Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They often appear persuasive and can be difficult to spot, but they rely on faulty logic rather than sound evidence. This guide helps you identify 18 common fallacies, understand why they're problematic, and learn how to counter them effectively.
The straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, they attack a weaker version they've constructed.
Ad hominem attacks target the character, motive, or attributes of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. This diverts attention from the actual issue being discussed.
The slippery slope fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant (usually negative) effect, without providing evidence for this causal chain.
Also called 'false dilemma' or 'black-and-white thinking', this fallacy presents a situation as having only two possible options when in reality there are more alternatives available.
While expert opinion can be valuable, this fallacy occurs when authority is used as the sole or primary evidence, especially when the authority is not qualified in the relevant field or when the claim requires additional evidence.
This fallacy involves drawing a general conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample. It's the basis of stereotyping and prejudice, where limited experiences are extrapolated to entire groups.
Latin for 'after this, therefore because of this', this fallacy assumes that because one event followed another, the first must have caused the second. It confuses correlation with causation.
The bandwagon fallacy appeals to popularity or common practice as evidence for truth or correctness. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.
A red herring is a distraction technique that introduces irrelevant information to divert attention from the actual issue being discussed. It's often used to avoid addressing difficult questions.
Also called 'begging the question', circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises. The argument goes in a circle without providing independent support.
This fallacy attempts to win an argument by manipulating emotions (fear, pity, anger, etc.) rather than presenting logical evidence and reasoning. While emotions are important, they shouldn't replace sound argumentation.
This fallacy draws a comparison between two things that are not truly comparable, suggesting they are equivalent in some important way when they differ significantly.
This fallacy assumes that because something has been done a certain way for a long time, it must be the correct or best way. It resists change based solely on tradition.
The opposite of appeal to tradition, this fallacy assumes that newer is automatically better. It values innovation without considering whether the new thing is actually an improvement.
Latin for 'you too', this fallacy attempts to discredit an argument by pointing out that the person making it doesn't follow their own advice. However, hypocrisy doesn't make the argument wrong.
A loaded question contains a controversial or unjustified assumption, making it impossible to answer without appearing to accept that assumption. The classic example is 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
This fallacy occurs when someone makes a universal claim, is presented with a counterexample, and then modifies the claim to exclude the counterexample by redefining the terms.
Similar to circular reasoning, begging the question occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. The argument doesn't actually prove anything new.