father will slip on the puddle, and he’ll break his leg!

Although Example 1 isn’t necessarily a convincing argument — it might be sunny outside! — it isn’t a logical fallacy. Example 2, on the other hand, is a classic slippery slope fallacy: The argument advances from a reasonably plausible conclusion to a highly irrational one!

How to identify common logical fallacies

Below are some common logical fallacies that students might encounter, as well as some techniques for identifying them!

Appeal to emotion fallacy

What is the appeal to emotion fallacy.

As the name suggests, the appeal to emotion fallacy is an argument that relies on stirring up an emotional response in its audience to compensate for the lack of sound reasoning. You’ll find this fallacy everywhere, from over-sentimental advertisements to political rhetoric.

Inspiring emotion in your audience isn’t always a bad thing, of course. But when it is used in lieu of decent arguments, it can cloud the listener’s judgment.

How to identify an appeal to emotion fallacy

Sometimes outright appeals to emotion are easy to spot. Take this example of a politician’s expressive language:

“If my opponent wins, dark days are ahead. But vote for me and you will be able to breathe easy again!”

Metaphors, analogies, and evocative imagery are often used to appeal to our emotions but can be misleading if they aren’t backed up with facts and data.

Likewise, arguments based on anecdotal evidence or imaginative storytelling often rely on the appeal to emotion. We naturally empathize with the characters in stories, but students should be wary of generalizing arguments based on emotive responses!

Appeal to authority fallacy

What is the appeal to authority fallacy?

Appeals to authority fallacies leverage the supposed authority of a third party to persuade an audience. Often, the accredited authority is questionable or downright irrelevant to the point being made.

Take the example:

“My teacher has a PhD in Education and she says you shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s bad for your health.”

In this case, the speaker is not only failing to provide any argument for why coffee is bad for your health but also the supposed authority doesn’t have any expertise in this subject!

How to identify an appeal to authority fallacy

Students should first identify whether the argument relies on the authority of the person invoked. If so, they should assess the credibility of the given authority. Authorities given anonymously such as “scientists” or “experts” are a particularly bright red flag!

When writing essays (or claims on Kialo Edu), students should properly cite sources so that any appeals to authority that they make can be checked by readers. Students should be able to justify their choice of references and practice investigating claims accredited to others, to better avoid fallacious appeals to authority.

False cause fallacy

What is the false cause fallacy.

The false cause fallacy occurs when one incorrectly assumes a causal connection between two events. Take this example: 

“Every time I wear these socks, I get a great result on my test! So these socks must be lucky.”

Here, the speaker is drawing a causal link between the socks and the test results without any proof.

The false cause fallacy is captured in the academic adage “correlation is not causation.” After all, there are all kinds of funny and random correlations that exist!

How to identify the false cause fallacy

Students should be on the lookout for claims of a causal relationship between two events when there isn’t conclusive proof that one causes the other. They should be particularly dubious in cases where there isn’t even an attempt to explain the process by which the first event influenced the second.

When talking about possible causal relationships, students should use qualifiers like “might,” “may,” and “could” to acknowledge that there isn’t a proven connection. These arguments will be stronger since they avoid the false cause fallacy!

Slippery slope fallacy

What is the slippery slope fallacy?

The slippery slope fallacy suggests that once a particular thing happens, it will inevitably lead to something worse. Often, an initially innocuous event leads to potentially catastrophic consequences, as in the example given earlier that going outside without an umbrella will lead to your father breaking his leg!

How to identify the slippery slope fallacy

To identify the slippery slope fallacy, students should investigate whether a predicted chain of events is justified. Slippery slope arguments often also rely on the appeal to emotion, playing on the audience’s fear of the more extreme consequences.

Being clear-headed about the difference between the necessary and potential consequences of an event can help avoid making fallacious slippery slope arguments.

Straw man fallacy

What is the straw man fallacy.

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting the opposing position so one can argue easier against it — that is, creating a “straw man” that is easily knocked down. Let’s look at an example:

Student 1: I think school uniforms are good because they help build school spirit.

Student 2: So you think students shouldn’t be able to express their individuality and should all think the same thing?

In this case, Student 2 has completely misrepresented Student 1’s argument in order to make their position against school uniforms seem stronger.

How to identify the straw man fallacy

To identify a straw man fallacy, students should recognize when an argument misrepresents or oversimplifies the opposing view. This also helps students avoid making straw man fallacies when they acknowledge and listen to opposing arguments, even if they are in disagreement. 

When defending a particular position, students should try to consider the “steel man” argument against their point. To create convincing arguments, students should try to refute the strongest possible counter-argument.

We hope you found this overview of some of the most common logical fallacies useful. Helping students to build clear, well-reasoned arguments is something we’re passionate about at Kialo Edu. Our platform’s argument-mapping structure is designed to help students visualize and develop complex arguments, making it easier to avoid errors in thinking, from logical fallacies to cognitive bias .

If you’ve used Kialo Edu to teach logical fallacies, we’d love to hear from you! Reach out on any of our social media pages, or contact us at [email protected] .

