Embedded Files
In this lesson, you’ll learn how to recognize common logical fallacies—the sneaky errors in reasoning that can make an argument seem stronger than it really is. These fallacies show up everywhere: in ads, debates, social media, and even serious writing.
On the AICE Thinking Skills Paper 2 exam, you’ll be asked to:
Identify which fallacy is being used in a passage, or
Find an example of a specific fallacy within a text.
You’ll also need to explain how the fallacy weakens the argument—because spotting the flaw is just the first step. Understanding its impact is what shows real critical thinking.
Memorizing the names and types of fallacies is key to answering Question #4 on Paper 2!
There are two rules a good argument must follow are:
The reasons should be true, as far as it is possible to judge.
The conclusion must follow recognizably from the reasons, meaning that if the reasons are all true, the conclusion cannot be false.
An argument that passes both these rules is said to be sound, and if an argument fails one or both then it is unsound. Another word to describe an unsound argument is to say that it is flawed. A flaw is a fault. An argument can have true premises and a true conclusion and still be flawed. However, if the conclusion is known to be true there is no real need for an argument.
Rash Generalization - A conclusion based on too little evidence.
Example: Three people fell into the ice last winter when they were walking across the lake. No one should ever think of walking on frozen lakes.
Sweeping Generalization - A rule applied too broadly, without allowing for exceptions.
Example: A law that infringes the freedom of the individual is never acceptable.
Equivocation - Using a word in two different ways within the same argument.
Example: The average family has 2.4 children. Since the Bell family is about as average as you can get, the Bells must have either two or three children.
Conflation - Mixing up two ideas or treating them as the same when they’re not.
Example: You are wrong to criticise people who lack ambition. Take your own father who chose a career that would never bring him wealth or status. He didn’t want those things and didn’t value them. Surely you don’t despise him
False dichotomy (restricting the options) - Presenting only two choices when more exist.
Example: The Treasury Minister’s plan is nonsense. She’s a monster who voted for her own pay raise last year
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) - Attacking the person instead of their argument.
Example: The Treasury Minister’s plan is nonsense. She’s a monster who voted for her own pay raise last year.
Tu quoque (counter-attack) - Responding to criticism with unrelated accusations.
Example: Tom: “It’s wrong to jump the queue for hospital treatment.”
Joe: “You sent your kids to private school!”
Straw Man - Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: Jay: “Dumping trash on the floor isn’t art.”
Kay: “That’s nonsense—art doesn’t have to be pretty.”
Circular Reasoning - The conclusion is just a restatement of the premise.
Example: Exams are essential because they motivate students. Without exams, students wouldn’t be motivated. So exams are essential.
Begging the Question - Assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove.
Example: Killing is wrong, so the death penalty is immoral.
Slippery Slope - Claiming a small step will lead to a chain of extreme consequences.
Example: Chewing gum leads to litter, which leads to graffiti, which leads to gangs and violence.
Page updated
Report abuse