Need help prepping for an argument, or just want to double check your philosophy homework? Here you'll find 15 of the most common logical fallacies.

15Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. These are the most common fallacies you should know about.Arguments and debates are an important part of college and academic discourse. But not every argument is perfect. Some can be picked apart because they have errors in reasoning and rhetoric. These are called "logical fallacies," and they're very common. You'll hear logical fallacies in the classroom, during televised debates, and in arguments with your friends. It can even be challenging to avoid using them yourself.

What Is A Logical Fallacy

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies: -A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.-An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

Two Main Types Of Logical Fallacies

TABLE OF CONTENTS<ol><li>Ad Hominem</li><li>Strawman Argument</li><li>Appeal to Ignorance</li><li>False Dilemma</li><li>Slippery Slope Fallacy</li><li>Circular Argument</li><li>Hasty Generalization</li><li>Red Herring Fallacy</li><li>Appeal to Hypocrisy</li><li>Causal Fallacy</li><li>Fallacy of Sunk Costs</li><li>Appeal to Authority</li><li>Equivocation</li><li>Appeal to Pity</li><li>Bandwagon Fallacy</li></ol>

Types Of Logical Fallacy

An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it. Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging." They are considered unethical because politicians can use them to manipulate voters' opinions against an opponent without addressing core issues.

Ad Hominem

A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is. The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.

Straw Man

An appeal to ignorance (also known as an "argument from ignorance") argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there is no evidence against it. The argument can be used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once, such as the following two claims: "No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials exist, so they must not be real.""No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."An appeal to ignorance doesn't prove anything. Instead, it shifts the need for proof away from the person making a claim.

Appeal to Ignorance

A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when in fact more possibilities exist. The phrase "America: Love it or leave it" is an example of a false dilemma. The false dilemma fallacy is a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience, promoting one side and demonizing another. It's common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into supporting controversial legislation or policies.

False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

A slippery slope argument assumes that a certain course of action will necessarily lead to a chain of future events. The slippery slope fallacy takes a benign premise or starting point and suggests that it will lead to unlikely or ridiculous outcomes with no supporting evidence. You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: "But you have to let me go to the party! If I don't go to the party, I'll be a loser with no friends. Next thing you know, I'll end up alone and jobless, living in your basement when I'm 30!"

Slippery Slope

Circular arguments occur when a person's argument repeats what they already assumed before without arriving at a new conclusion. For example, if someone says, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable," that's a circular argument. Circular arguments often use a claim as both a premise and a conclusion. This fallacy only appears to be an argument when in fact it's just restating one's assumptions.

Circular Argument

A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true.Hasty generalizations are common in arguments because there's a wide range of what's acceptable for "sufficient" evidence.

Hasty Generalization

A red herring is an argument that uses confusion or distraction to shift attention away from a topic and toward a false conclusion. Red herrings usually contain an unimportant fact, idea, or event that has little relevance to the real issue. Red herrings are a common diversionary tactic when someone wants to shift the focus of an argument to something easier or safer to address. But red herrings can also be unintentional.

Red Herring

An appeal to hypocrisy — also known as the tu quoque fallacy — focuses on the hypocrisy of an opponent. The tu quoque fallacy deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame. The fallacy usually occurs when the arguer uses apparent hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue.

Appeal to Hypocrisy

Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes. One example is the false cause fallacy, which is when you draw a conclusion about what the cause was without enough evidence to do so. Another is the post hoc fallacy, which is when you mistake something for the cause because it came first — not because it actually caused the effect.

Causal Fallacy

A sunk cost fallacy is when someone continues doing something because of the effort they already put in it, regardless of whether the additional costs outweigh the potential benefits. "Sunk cost" is an economic term for any past expenses that can no longer be recovered. For example: Imagine that after watching the first six episodes of a TV show, you decide the show isn't for you. Those six episodes are your "sunk cost." A sunk cost fallacy would be deciding to finish watching anyway because you've already invested roughly six hours of your life in it.

