Logical Fallacies

View Video → What is a Logical Fallacy?

View Video → Overview of Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies Table of Contents

1. Affirming the Consequent

2. Denying the antecedent
3. Ad Hominem
4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
5. Appeal to Authority
6. Appeal to the People
7. Circular Reasoning
8. False Dichotomy
9. Slippery Slope
10. Red Herrings
11. Equivocation
12. Straw Man
13. Appeal to Ignorance
14. False Analogy
15. Appeal to Emotion
16. Hasty Generalization

Affirming the Consequent: Conditional

statements do not imply an if-then
relationship.
Affirming the consequent can never be valid, meaning that the
conclusion will not follow necessarily from the premises. It
may just so happen that consequent is true and the
antecedent is true independently of that. But again, the
inference remains invalid, and their relationship remains
accidental rather than logical.

Examples:

“If I have caffeine' (antecedent), 'I will be awake all night' (consequent). 'I'm
awake all night' (consequent). 'Therefore, I must have had caffeine' (affirms
the consequent, concluding that the antecedent must have occurred).”

• “If you eat your vegetables, then you will lose weight. You are losing
weight. Therefore, you must be eating your vegetables. This is an
example of affirming the consequent, and it ignores the possibility that
a person might be doing additional exercise, or cutting calories in a
different way.”
• “if the corn is delicious, then someone spent a lot of time cooking it.
Someone spent a lot of time cooking this corn. Therefore, the corn
must be delicious.”
• “if you pet my dog, then she will wag her tail. My dog's tail is wagging.
Therefore, you must have petted my dog.”

You should bring

an umbrella
Affirming the consequent fallacy: a logical error that involves inferring the
truth of a condition from the truth of its consequence. It has the form: If X, then
Y. Y is true, so X must be true. This is fallacious because there may be other
reasons why Y is true, besides X. For example, "If it rains, then the game is
cancelled. The game has been cancelled, therefore it has rained" is affirming
the consequent fallacy.

View Video → Affirming the consequent

Denying the antecedent: one fact does not

make the opposite true
The antecedent is the first part of the statement, beginning with ''if''; the
consequent is the second part of the statement, beginning with ''then.'' An
example of a conditional statement would be the sentence,

''If this book is assigned by the teacher, then the students will read it.''

The antecedent is ''If this book has been assigned by the teacher,'' and the
consequent is ''then the students will read it.''

Examples:

• If she’s human, then she has a brain. But if she is a dog (not a human),
then it follows that she does not have a brain.

• If they leave two hours early for class, then they will get there on time.
They did not leave two hours early. Therefore, they did not get there on
time.

• If Sarah works harder than Billy, then she’ll get a job. Billy doesn’t work
harder than Sarah. Therefore, Billy won’t get a job.

• If your pet is a cat, then it has a tail. Your pet is not a cat. Therefore, it
does not have a tail.
 • If you are a mechanic, you have a job. You are not a mechanic.
Therefore, you do not have a job.

Denying the antecedent fallacy: sometimes also called inverse error or

fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the
original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.

Therefore, if not P, then not Q

View Video → Denying the antecedent

Ad Hominem: No Real Argument? Attack the

Other Person
Common tactics in arguments, especially when one is losing, are the ad
hominem (‘to the person’ or ‘against the person ‘) and Tu Quoque (‘you too’)
attacks (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Neither of these addresses the actual
question but instead attacks the other person‘s character, intentions,
experience, consistency, or qualifications.

Example:

“You say that college education should be free, but you’re not that smart.“
For example, Tu Quoque

“You say that smoking should be banned on campus, but you are yourself a
smoker, are you not?"

In the first example, the opposing side clearly attacks the person saying
he/she is not smart, and the second example questions the other person’s
consistency—both avoid the issues being presented.

Ad hominem: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than directly
addressing the issue.

View Video → Ad hominem

View Video → The Ad Hominem Fallacy

View Video → Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: A Caused B!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc literally means, “after this, therefore because of
this" (Merriam-Webster. (n.d.)).
If event A occurred, it must have caused event B to happen.

Example:

I talked on the phone for four hours, and now I feel sick. So, talking on the
phone made me sick.

Maybe it was, but it doesn’t discount the fact that other things might have
made him sick, like a virus spreading in his house, the food he ate before
talking on the phone, or some other cause.

Assuming that chronological sequence implies a first event to have caused

the second event is fallacious.

