Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies are statements that might seem reasonable or true at first but are actually flawed or dishonest. Part of being a critical reader means recognizing fallacies in the arguments of others. It is important to avoid fallacies yourself when making an argument.

Fallacies of Relevance

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force): Use or threat of force to make the audience accept a conclusion

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Personal Attack): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself

Abusive: Arguing that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with a particular group
Circumstantial: Arguing that opponents should accept or refute an argument only because of circumstances in their lives
Genetic: Claiming that, an idea, product, or person must be wrong because of its origin

Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to the People): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument

Bandwagon Approach: Asserting that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true or the course of action must be the best one
Patriotic Approach: Asserting that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are somehow unpatriotic
Snob Approach: Asserting that the most important people believe an argument or particular course of action is the best

Argumentum ad Traditionem (Appeal to Tradition): Asserting that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it

Argumentum ad Verecundium (Appeal to Improper Authority): Appealing to an improper or biased authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable

Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Emotions): Appealing to emotion in place of logic concerning what should be a logical issue

Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities

Component Fallacies

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii and “Circular Reasoning”): When the evidence for their argument is the same as the conclusion; often disguised using different or more complex language

Hasty Generalization (also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident," and Dicto Simpliciter): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point

Fallacy of Accident: When one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable
Misleading Statistic: When a statistic is presented as fact but is invalid as a result of poor methods

False Cause (also called Non Causa Pro Causa, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc): Establishing a cause/effect relationship that does not exist

Ignorantio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion): When one adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion

Red Herring: A deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue
Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"): Asserting that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't always follow it herself
Straw Man: Creating an oversimplified, easy-to-refute argument, placing it in the mouth of an opponent, and then trying to "win" the debate by knocking down that empty or trivial argument

Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): Any argument that does not follow from the previous statements

Slippery Slope: Argument that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow
Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the black and white fallacy" “excluded middle,” and "false dilemma” or “false dichotomy"): When one builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several
Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively
Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise may or may not overlap
Contradictory Premises (also called a "Logical Paradox"): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise
Special Pleading: Creating a universal principle, and then insisting that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion

Amphiboly (from the Greek word “indeterminate”): When a statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another

Composition: An inductive error in which the properties of a part are extended to the whole

Division: A misapplication of deductive reasoning in which one argues what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts

Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness”): Treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual thing represented by the word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing

Fallacies of Omission

Stacking the Deck: Ignoring examples that disprove the point, and listing only those examples that support the argument

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy: Attempting to stack the deck specifically by defining terms in such a narrow or unrealistic manner as to exclude or omit relevant examples from a sample

Argument from the Negative: Asserting that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true

Argument from a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite must be true

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result

Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion

References

Wheeler, L. K. (2018). Logic Fallacies List. Carson-Newman University. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Logic_Fallacies_List.pdf

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse