Logical Fallacy Chart

Here are some common logical fallacies that a student will want to avoid when writing an
argumentative paper. Although the Latin phrases can seem overwhelming, the explanations have
been simplified for clarification and understanding. Again, these are things a student should not do:

Fallacy Definition Example

Affirming the Basing an argument on an While trying to convince a teenager that s/he
Consequent assumption or hypothetical should not drive on the highway, Patty makes a
statement about what true statement that highway driving is dangerous
caused something. and results in thousands of deaths each year.
Next, he mentions a teenager who died last week
and was mentioned in the obituaries. Of course,
there is no way that he can know how this
teenager died; it could have been kidney failure,
so treating the assumption that the teenager
died while driving as truth is bad logic and
weakens the person’s reasoning.

Denial of the Concluding that the absence Jethro promises a teenager that he will live a
Antecedent of a likely cause will always long and healthy life if he never drives drunk.
mean the absence of the What if he never drives, but soon dies of kidney
effect failure?

*Do not make assumptions about what may or

may not cause something to happen.
Ambiguity Using the same word in “That room is very dark, and the book Bill is
different senses without reading is also dark.”
alerting the reader.
*In the first instance, “dark” refers to the
absence of light. In the second instance, “dark”
refers to an abstract quality similar to “evil” or
“foreboding.” Be sure to clarify what context a
word is referencing.

Amphiboly Misusing someone else's Alice comes across the sentence: "The Bible was
entire argument on a written by men who lived among Hebrews, who
different interpretation of its were divinely inspired." The author of this
wording. sentence probably means that the authors of the
Bible were divinely inspired, but she claims that
the author thinks that all Hebrews were divinely
inspired.
Equivocation Using the same word with Landon claims that the Roman cross was a cruel
two different senses. instrument of torture, so be sure to never cross
the street without looking both ways.

Context Quoting something out of During Thanksgiving dinner, Michael overhears

context. President Bush say how much he hates turkey.
He then writes in an article the next day that
Bush despises Turkey, the country.

*This is confusing, misleading, and often

interpreted as deliberate. This is highly
unethical, so make sure the terms that are
used and represented are defined clearly.
Argumentum
ad…

…antiquitam Claiming that something is Seeley argues that Coca-Cola is the right soda to
right, good, or truthful drink because it has been around longer than
simply because it has been Pepsi. Or that everyone should be driving Fords
around for a long time. instead of Saturns because the Ford company is
older.

*Just because a person does things the way

they have always been done, does not
necessarily mean it is always right or
prudent to do so.

…novitam Arguing that because Temperance argues that people should use
something is newer then it hologram preachers for Sunday worship services
must be better. because that technology is newer, and thus
better, than traditional public speaking.

*Just because the way everyone always

done things seems old and outdated, does
not mean it is always right or prudent to
replace it with something new.
…baculum Making an appeal to force or Harry argues that if Texans do not vote for a
threats. certain candidate, then he will hunt them down.

*Nobody likes a bully.

…crumenam Claiming that a rich person Bob argues that one can trust Enron's
(or company, religion, advertising because that company is worth a lot
country, etc.) is more likely of money.
to be right and trustworthy
than a poor person.

…lazarum Claiming that a poor person Sally argues that one should believe a middle-
is more right or truthful than class housewife over Donald Trump because
one who has money. money has not corrupted her thoughts.

*Do not base the argument on wealth (or

lack thereof)!
…hominem Directly attacking another Arguing that Einstein's theory of relativity should
person, his or her character, not be accepted because Einstein was not very
 or his or her circumstances. good looking.

*Be nice and be fair.

…populam Appealing to emotions and Convincing someone to buy Danny’s product or
enthusiasm rather than vote for him simply because he appears
relevant facts. enthusiastic and determined, despite his dismal
record on taxes, crime, etc.

*Most conclusions are best based on reason

and not personal feelings.
…nauseum Claiming that since Maddie’s Maddie cites that more people, regardless of
idea has been repeated (by their expertise, have acknowledged her position
a person, experts, etc.) on property taxes, so she must be right.
more than the opponent's
idea, then Maddie’s idea
must be better.

…numeram Claiming that if the majority Remember: Hitler was elected to office.
of people believe that an *Most conclusions are best based on reason
idea is right, then that idea and not popularity or majority acceptance.
must be the best one.

…verecundiam Appealing to authority Bill claims that the President's actions are always
outside of that authority's good and right simply because he has the
expertise, or arguing from authority of the President, or Bill claims that a
the opinions of a person who New Testament scholar's thoughts on Esther are
has no authority on the more qualified than an Old Testament scholar's.
subject.
*Do not rest an argument entirely on
someone's authority in a position or field of
study; refer mainly to the facts.
Begging the Saying that Carilee’s A: How does Carilee know God exists?
Question conclusion is right by B: Because God wrote the Bible.
making her reader assume A: How does Carilee know God wrote the Bible?
the truth of only one of her B: Because the Bible says so.
points. A: Why should others believe the Bible?
B: Because God wrote the Bible.
(This conversation still does not prove the
existence of God or that God wrote the Bible.
For Person A to accept Person B's conclusion that
God wrote the Bible, Person A would have to
admit that God does exist. However, Person A
does not believe that God exists, so Person B is
wrong for making Person A accept that belief in
order to prove his point.)
*Do not make the readers accept a specific
conclusion; persuade them with facts,
reason, and logic.
Bifurcation Unfairly presenting a Ryan forces Derek’s thirsty brother to decide
situation with only two between water and tea to drink while there is
alternatives soda and lemonade in the fridge.