Post hoc (also called false cause or False correlation): Making a claim that
just because two events happen at the same time, that one must have caused
the other.

*Note Post Hock and Slippery slope sound similar but they are different -
(Post Hoc fallacy postulates that X caused Y because X and Y are related in
time, the slippery slope fallacy is about prediction: X will cause Y and Z,
because Y and Z are the natural outcomes of X.)

View Video → Post hoc

Appeal to Authority: ‘Coz My Mama Said So!

We often refer to authorities in specific fields for scientific or legal advice, but
appeal to authority means to refer to a person who is an expert in a certain
field without additional evidence or proof.

This type of fallacious reasoning can take on several forms, like misquoting
the authority, misrepresenting the authority as an expert in a field he/she is
not an expert in, when the authority is not trustworthy, and when a given
subject has much disagreement among authorities (Dowden, n.d.)

1) The election was rigged because Donald Trump said so.

2) Dr. X said that vaccines don’t work, so I don’t believe in vaccines.

In example 1, Trump is not an authority on elections, he certainly is not

trustworthy, and there is no disagreement among experts that the elections
were fair and not rigged.

In example 2, some so-called “authorities" are not true experts in immunology,

medicine, and epidemiology, so their opinions on the efficacy (or alleged
inefficacy) of vaccines are not valid.
Appeal to authority: A belief that just because an authority, expert, or a
person with influence and power believes something that it must be true.

View Video → Appeal to authority

View Video → Fallacies Appeal to Authority

Appeal to the People: Jump on the

Bandwagon!
When one tries to persuade us that their stance is what the majority likes,
wants, or thinks, it is called Argumentum ad populum or Appeal to the People
(Dowden, n.d.).

Example 1:

Everybody likes Coca-Cola more than Pepsi, so you should like Coke, too!

Just because everybody likes something or something is popular with the

majority doesn’t mean it’s good for us or should we choose it too, without
further evidence.

Example 2:

Nobody got vaccinated at all when vaccines were first introduced, so don’t
trust vaccines!

This can work the other way when trying to discredit something by stating that
nobody wants it. Yes, nobody wanted to get vaccinated early on because they
did not understand the science behind it, but it is an accepted fact now that
vaccines work and save lives.
Bandwagon fallacy: Claiming an argument is true because it has popular
support.

View Video → Bandwagon

View Video → Fallacies Appeal to Popular Belief

Circular Reasoning: Round and Round We

Go
Circular reasoning or “circulus in probando," also “begging the question,"
occurs when one’s argument has a conclusion that is significantly similar to
the premise.

Example 1:

The sky is orange at sunset because it is reddish and yellowish in hue.

The words orange and reddish/yellowish are just the same colors, so the
reasoning is flawed because the premise and conclusion are just saying the
same thing.

Example 2:

The death penalty is never justified because taking a human life is always
wrong.

Sure, many would disagree with the death penalty, but this statement does
not provide any reason why it is not justified. A better argument could be
made by citing other facts such as conviction bias against the poor, actual
crime rates, etc.

Circular Reasoning: Begging the question is closely related to circular

reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true
because A is true." Begging the question makes a claim by repeating the
same thing in different words.

View Video → Begging the question

View Video → Fallacies Begging the Question (broad sense)

View Video → Fallacies Begging the Question (narrow sense)

False Dichotomy: Either-Or Fallacy

The either-or fallacy or false dichotomy argument is stated to make the other
person choose only between two alternatives even if there may be more than
one choice, or that both choices are valid. The trick is to make a statement
appear to have only two mutually-exclusive choices—and that one has to
choose either A or B.

Example:

1) Which one is it nature or nurture that influences who we eventually

become?

2) You should get married or you will be alone for the rest of your life!

In example 1, nature (genetics) and nurture (the environment) are presented

as the only factors that affect a person’s development and personality, and
one of them has more influence than the other. Asking us to choose which of
the two really determines who we become ignores the scientific fact that
BOTH genes and the environment affect us, and more importantly, the
INTERACTION between our genes and our environment is a third factor that
also affects us. These THREE factors, not one, not two—determine who we
will become.

In example 2, marriage and being alone are represented as the only two
choices one can have, but it ignores the fact that it is also possible to have a
life partner without getting married, or being in a civil marriage as opposed to
a church marriage, or having pets as companions.
False dilemma (or False Dichotomy): Thinking there are only two possible
conclusions when there may be alternatives not yet considered.