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

List of fallacies.

Read this tutorial, which defines the most common fallacies. This list narrows down some of the fallacies in the previous text and is enough to get us started. We will look at a wider sample of fallacies later in this course. For now, focus on defining each fallacy and identifying the differences between the fallacies on the list.

Here are some examples of common fallacies:

A theory is discarded, not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. For example:

Appeal to Ignorance ( ad ignorantiam )

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of this fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against such a claim. At first sight, it seems many theories we call scientific involve this fallacy. For example, the first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against it.

But notice, as in cases such as this one, there is evidence for the law, namely positive examples. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified, then we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find evidence for or against it.

Appeal to Pity (a d misericordiam )

When offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need.

For example, a student argues that the teacher should let them pass the examination because he/she needs it in order to graduate. Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts involving charity.

Appeal to Popularity ( ad populum )

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city's "favorite."

Affirming the Consequent

Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true, and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that other conditions apart from P might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a faulty alarm clock.

Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.

Begging the Question ( petito principii )

In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise.

For example, "God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God."

Complex Question or Loaded Question

A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer they give to the question, will inevitably commit themselves to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.

A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people to agree to something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked, "are you still as self-centered as you used to be?" no matter whether you answer "yes" or "no," you are bound to admit you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question is accepted in the conversational context.

Composition (opposite of division)

The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne may be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same may be true of Ben, Chris, and David, when considered individually. But it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate each other and the party will be ruined.

Denying the Antecedent

Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.

This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.

For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right to argue in the light of a smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, the colleague's alarm clock may have stopped working.

Division (opposite of composition)

The parts of a whole is assumed to have the same properties of the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they are all effective.

Equivocation

Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it pointed out.

For example, some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish. Even if you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your desire to serve others. But surely the word "selfish" means differently in the premise and the conclusion when we say a person is selfish we usually mean that he does not strive to serve others. To say that a person is selfish because he is doing something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others, is to use the term "selfish" with a different meaning.

False Dilemma

Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. For example, "Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If they are my enemy I should hate them. If they are my friend I should love them. So I should either love them or hate them." Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

Gambler's Fallacy

Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, e.g. if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.

Genetic Fallacy

Thinking that because X derives from Y, and Y has a certain property, X must have the same property also.

For example, "His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no good."

Non Sequitur

A conclusion is drawn which does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said to be non sequitur .

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore because of This")

Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.

For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course, this inference is not warranted since this might just be a coincidence. However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

Red Herring

Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised which diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the argument in a very misleading manner.

For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to many people's lives. This would be an example of a red herring since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The good psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the belief is true.

Slippery Slope

Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1 , then he or she has to accept some other closely related claim C 2 , which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C 3 , eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.

This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.

For example, "The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush our teeth and do exercises everyday."

Attacking an opponent by attributing to them an implausible position that is easily defeated when this is not actually the opponent's position.

For example: when many people argue for more democracy in Hong Kong, a typical reply is to say that this is not warranted because it is wrong to think that democracy is the solution to all of Hong Kong's problems, or to say that one should not blindly accept democracy. But those who support democracy never suggest that democracy can solve all problems (e.g. pollution), and they might also agree that blindly accepting something is rarely correct, whether it is democracy or not. Those criticisms attack implausible "strawman" positions and do not address the real arguments for democracy.

Suppressed Evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

16 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

Published: July 26, 2022

Logical fallacies — those logical gaps that invalidate arguments — aren't always easy to spot.

While some come in the form of loud, glaring inconsistencies, others can easily fly under the radar, sneaking into everyday meetings and conversations undetected.

Our guide on logical fallacies will help you build better arguments and identify logical missteps.

• What a logical fallacy is
• Formal vs. informal fallacies
• Straw man fallacy
• Correlation/causation fallacy
• Ad hominem fallacy

You can also listen to the top 10 below.

What is a logical fallacy?

Logical fallacies are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination.

These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

• Formal : Formal fallacies are arguments that have invalid structure, form, or context errors.
• Informal : Informal fallacies are arguments that have irrelevant or incorrect premises.

Having an understanding of basic logical fallacies can help you more confidently parse the arguments and claims you participate in and witness on a daily basis — separating fact from sharply dressed fiction.

15 Common Logical Fallacies

1. the straw man fallacy.

This fallacy occurs when your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up a "straw man") to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of fully addressing your actual argument, speakers relying on this fallacy present a superficially similar — but ultimately not equal — version of your real stance, helping them create the illusion of easily defeating you.

John: I think we should hire someone to redesign our website.

Lola: You're saying we should throw our money away on external resources instead of building up our in-house design team? That's going to hurt our company in the long run.

2. The Bandwagon Fallacy

Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence exists.

While most of us expect to see bandwagon arguments in advertising (e.g., "three out of four people think X brand toothpaste cleans teeth best"), this fallacy can easily sneak its way into everyday meetings and conversations.