Sunk Cost

Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority's opinion to support an argument. While an authority's opinion can represent evidence and data, it becomes a fallacy if their expertise or authority is overstated, illegitimate, or irrelevant to the topic. For example, citing a foot doctor when trying to prove something related to psychiatry would be an appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to Authority

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead. In other words, saying one thing but meaning another. When it's poetic or comical, we call this a "play on words." But when it's done in a political speech, an ethics debate, or an economics report — and it's designed to make the audience think you're saying something you're not — that's when it becomes a fallacy.

Equivocation

An appeal to pity relies on provoking your emotions to win an argument rather than factual evidence. Appealing to pity attempts to pull on an audience's heartstrings, distract them, and support their point of view. Someone accused of a crime using a cane or walker to appear more feeble in front of a jury is one example of appeal to pity. The appearance of disability isn't an argument on the merits of the case, but it's intended to sway the jury's opinion anyway.

Appeal to Pity

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too. One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of a claim or action doesn't mean that it's factually justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational in their opinions, so using them to make an argument is flawed.

Bandwagon Fallacy

I hope this primer on logical fallacies helps you to navigate future disputes with friends, family, and online acquaintances without descending into vitriol or childish name-calling. Knowing your logical fallacies can also help when you're working on your next research paper. You may want to brush up on controversial research topics while you're at it, so you're even more prepared.

Final Word

Whether you have a paper to write about logical fallacies or don't want to accidentally include them in your next persuasive essay, we're highlighting the top logical fallacies you need to know.

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate - TheBestSchools.org

It is always a challenge to deal with people who are illogical. You might identify them as illogical, but they may be unaware. Instead of getting emotional or angry about the situation, use your intellect to counter their faulty logic to get them back on track.Once you feel like you are making headway in the conversation, gauge how successful the argument is by paying attention to the kind of response you get from your opponent – if they seem more open-minded then continue debating further, but if there is no change in their demeanor, move onto another topic.

Dealing People With Wrong Logic.

‘To err is human’ said Alexander Pope in one of his poems, backing his stance with various rationalizations. But as a human do you really believe in this

Growth concepts

Dealing People With Wrong Logic

People think and process information in one of two ways: inductively and deductively,” he says. “The inductive thinker needs all of the background information first and then the point. The deductive thinker needs the point first and then the background information.﻿

Two ways people process info

You can discern how a person thinks by paying attention to how they present information. Do they usually cut to the chase? Or do they take you along their decision-making journey step by step? Then form your presentations or asks based on how their tendencies.

Discernment

Figuring out whether you’re speaking with an inductive or deductive thinker can make all the difference.


Thoughts

One reason people don’t listen to you (and how to easily fix it)

When we are struggling with a complex topic, it can be powerful to talk someone else through the idea, step by step.
This principle of explaining complex ideas as simply as possible is called 'Explain Like I'm Five.' Explaining concepts helps to clarify our thinking. It is a process that ultimately helps us to be understood.

Clarifying your thinking

Take a moment of self-reflection. We have many vague and confusing thoughts and feelings that we don't spend the time to sort out, so they mostly stay that way.
Observing yourself in a neutral way is the first step to clearer thinking. Make yourself comfortable, then try to notice the flow of your thoughts and feelings in a nonjudgmental way.

Reflect on why you believe something is important

What are you claiming, and why? For example, thinking if it is better to become a vegetarian or a vegan, and why or why not it is better.
Write out a numbered list of statements followed by a conclusion. The statements should present a line of reasoning that justifies your final conclusion. Then, ask two questions about each statement.
<ul>
<li>Why should someone accept this particular claim?</li>
<li>What follows from this claim once it's been accepted?</li>
</ul>

Consider what you are claiming

Simple conclusions can become more complex and revealing. For example, if you believe that it is better to be a vegetarian but don't eat vegetarian, it suggests that you don't believe your own reasons or that you don't find your reasons compelling.
Clarifying your thinking will strip away oversimplifications and replace them with an honest acknowledgement. It is by repeatedly questioning the why and what of our claims that we can hope to tear away the confusion and self-justification of our thoughts.