View Video → False dilemma

Slippery Slope: it is only a matter of time

before they slide all the way to the bottom.!
A slippery slope fallacy is a type of argument that anticipates a series of
cause-and-effect events without any logical evidence for its premises or
conclusions. It posits that if one event happens, it will cause a chain of events
to occur that will ultimately lead to a final conclusion.

Essentially, if A (the initial event) happens, then inevitably E (the final event in
the series of claims) will occur. In a slippery slope argument, the claim is that
A will cause B, C, D, and inevitably E.

This type of argument is a fallacy because the statements, or premises, do

not necessarily lead to the drawn conclusions.

Examples:
 • If students are required to wear uniforms to school, they’ll do less
shopping at local clothing stores. With less business, the stores will
close, which will hurt our local economy.

• Widening the road will lead to more traffic in town. More cars on the
road will lead to more collisions, which will make our town a dangerous
place to drive or walk.

• Lowering the voting age to 16 will make 14-year-olds want to vote, and

then once we lower it to 14, we’ll find ourselves asking if we should

lower it again to 12 or even 10.

• First they’ll allow residents to keep chickens in their yards, then they’ll
start allowing people to keep pigs and sheep. Soon, this entire

neighborhood will be one giant livestock farm.

Slippery slope: A claim that one event leads to another event and so on until
we come to an awful or disastrous conclusion.

*Note Post Hock and Slippery slope sound similar but they are different -
(Post Hoc fallacy postulates that X caused Y because X and Y are related in
time, the slippery slope fallacy is about prediction: X will cause Y and Z,
because Y and Z are the natural outcomes of X.)
View Video → Slippery slope

View Video → Fallacies Slippery Slope

Red Herrings: Look, Shiny Object!

It is often very effective to distract a crying child with a shiny object. Just point
to your Christmas tree ornament or a mirror.

A red herring is a statement or question that is meant to divert attention from

the topic or issue being discussed. Its etymology is quite interesting—herring
fish turned red when they were salted and cured, and were so smelly that dog
owners used them to distract their hunting dogs from the scent of their quarry
(Merriam-Webster. (n.d.)). It is an apt analogy for a distraction meant to avoid
the topic. You can easily find real life examples of fallacies in media.

Example:

Person A: The police should not be so indiscriminate in killing unarmed black

people.

Person B: What about the hundreds of thousands of white US soldiers who

died in WW2? These numbers are much higher than a few black deaths! All
lives matter!

The argument that there are more white lives lost is a red herring that
distracts from the real issue of police brutality, and the rest of the sentence
almost sounds convincing. Almost. That’s what a red herring does—it
distracts from the real issue.
Red herring: An attempt to redirect attention away from a relevant issue by
introducing another, irrelevant issue.

View Video → Red herring

Equivocation: Same Same, But Different

The fallacy of equivocation is when a term or phrase can have several
meanings, but is used ambiguously in an argument. Often one part of the
argument uses one meaning but another part uses a different meaning,
conflating the two to create a false conclusion. Sometimes, a single term or
phrase is used, but has a different meaning for the speaker than for the
audience.

Example:

1) You say you’re an ethical person, but your work ethic is so bad!

2) “This government does not torture people “. (The United States does not
torture). George W. Bush, 2007.
In example 1, the word “ethical," meaning behaving honestly and fairly, was
conflated with the word “ethic" or “work ethic," one’s dedication to his/her job.
The implication of the conclusion was that the person being addressed is not
ethical because he/she has a poor work ethic! However, poor work ethic at a
company does not necessarily equate to dishonesty and being a bad person.
Maybe he/she was a whistleblower who did not like working for the company.

In example 2, George W. Bush said the US does not torture people with
conviction because, in his mind, waterboarding was not torture. Maybe he,
like us, thinks of torture as the medieval types of torture that were very brutal.
Nonetheless, waterboarding is torture (OHCHR 2017). This is a great
example of logical fallacies in the news.

Equivocation: (Same, Same, But Different) This fallacy uses words that have
double meaning or has several meanings, but the meaning is used
interchangeably in an argument.