The majority of people believe advertisers should spend more money on billboards, so billboards are objectively the best form of advertisement.

How to Use Psychology in Marketing

Access the guide to learn more about psychology.

• Turn customers into fans.
• Understand Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.
• Understand how marketing can influence how people think, feel, and behave.

You're all set!

Click this link to access this resource at any time.

Fill out the form to learn more about psychology.

3. the appeal to authority fallacy.

While appeals to authority are by no means always fallacious, they can quickly become dangerous when you rely too heavily on the opinion of a single person — especially if that person is attempting to validate something outside of their expertise.

Getting an authority figure to back your proposition can be a powerful addition to an existing argument, but it can't be the pillar your entire argument rests on. Just because someone in a position of power believes something to be true, doesn't make it true.

Despite the fact that our Q4 numbers are much lower than usual, we should push forward using the same strategy because our CEO Barbara says this is the best approach.

4. The False Dilemma Fallacy

This common fallacy misleads by presenting complex issues in terms of two inherently opposed sides. Instead of acknowledging that most (if not all) issues can be thought of on a spectrum of possibilities and stances, the false dilemma fallacy asserts that there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes.

This fallacy is particularly problematic because it can lend false credence to extreme stances, ignoring opportunities for compromise or chances to re-frame the issue in a new way.

We can either agree with Barbara's plan, or just let the project fail. There is no other option.

5. The Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some — but not enough — evidence to back it up, and overlook potential counterarguments.

Two members of my team have become more engaged employees after taking public speaking classes. That proves we should have mandatory public speaking classes for the whole company to improve employee engagement.

6. The Slothful Induction Fallacy

Slothful induction is the exact inverse of the hasty generalization fallacy above. This fallacy occurs when sufficient logical evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is true, but someone fails to acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something unrelated entirely.

Even though every project Brad has managed in the last two years has run way behind schedule, I still think we can chalk it up to unfortunate circumstances, not his project management skills.

7. The Correlation/Causation Fallacy

If two things appear to be correlated, this doesn't necessarily indicate that one of those things irrefutably caused the other thing.

This might seem like an obvious fallacy to spot, but it can be challenging to catch in practice — particularly when you really want to find a correlation between two points of data to prove your point.

Our blog views were down in April. We also changed the color of our blog header in April. This means that changing the color of the blog header led to fewer views in April.

8. The Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy

In place of logical evidence, this fallacy substitutes examples from someone's personal experience.

Arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence tend to overlook the fact that one (possibly isolated) example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a greater premise.

One of our clients doubled their conversions after changing all their landing page text to bright red. Therefore, changing all text to red is a proven way to double conversions.

9. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

This fallacy gets its colorful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn wall, and then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points at the bullet-riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.

Speakers who rely on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy tend to cherry-pick data clusters based on a predetermined conclusion.

Instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to a logical conclusion, they find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that contradicts them or suggests the clusters weren't actually statistically significant.

Lisa sold her first startup to an influential tech company, so she must be a successful entrepreneur. (She ignores the fact that four of her startups have failed since then.)

10. The Middle Ground Fallacy

This fallacy assumes that a compromise between two extreme conflicting points is always true. Arguments of this style ignore the possibility that one or both of the extremes could be completely true or false — rendering any form of compromise between the two invalid as well.

Lola thinks the best way to improve conversions is to redesign the entire company website, but John is firmly against making any changes to the website. Therefore, the best approach is to redesign some portions of the website.

11. The Burden of Proof Fallacy

If a person claims that X is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion. It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true. Similarly, it is also invalid to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false.

In other words, just because there is no evidence presented against something, that doesn't automatically make that thing true.

Barbara believes the marketing agency's office is haunted, since no one has ever proven that it isn't haunted.

12. The Personal Incredulity Fallacy

If you have difficulty understanding how or why something is true, that doesn't automatically mean the thing in question is false. A personal or collective lack of understanding isn't enough to render a claim invalid.

I don't understand how redesigning our website resulted in more conversions, so there must have been another factor at play.

13. The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy

Often used to protect assertions that rely on universal generalizations (like "all Marketers love pie") this fallacy inaccurately deflects counterexamples to a claim by changing the positioning or conditions of the original claim to exclude the counterexample.

In other words, instead of acknowledging that a counterexample to their original claim exists, the speaker amends the terms of the claim. In the example below, when Barabara presents a valid counterexample to John's claim, John changes the terms of his claim to exclude Barbara's counterexample.

John: No marketer would ever put two call-to-actions on a single landing page.

Barbara: Lola, a marketer, actually found great success putting two call-to-actions on a single landing page for our last campaign.

John: Well, no true marketer would put two call-to-actions on a single landing page, so Lola must not be a true marketer.

14. The Ad Hominem Fallacy

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you attack someone personally rather than using logic to refute their argument.

Instead they’ll attack physical appearance, personal traits, or other irrelevant characteristics to criticize the other’s point of view. These attacks can also be leveled at institutions or groups.

Barbara: We should review these data sets again just to be sure they’re accurate.