*There may be many other alternatives to

the problem at hand than the two provided,
so forcing a choice between only two
solutions is sometimes wrong. There are
often more than two ways to solve a
problem.
Complex, or Asking a question that has A political question: "Will Perry vote for
Loaded certain ideas that an Republicans and prosperity?" (If Perry is a
Question audience dislikes, but any Democrat and answers "no," then he will be
(Fallacy of answer they give will admit though of as against prosperity, but since Perry
Interrogation) to the claim; a question in is a Democrat, he cannot reasonably answer
which a simple yes or no is "yes" either.)
not reasonable.
Question: "Has Dave stopped beating his wife?"
(Answering yes or no automatically shows that
the responder has beaten or still beats his wife,
even though he has never committed the act.)

*Be mindful of the rhetorical questions that

are asked in papers!
Composition Arguing from a definition of Melanie claims that since all of the individual
the parts to the properties of parts of her computer monitor are lightweight,
the whole. Claiming that then her monitor itself is lightweight.
certain properties of the
parts define the whole itself.

Division Arguing from the definition Bryan claims that his computer monitor is heavy,
of the whole to the so its individual parts must be heavy as well.
characteristics of the parts.
*Claiming this just does not make sense.
False Analogy Comparing two things that David claims, "Nails are like employees. Just as
are not similar. nails must be hit on the head to make them
work, so must your employees." (The head of a
nail and the head of an employee are similar
superficially, but not similar in the reality of the
argument.)

*Do not assume that because two objects

share a similar property, then the objects
can be compared with each other.
False Cause Arguing that simply because Bill argues that he got in his first car accident the
(post hoc, an event occurred earlier day after Bush signed legislation to mandate
ergo propter instantly suggests that it speed limits and conclude that the new law must
hoc) caused another event. be responsible for his accident.

(cum hoc, Arguing that simply because Sandra argued that she fell and broke her leg in
ergo propter two events occurred Dallas at the same moment an earthquake
hoc) simultaneously suggests occurred in California, so the earthquake must be
that they are related. responsible for her broken leg.

*A person must be able to back up s/he

cause and effect claims with facts, not
coincidences.
Hasty Basing the goodness of a Connie proposes a ban on alcohol after
Generalization rule on only a few cases. considering only its effects on alcoholics, rather
than the entire population.

*Always check statistics to make sure they

have a generous sample size and are
representative of the population.

Sweeping Enforcing a rule even though Shelby does not allow emergency vehicles to
Generalization a certain situation needs break the speed limit when necessary because
 that rule to be bent. speed limits apply to everyone, at all times.

*An ethical argument is mindful of

exceptions to rules.
Ignorance Claiming that something is Caitlin argues that ghosts do not exist because
not true because it has not they have not been proven to exist, or that there
been proven. is no Western Passage to the Indies because it
has not been proven to exist.

*This is kind of like a hasty generalization.

A person must argue with the presence of
facts and logic, not unreasonable
assumptions.

Irrelevance Arguing a cause and effect Ben argues for the passing of a health care bill
(ignoratio that have absolutely no based on the reasoning that it is good for
elenchi) logical connection. everyone to have health care, without arguing
that the actual bill will achieve that goal.
Non-sequitur Drawing conclusions from John argues that universal health care is good,
arguments that have no so any bill that offers universal health care is
logical or reasonable good, regardless of its ability to reasonably
connections with each other. achieve such a goal.

*Context is very important. If a person is

arguing about a specific bill, then s/he must
argue the facts of the bill; if a person is
arguing about universal health care in
general, then s/he must argue about that.
Red Herring Distracting readers from the Someone asks Joe about his views on school
real argument and making funding, and since Joe does not really have a
them pay attention to a less valid opinion on the topic, Joe brings up his
important or irrelevant patriotism and claim that all patriots need to
issue. make sure schools are funded. (In this case,
"patriotism" is the red herring.)
*This is much like Irrelevance. Stick to the
topic at hand.
Reification Making an abstract concept The concept of faith in God is not as reasonably
into something concrete. concrete (touchable) as things like population
statistics. So, in a debate over the validity of
statistics about how the population of Ohio voted
in the 2004 elections, it would be wrong to
introduce the concept of faith in God as a tenant
of Zues’ argument because the nature of the
argument requires statistical facts, not
theological proofs.

*Be aware of the context of the argument.

What is it requiring a person to argue?
Facts? Statistics? Definitions? Ideas?
Special Expecting special treatment Sue’s instructor gives her a failing grade on an
Pleading of Sue’s argument for assignment, and she automatically expects
whatever reason. special treatment because of her perfect
attendance, regardless of the lack of time she
actually spent studying.

*In the interest of equality and fairness, a

person would want his/her argument to be
treated the same way s/he would treat
 another's argument.
Straw Man Misrepresenting an A certain politician disagrees with some of the
argument, attacking the wording of the Patriot Act and will not sign it
argument, and then until his concern is addressed. Alfred claims that
concluding that the since he will not support the passing of the
argument has been proven Patriot Act, then he is obviously not a patriot and
wrong. should be tried for treason.

*Do not misrepresent what someone

actually says, and be wary of assuming
anything; disagreeing with a particular bill
is not necessarily the same thing as
committing treason.
tu quoque Accusing other people of not Sarah: “Why can’t you stop smoking? What a
practicing what they preach disgusting habit!”
in order to avoid being held Sam: “Well, I don’t see you trying to defeat your
accountable for addiction to alcohol!”
questionable/wrong *This usually comes as an appeal for
decisions. consistency, much like the fallacy of
argumentum ad antiquitam.

Original material copyright © Dallas Baptist University. All rights reserved. Other copyrighted material included by permission or
authorization. Created by UWC Staff for Dallas Baptist University. http://www.dbu.edu/uwc. August 2015.