click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Logical Fallacies
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Composition/Division | Assuming that what is true of a part must be true of the whole, or that what is true of the whole must be true of its parts. |
| Misuse of Statistics | Presenting numerical data in a misleading, distorted, or incomplete way to manipulate conclusions. |
| Appeal to Doubtful Authority | Citing an authority figure who lacks expertise, relevance, or credibility regarding the topic at hand. |
| Slippery Slope | Arguing without sufficient evidence that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative events. |
| Red Herring | Introducing an irrelevant topic or argument to divert attention away from the original issue. |
| Weak Analogy | Comparing two things that share minor similarities but are fundamentally too different to support the conclusion. |
| Equivocation | Using a word or phrase with multiple meanings ambiguously to mislead or conceal a weakness in an argument. |
| Either/Or Fallacy | Presenting only two extreme options or outcomes when, in reality, more possibilities exist. |
| Circular Reasoning | An argument where the premise and conclusion rely on each other, essentially restating the claim instead of proving it. |
| Begging the Question | Formulating an argument where the truth of the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises without independent proof. |
| Bandwagon | Arguing that a claim must be true or acceptable simply because a large number of people believe or do it. |
| Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc | Incorrectly assuming that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. |
| Non Sequitur | A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or evidence provided. |
| Strawman | Oversimplifying, exaggerating, or misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. |
| False Cause | Presuming a causal connection between two events without sufficient evidence to establish that one caused the other. |
| Ad Hominem | Attacking an opponent's character, motives, or personal traits instead of addressing the substance of their argument. |
| Genetic | Judging something as good or bad based strictly on its origin or history, rather than its current context or merits. |
| Sweeping Generalization | Applying a general rule or principle to a specific situation where exceptional circumstances make the rule inapplicable. |
| The Fallacy Fallacy | Assuming that because an argument contains a logical fallacy, its underlying conclusion must automatically be false. |
| The Gambler's Fallacy | Believing that past independent events influence the probability of future random outcomes. |
| Appeal to Nature | Arguing that something is good, valid, or justified simply because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. |
| Burden of Proof | Asserting that a claim must be accepted unless someone else can disprove it, shifting responsibility away from the claimant. |
| Texas Sharpshooter | Cherry picking data or patterns that fit a theory while ignoring differences or the rest of the evidence. |
| Ambiguity | Using double meanings or unclear language intentionally to misrepresent the truth or evade a direct point. |
| You Also | Attempting to discredit an opponent's argument by pointing out their hypocrisy or that they do the same thing. |
| Tu Quoque | Answering criticism with criticism, turning the accusation back onto the arguer rather than defending the argument. |
| Personal Incredulity | Claiming something is false or untrue simply because it is difficult to understand or hard to imagine. |
| Black or white | Reducing a complex scenario down to only two mutually exclusive choices, ignoring intermediate possibilities. |
| Special Pleading | Applying standards or rules to others while creating an unjustified exception for oneself or one's own claim. |
| Middle Ground | Claiming that a compromise or midpoint between two extreme positions must always be the truth. |
| Loaded Question | Asking a question that contains a built in assumption, so that any direct answer implies guilt or agreement. |
| Appeal to Emotion | Attempting to manipulate an audience's feelings, such as fear, pity, or pride, instead of presenting a valid argument. |
| No True Scotsman | Dismissing counterexamples by arbitrarily altering the definition or criteria of a group to protect a generalization. |