Tim: I figured you would suggest that since you’re a bit slow when it comes to math.

15. The Tu Quoque Fallacy

The tu quoque fallacy (Latin for "you also") is an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism — but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim.

In the example below, Lola makes a claim. Instead of presenting evidence against Lola's claim, John levels a claim against Lola. This attack doesn't actually help John succeed in proving Lola wrong, since he doesn't address her original claim in any capacity.

Lola: I don't think John would be a good fit to manage this project, because he doesn't have a lot of experience with project management.

John: But you don't have a lot of experience in project management either!

16. The Fallacy Fallacy

Here's something vital to keep in mind when sniffing out fallacies: just because someone's argument relies on a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is inherently untrue.

Making a fallacy-riddled claim doesn't automatically invalidate the premise of the argument — it just means the argument doesn't actually validate their premise. In other words, their argument sucks, but they aren't necessarily wrong.

John's argument in favor of redesigning the company website clearly relied heavily on cherry-picked statistics in support of his claim, so Lola decided that redesigning the website must not be a good decision.

Recognize Logical Fallacies

Recognizing logical fallacies when they occur and learning how to combat them will prove useful for navigating disputes in both personal and professional settings. We hope the guide above will help you avoid some of the most common argument pitfals and utilize logic instead.

This article was published in July 2018 and has been updated for comprehensiveness.

Don't forget to share this post!

Related articles.

21 Free Personality Tests You Can Take Online Today

Internet Slang: 81 Terms To Know About

Steve Jobs' 3 Powerful Persuasion Tactics, and How You Can Use Them to Win Customers

The Two Psychological Biases MrBeast Uses to Garner Millions of Views, and What Marketers Can Learn From Them

How Neuromarketing Can Revolutionize the Marketing Industry [+Examples]

How to Predict and Analyze Your Customers’ Buying Patterns

The Critical Role Ethics Plays in Modern Marketing

5 Examples of Sensory Branding in Retail

How to Cultivate Psychological Safety for Your Team, According to Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson

Why Digital Teams Risk Losing Empathy and Trust, and How to Fight It

This guide will help you make more informed decisions in marketing.

Marketing software that helps you drive revenue, save time and resources, and measure and optimize your investments — all on one easy-to-use platform

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Common Critical Thinking Fallacies

Critical thinking is the process of reaching a decision or judgment by analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning with facts and data presented. However, nobody is thinking critically 100% of the time. Logical reasoning can be prone to fallacies.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. When there is a fallacy in the reasoning, conclusions are less credible and can be deemed invalid.

How can critical thinking fallacies be avoided? The first step is to be aware of the possible fallacies that can be committed. This article will highlight the most common logical fallacies.

Common fallacies fall under two categories:

• Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises

For fallacies of relevance, reasons are presented why a certain conclusion is reached, but these reasons may not be entirely true nor significant to the argument.

Under Fallacies of Relevance are:

“Ad Hominem” is Latin for “to the person”. It’s a fallacy that uses attacks on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

This is commonly seen in informal arguments where a person’s looks or characteristics are often attacked instead of the argument they’re making.

• Red Herring

This is a fallacy of distraction. It sidetracks the main argument by offering a different issue and then claims that this new issue is relevant to the current one. People who do this aim to divert the audience or another person from their arguments.

• Tu Quoque Fallacy

“Tu Quoque” means “you also” in Latin. This fallacy discredits a person’s argument based on the fact that the person does not practice what he or she preaches.

• Strawman Fallacy

Where a person refutes another person’s argument by presenting a weakened version of the original argument.

• Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Authority fallacy claims that an argument is true because someone who has the “authority” on the subject believes that it’s true. For example, a policeman believes that guns should not have permits. This argument should be accepted as the truth because policemen know what they are talking about. Policemen know how to use guns properly, therefore can be called “experts” to the subject matter.

• Appeal to Popularity or Ad Populum

Much like the previous fallacy, Appeal to Popularity claims that something is true because a lot of people or the majority believe that it’s true. We should steer clear of this fallacy because having 100,000 believers doesn’t make a wrong argument true.

This is commonly used in advertising products. If a good number of people are using the product, why shouldn’t you?

• Appeal to Tradition

This is very similar to appeal to popularity. The only difference is that this fallacy claims that something is true because it has been believed to be true for a long time. It doesn’t depend on how many believe on it, but rather on how long people have believed it.

• Appeal to Ignorance or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

This fallacy claims that arguments are true because they have never been proven false or are false because they have never been proven to be true. It suggests that the best solution is to remain ignorant about the situation.

• Appeal to Emotion

As the name suggests, one of the critical thinking fallacies appeal to the emotions of the audience. It aims to evoke feelings like sympathy and affection – both of which can be irrelevant to the original arguments.

• Fallacy of Composition and Division

The fallacy of composition claims that because some parts of the whole are true, that means the whole must be true. The fallacy of division claims that because the whole is true, all parts of the whole must be true.

An example for composition is that just because with Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant are in Golden State and they are good, they will win championships for sure.