Investigate the divide between beliefs and actions

Consider on what basis you can justify any claims. You may rely on external evidence, personal preferences or experiences. All of them will at some stage point to our assumptions we accept as fundamental.
Our assumptions are unexamined ideas. They are vital as they underpin our thinking. However, sometimes we don't share the same assumptions with others and may need to spell them out.

The basis of justifying claims

When it comes to clarifying your thinking, differentiate between what follows from your assumptions and the status of those assumptions:
<ul>
<li>Any line of thinking begins with certain assumptions you take as a given.</li>
<li>A process of analysis can show where your assumptions lead.</li>
<li>Different ways of reasoning based on differing assumptions may lead to different outcomes.</li>
<li>It is useful to spell out your own and other people's key assumptions.</li>
<li>If you're open-minded, you can find common assumptions and challenge faulty ones.</li>
</ul>

Be clear about assumptions

The most valuable thing about clearly presenting the thinking behind a point of view is the willingness to participate in a reasoned exchange of ideas.
In principle, it suggests you're prepared to:
<ul>
<li>Justify your position.</li>
<li>Listen to, and learn from other perspectives.</li>
<li>Accept that you might have to reconsider your opinion or change your mind.</li>
</ul>

Embrace dialogue

By learning to question and clarify your thoughts, you’ll improve your self-knowledge and become a better communicator

Problem Solving

How to think clearly | Psyche Guides

... is a faulty assumption that becomes the basis of an argument and makes it logically unsound. For example, all birds can fly. Penguins can't fly. Therefore, penguins aren't birds. The premise that all birds can fly is false since some birds can't fly.
A false premise underpins many logical fallacies, making it essential to understand them.

A false premise

A logical fallacy is reasoning that contains a flaw.
Many logical fallacies rely on false premises:
<ul>
<li>Appeal to nature - claiming something is good because it is "natural". Some natural things, like cyanide, is very bad for you.</li>
<li>False dilemma - a limited number of options are presented as mutually exclusive or as the only options.</li>
<li>The appeal to novelty - when something is assumed good because it is new.</li>
<li>The argument from incredulity - someone concludes that because they can't believe something is true, then it must be false.</li>
</ul>

False premises and logical fallacies

<ul>
<li>An explicit premise is when a premise is mentioned directly as part of an argument. </li>
<li>An implicit premise means that the premise is hinted at and used as part of the argument.</li>
</ul>
Someone might choose to rely on a particular implicit premise because it is evident to all participants. Or, someone might decide to rely on an implicit false premise while giving a speech because it will be harder for listeners to notice problems with it.

Explicit and implicit premises

When you respond to the use of false premises, you should generally call them out as false, explain why they're false, and how them being false invalidates the argument.
<ul>
<li>False premises can be implicit rather than explicit.</li>
<li>It can also be helpful to ask the person who relied on the false premise to support it.</li>
<li>However, remember that a false premise that makes an argument logically unsound doesn't mean its conclusion is wrong.</li>
</ul>

How to respond to false premises

<ul>
<li>Ensure that you're aware of all the premises your argument is based on and that you know that your premises are true.</li>
<li>You can engage in self-distancing by treating your arguments as if they're presented by someone else. This can help you rationally consider your views.</li>
<li>If you make an argument, the proof is on you to support your premises.</li>
<li>Learn about common fallacies associated with false premises. Then you are more sure to avoid them.</li>
</ul>

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate - TheBestSchools.org

Dealing People With Wrong Logic

One reason people don’t listen to you (and how to easily fix it)

How to think clearly | Psyche Guides

False Premise: When Arguments Are Built on Bad Foundations - Effectiviology

It's time to

READ

LIKE

A PRO!