An example for division is: “On average, men tend to have longer legs than women. So, this means that Maria has shorter legs than Jerry.” This is false because for all we know, Maria might have longer legs than Jerry.

• Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation uses key words in an ambiguous way. The key words will mean different when used in one claim and then when used in another claim.

For example, Poppy claims that she has the right to watch whatever she wants to watch. Therefore, it’s just right that she watches television all day.

Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises on the other hand, introduces premises that are somehow relevant, but doesn’t completely support the conclusions for the argument.

Under Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises are:

• False Dichotomy

This fallacy says that there are only two available options and only one of them are correct. In short, it creates a black or white choice. Both cannot be correct, and they are the only possible options.

• Begging the Question

This critical thinking fallacy assumes that the premise under examination is true. It uses this assumed true premise to support other statements.

• Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope claims that when one step is taken, it will snowball into something bigger very quickly. For example, Joe argues that if Maria will stop using straws, the economy will fall very fast.

• Hasty Generalizations

This fallacy creates generalizations from hurried samples. The generalizations might have been made based on a small sample only or a sample that doesn’t entirely represent something properly.

Knowing and studying fallacies is important because this will help people avoid committing them. The presence of critical thinking fallacies weakens and invalidates arguments, so it’s best to steer clear from them.

When someone knows how to identify these fallacies, it will be easier to point out invalid arguments by other people as well. We live in a world where fallacies are often used in arguments – in fact, up to 13 fallacies were already listed and studied in Ancient Greece thousands of years ago.

This is just a testament that these fallacies have existed before and continue to exist now, so we must be aware of them.

You may also like

What Is Drone Mentality?

Drone mentality is a pattern of going through the motions, paying little to no attention to what’s going on around you. Think […]

Critical Thinking Brain Teasers: Enhance Your Cognitive Skills Today

Critical thinking brain teasers are an engaging way to challenge one’s cognitive abilities and improve problem-solving skills. These mind-bending puzzles come in […]

Critical Thinking Vs Analytical Thinking

It’s easy to confuse critical and analytical thinking as one, but they’re not the same. While there are similarities, you will realize […]

Critical thinking and Emotional intelligence

Critical thinking and emotional intelligence are both phrases that you might be hearing a lot at the moment, but have you ever […]

A Comprehensive List of Logical Fallacies to Perfect Your Arguments

By: Author ESLBUZZ

Posted on Last updated: September 9, 2023

Sharing is caring!

Welcome to our article about the list of logical fallacies! If you’re learning English, improving your vocabulary or writing skills, understanding logical fallacies is a must. Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that can lead to flawed arguments and false conclusions. By learning about logical fallacies, you can avoid making these mistakes yourself and become better at identifying them in others’ arguments.

In this article, we’ll cover the most common logical fallacies, their definitions, and examples of each. We’ll also provide tables and lists of words to help you understand the meanings of these fallacies and how to use them correctly. Whether you’re writing an essay, debating with friends, or just trying to improve your critical thinking skills, understanding logical fallacies is an essential tool.

So, let’s dive into the world of logical fallacies and learn how to avoid them!

Understanding the List of Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can lead to flawed arguments. They can be intentional or unintentional and can be found in everyday conversations, debates, and even in media and advertising. Understanding logical fallacies is an important skill for effective communication and critical thinking.

There are many different types of logical fallacies, each with its own characteristics and examples. Some common types of logical fallacies include:

• Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument
• False dilemma: presenting only two options when there are more possibilities
• Slippery slope: suggesting that one event will lead to a chain reaction of negative consequences
• Appeal to authority: using the opinion of an authority figure as evidence, even if they are not an expert in the subject matter
• Straw man: misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack

It’s important to be able to identify logical fallacies in order to avoid them in your own arguments and to recognize them in the arguments of others. By understanding logical fallacies, you can strengthen your own arguments and avoid being swayed by flawed reasoning.

Here are some examples of logical fallacies in action:

• “I don’t think we should listen to John’s opinion on this matter. He’s not even from this country.”
• “Either you’re with us or against us.”
• “If we allow people to carry guns in public, it will only be a matter of time before we have a mass shooting on our hands.”
• “Dr. Smith says that we should all start eating more kale, so it must be true.”
• “My opponent wants to cut funding for education. Clearly, they don’t care about the future of our children.”

List of Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies can be categorized into three main types: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity. Understanding these types can help you identify and avoid them in your own writing and arguments.

List of Logical Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance occur when an argument is made that is not relevant to the topic at hand. These fallacies are often used to distract from the main point or to appeal to emotions rather than logic. Some common fallacies of relevance include:

• Ad hominem: attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself
• Appeal to authority: using the opinion of an authority figure as evidence, even if they are not an expert on the topic
• Appeal to emotion: using emotions to persuade rather than logical reasoning
• Red herring: introducing an unrelated topic to distract from the main issue

For example, “You can’t trust John’s argument about climate change because he’s not a scientist” is an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks John’s credibility rather than addressing the argument he’s making.

List of Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of presumption occur when an argument makes assumptions that are not supported by evidence or are unlikely to be true. These fallacies often rely on hidden assumptions or circular reasoning. Some common fallacies of presumption include:

• Begging the question: assuming the conclusion in the premise of the argument
• False dilemma: presenting only two options when there are actually more
• Hasty generalization: drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence
• Slippery slope: suggesting that one thing will inevitably lead to another, without evidence to support this claim

For example, “We must ban all guns or else we’ll have a society where everyone is constantly in danger” is a false dilemma fallacy because it presents only two extreme options without considering other possibilities.

List of Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity occur when an argument is unclear or vague, making it difficult to evaluate or refute. These fallacies often rely on ambiguous language or double meanings. Some common fallacies of ambiguity include:

• Equivocation: using a word with multiple meanings in different parts of the argument
• Amphiboly: using a sentence with ambiguous syntax to make an argument
• False analogy: comparing two things that are not actually comparable
• Loaded question: asking a question that assumes something to be true.

List of Logical Fallacies in Detail

List of logical fallacies: ad hominem.

Ad hominem is an attack on the person making the argument rather than on the argument itself. This type of fallacy is often used to discredit someone’s argument by attacking their character, rather than addressing the argument itself. For example:

• “I can’t take anything he says seriously because he’s a known liar.”

List of Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument

A straw man argument is when someone misrepresents their opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. This type of fallacy is often used to make an opponent’s argument seem weaker than it actually is. For example:

• “My opponent wants to abolish all taxes. That’s a ridiculous idea.”

List of Logical Fallacies: Red Herring

A red herring is when someone introduces an irrelevant topic in order to distract from the main argument. This type of fallacy is often used to avoid addressing the main argument or to shift the focus of the argument. For example:

• “I know I made a mistake, but what about all the good things I’ve done for this company?”

List of Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance

An appeal to ignorance is when someone argues that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false, or that something must be false because it hasn’t been proven true. This type of fallacy is often used to shift the burden of proof onto someone else. For example:

• “There’s no evidence that aliens exist, so they must not exist.”

List of Logical Fallacies: Slippery Slope

A slippery slope is when someone argues that a small change will lead to a much larger and undesirable change. This type of fallacy is often used to make an argument seem more extreme than it actually is. For example:

• “If we allow same-sex marriage, what’s next? Legalized polygamy and bestiality?”

In conclusion, understanding common logical fallacies can help you recognize when someone is making a flawed argument and can help you avoid making the same mistakes in your own writing. By being aware of these fallacies, you can ensure that your arguments are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Detecting Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies can be tricky to spot, but with practice, anyone can become adept at identifying them. Here are some tips for detecting logical fallacies:

Look for Overgeneralizations

An overgeneralization is a statement that applies to all members of a group, without exception. For example, “All politicians are corrupt.” This statement is an overgeneralization because it assumes that every single politician is corrupt, which is unlikely to be true. To avoid overgeneralizations, be specific in your language and avoid making sweeping statements.

Watch Out for False Dichotomies

A false dichotomy is a situation where only two options are presented, when in fact there are other options available. For example, “You’re either with us or against us.” This statement is a false dichotomy because it assumes that there are only two options, when in reality there may be other choices available. To avoid falling for false dichotomies, look for other options and consider all possibilities before making a decision.

Pay Attention to Ad Hominem Attacks

An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person making an argument, rather than on the argument itself. For example, “You can’t trust what she says because she’s a known liar.” This statement is an ad hominem attack because it attacks the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. To avoid ad hominem attacks, focus on the argument being made, rather than the person making it.

Beware of Appeals to Emotion

An appeal to emotion is an attempt to manipulate someone’s emotions in order to persuade them to accept a conclusion. For example, “If you don’t support this policy, you’re not a true patriot.” This statement is an appeal to emotion because it attempts to manipulate the reader’s emotions in order to persuade them to support the policy. To avoid being swayed by appeals to emotion, focus on the facts and evidence, rather than the emotions being evoked.

Look for False Analogies

A false analogy is a comparison between two things that are not really alike. For example, “Banning guns is like banning forks because both can be used to kill.” This statement is a false analogy because guns and forks are not really alike, and banning one does not necessarily mean banning the other. To avoid false analogies, be careful when making comparisons and make sure that the things being compared are actually similar.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the six common logical fallacies that one must avoid in persuasive writing?

There are six common logical fallacies that one must avoid in persuasive writing. These are:

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Slippery slope fallacy
• Hasty generalization fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Strawman fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy

How do you find logical fallacies in an article?

To find logical fallacies in an article, you should read the article carefully and critically. Look for any statements that do not make sense or seem to be based on faulty reasoning. Pay attention to any arguments that seem to rely on emotion rather than facts. Look for any statements that are presented as facts but are not supported by evidence.

What are logical fallacies in EFL learners argumentative writings?

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can occur in EFL learners’ argumentative writings. These can include using emotional appeals instead of logical arguments, making unsupported claims, or relying on faulty reasoning. It is important for EFL learners to learn how to identify and avoid logical fallacies in their writing.

What are some examples of logical fallacies?

There are many examples of logical fallacies, including:

• Ad hominem fallacy: attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself
• Slippery slope fallacy: assuming that one event will lead to a chain reaction of negative events
• Hasty generalization fallacy: making a broad statement based on insufficient evidence
• False cause fallacy: assuming that one event caused another event without sufficient evidence
• Strawman fallacy: misrepresenting the opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack
• Appeal to authority fallacy: using an authority figure’s opinion as evidence without supporting evidence

Can you explain the slippery slope fallacy?

The slippery slope fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which one assumes that one event will lead to a chain reaction of negative events without sufficient evidence. For example, if someone argues that legalizing marijuana will lead to an increase in drug use, they are using the slippery slope fallacy.

What is the ad hominem fallacy?

The ad hominem fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which one attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. For example, if someone argues that climate change is real, and someone else responds by saying that the person making the argument is a liberal , they are using the ad hominem fallacy.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How do you find logical fallacies in an article?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are logical fallacies in EFL learners argumentative writings?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can occur in EFL learners' argumentative writings. These can include using emotional appeals instead of logical arguments, making unsupported claims, or relying on faulty reasoning. It is important for EFL learners to learn how to identify and avoid logical fallacies in their writing.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are some examples of logical fallacies?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

• Strawman fallacy: misrepresenting the opponent's argument to make it easier to attack
• Appeal to authority fallacy: using an authority figure's opinion as evidence without supporting evidence

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can you explain the slippery slope fallacy?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the ad hominem fallacy?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

The ad hominem fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which one attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. For example, if someone argues that climate change is real, and someone else responds by saying that the person making the argument is a liberal, they are using the ad hominem fallacy.

• Recent Posts

• Plural of Species: Rules and Examples - November 8, 2023
• 50th Birthday Wishes to Boost Your English Vocabulary and Writing Skills - October 28, 2023
• Plural of Synopsis: Mastering English Grammar Made Easy! - October 23, 2023

No related posts.

Guide to Logical Fallacies in Business

150 critical thinking mistakes to avoid, publisher description.

In the high-stakes arenas of business, a single logical misstep could be the difference between a breakthrough and a breakdown. "Guide to Logical Fallacies in Business: 126 Critical Thinking Pitfalls to Avoid" offers a lifeline for the modern business professional, an invaluable resource to navigate through the deceptive waters of faulty reasoning. This book is more than just a guide; it's a critical thinking crusade against the misconceptions and manipulations rife in the corporate world: Fallacy Breakdown: Each of the 126 fallacies comes with a detailed exploration of its structure and impact on business dynamics.Real-World Applications: Contextual examples bring the fallacies to life, demonstrating their influence on decisions, strategies, and negotiations.Defensive Strategies: Arm yourself with robust mental frameworks to deflect the allure of erroneous logic.Argument Arsenal: Learn how to dismantle fallacious reasoning presented by others with precise counterarguments.Interactive Engagement: Sharpen your skills through exercises that challenge you to spot and correct flawed reasoning.Practical Exercises: Practice rearticulating common business assertions into logically sound statements, strengthening your communicative prowess. This book doesn't just list fallacies; it equips you with the tools to detect, debate, and debunk them. Whether you're a seasoned executive or an aspiring leader, mastering the content within these pages will give you the edge in a world where critical thinking is king. Step into a realm where clarity conquers confusion and where reasoning reigns supreme. Forge your path to logical mastery and business excellence with "Guide to Logical Fallacies in Business."

Have a thesis expert improve your writing

Check your thesis for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples

Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples

Published on 20 April 2023 by Kassiani Nikolopoulou . Revised on 9 October 2023.

A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others.

Because logical fallacies can be deceptive, it is important to be able to spot them in your own argumentation and that of others.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Logical fallacy list (free download), what is a logical fallacy, types of logical fallacy, what are common logical fallacies, logical fallacy examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about logical fallacies.

There are many logical fallacies. You can download an overview of the most common logical fallacies by clicking the blue button.

Logical fallacy list (Google Docs)

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs when invalid arguments or irrelevant points are introduced without any evidence to support them. People often resort to logical fallacies when their goal is to persuade others. Because fallacies appear to be correct even though they are not, people can be tricked into accepting them.

The majority of logical fallacies involve arguments—in other words, one or more statements (called the premise ) and a conclusion . The premise is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion.

There are two types of mistakes that can occur in arguments:

• A factual error in the premises . Here, the mistake is not one of logic. A premise can be proven or disproven with facts. For example, If you counted 13 people in the room when there were 14, then you made a factual mistake.
• The premises fail to logically support the conclusion . A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type. In the example above, the students never proved that English 101 was itself a useless course—they merely “begged the question” and moved on to the next part of their argument, skipping the most important part.

In other words, a logical fallacy violates the principles of critical thinking because the premises do not sufficiently support the conclusion, while a factual error involves being wrong about the facts.

There are several ways to label and classify fallacies, such as according to the psychological reasons that lead people to use them or according to similarity in their form. Broadly speaking, there are two main types of logical fallacy, depending on what kind of reasoning error the argument contains:

Informal logical fallacies

Formal logical fallacies.

An informal logical fallacy occurs when there is an error in the content of an argument (i.e., it is based on irrelevant or false premises).

Informal fallacies can be further subdivided into groups according to similarity, such as relevance (informal fallacies that raise an irrelevant point) or ambiguity (informal fallacies that use ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which change in the course of discussion).

“ Some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish . Even if you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your desire to serve others.”

A formal logical fallacy occurs when there is an error in the logical structure of an argument.

Premise 2: The citizens of New York know that Spider-Man saved their city.

Conclusion: The citizens of New York know that Peter Parker saved their city.  

This argument is invalid, because even though Spider-Man is in fact Peter Parker, the citizens of New York don’t necessarily know Spider-Man’s true identity and therefore don’t necessarily know that Peter Parker saved their city.

A logical fallacy may arise in any form of communication, ranging from debates to writing, but it may also crop up in our own internal reasoning. Here are some examples of common fallacies that you may encounter in the media, in essays, and in everyday discussions.

Red herring logical fallacy

The red herring fallacy is the deliberate attempt to mislead and distract an audience by bringing up an unrelated issue to falsely oppose the issue at hand. Essentially, it is an attempt to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere.

Bandwagon logical fallacy

The bandwagon logical fallacy (or ad populum fallacy ) occurs when we base the validity of our argument on how many people believe or do the same thing as we do. In other words, we claim that something must be true simply because it is popular.

This fallacy can easily go unnoticed in everyday conversations because the argument may sound reasonable at first. However, it doesn’t factor in whether or not “everyone” who claims x is in fact qualified to do so.

Straw man logical fallacy

The straw man logical fallacy is the distortion of an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute. By exaggerating or simplifying someone’s position, one can easily attack a weak version of it and ignore their real argument.

Person 2: “So you are fine with children taking ecstasy and LSD?”

Slippery slope logical fallacy

The slippery slope logical fallacy occurs when someone asserts that a relatively small step or initial action will lead to a chain of events resulting in a drastic change or undesirable outcome. However, no evidence is offered to prove that this chain reaction will indeed happen.

Hasty generalisation logical fallacy

The hasty generalisation fallacy (or jumping to conclusions ) occurs when we use a small sample or exceptional cases to draw a conclusion or generalise a rule.

A false dilemma (or either/or fallacy ) is a common persuasion technique in advertising. It presents us with only two possible options without considering the broad range of possible alternatives.

In other words, the campaign suggests that animal testing and child mortality are the only two options available. One has to save either animal lives or children’s lives.

People often confuse correlation (i.e., the fact that two things happen one after the other or at the same time) with causation (the fact that one thing causes the other to happen).

It’s possible, for example, that people with MS have lower vitamin D levels because of their decreased mobility and sun exposure, rather than the other way around.

It’s important to carefully account for other factors that may be involved in any observed relationship. The fact that two events or variables are associated in some way does not necessarily imply that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between them and cannot tell us the direction of any cause-and-effect relationship that does exist.

If you want to know more about fallacies , research bias , or AI tools , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Straw man fallacy
• Slippery slope fallacy
• Red herring fallacy
• Ecological fallacy

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Framing bias
• Cognitive bias
• Optimism bias
• Hawthorne effect

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a type of informal logical fallacy . Instead of arguing against a person’s position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person’s character or actions in an effort to discredit them.

This rhetorical strategy is fallacious because a person’s character, motive, education, or other personal trait is logically irrelevant to whether their argument is true or false.

Name-calling is common in ad hominem fallacy (e.g., “environmental activists are ineffective because they’re all lazy tree-huggers”).

An appeal to ignorance (ignorance here meaning lack of evidence) is a type of informal logical fallacy .

It asserts that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false—or that something must be false because it has not yet been proven true.

For example, “unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they don’t.” The appeal to ignorance is also called the burden of proof fallacy .

People sometimes confuse cognitive bias and logical fallacies because they both relate to flawed thinking. However, they are not the same:

• Cognitive bias is the tendency to make decisions or take action in an illogical way because of our values, memory, socialization, and other personal attributes. In other words, it refers to a fixed pattern of thinking rooted in the way our brain works.
• Logical fallacies relate to how we make claims and construct our arguments in the moment. They are statements that sound convincing at first but can be disproven through logical reasoning.

In other words, cognitive bias refers to an ongoing predisposition, while logical fallacy refers to mistakes of reasoning that occur in the moment.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, October 09). Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/logical-fallacies/

Is this article helpful?

Kassiani Nikolopoulou

Other students also liked, slippery slope fallacy | definition & examples, what is a red herring fallacy | definition & examples, what is straw man argument | definition & examples, still have questions.