View Video → Equivocation

Straw Man: in Fields Forever

A straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition set up to be easily refuted
(Merriam-Webster. (n.d.)). In other words, instead of addressing a question,
one will present a distorted or weakened form of the opponent’s stance (the
straw man) and then attack that straw man. One presents the other side’s
stances INACCURATELY, and that inaccurate representation is what is
attacked instead of the actual stances.
It is very difficult to discern the straw man in certain situations, especially
when scientific facts are used, but distorted cleverly.

Example:

The Theory of Evolution states that complexity in the universe increases over
time, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends
toward chaos or disorder, and therefore, towards decreased complexity. Thus,
the Theory of Evolution is not supported by, and goes against, the laws of
thermodynamics, and, is therefore, false.

This is very cleverly-worded, but distorts the Second Law—yes, the universe
tends towards disorder, just as the Second Law of Thermodynamics states,
but it is not impossible to have complex biological life because of energy.
Energy can allow organisms to develop, grow, and evolve, and circumvent—
not disobey—the Second Law. The proof is that we actually see complex life
around us and in geological time requiring energy, and evolving towards more
complexity.

The straw man is the distorted view that the Second Law of Thermodynamics
is an absolute rule that cannot be circumvented. It can be—by energy stored
in ATP, produced by mitochondria, triggering life’s constant evolution towards
complexity.
Strawman fallacy: Distorting or overstating an opponent's argument to make
it easier to attack.

View Video → Strawman

View Video → The Straw Man Fallacy

Appeal to Ignorance: Absence of Evidence

Is Not Evidence of Absence
Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance is a type of fallacious
reasoning that can take one of two forms:

1) Taking a statement as false because we don’t know if the statement is true.

2) Taking a statement as true because we don’t know if the statement is false.

(Dowden, n.d.)

Examples (respectively):

1) God does not exist because there is no evidence that proves His existence.

2) God exists because there is no evidence that disproves His existence.

In both cases, the premise is (incorrectly) assumed to be correct because of

absence of evidence to the contrary.

We can see that they have opposing conclusions, but committed the same
logical fallacy!
Appeal to ignorance: Believing a claim is true because it can't be proven
false or vice versa.

View Video → Appeal to ignorance

False Analogy: of Dogs and Men and

Watches
False analogies utilize a valid comparison of two things in aspects they are
alike, and falsely introducing another comparison that they must be alike in
other aspects too.

These analogies are easy to make and are sometimes difficult to detect
because we get hooked on the first analogy and generally accept it as true,
and preconditions our mind to accept the second, and false, analogy (APA,
2022).

Examples:
1) Dogs are very much like humans. Dogs respond well to discipline.
Therefore, it is also good to discipline people.

2) A complex pocket watch must have been designed intelligently by a

watchmaker, and life and the world are also complex. Thus, they must also be
the product of an intelligent designer. (paraphrased from William Paley
(Archie,2006).

Example 1’s first sentence is generally true in some aspects, and so is

sentence 2. Yes, we discipline our dogs so they won’t misbehave or bark at
our relatives. But sentence 3 implies that humans should be disciplined
harshly like dogs, sometimes physically when they get out of hand. There is a
false equivalency in this analogy, and the conclusion is certainly false.

In example 2, complexity in itself is something that fills us with awe, thereby

the ease by which the argument convinces people. However, it is a fallacy
because the analogy of a watchmaker making a pocket watch to a designer
designing the universe Is not a congruent one. For instance, there are so
many ‘flaws’ in the natural world and the universe that design does not seem
to be the norm. Rather, as evolution shows, change is mostly random and
obeys natural selection—the survival of the fittest. Life is full of disease and
suffering that design almost implies cruelty. The universe itself is full of black
holes and dying stars.

Note: This does not prove or disprove that there is or is no God. It is safe to
say that the logic is flawed and the argument is a fallacy.
The False Analogy Fallacy: the assumption that two things share multiple
similarities simply because they have one thing in common. The expression
about comparing apples to oranges alludes to this fallacy

View Video → False Analogy

Appeal to Emotion: Think of the Starving

Children!
Evoking emotions in arguments are quite valid, but NOT when emotions are
the ONLY source of support for an argument.

Appeal to emotion is a technique that attempts to influence an audience by

manipulating their emotions rather than using logic to win an argument. In
other words, factual evidence and logic are absent in the arguments that
appeal to emotion (Dowden, n.d.).

Examples:
1) You should eat your vegetables. Think of all the hungry, starving children in
Africa!

2) I think I deserve a raise! My child is in the hospital, prices of goods are

increasing, and I have only one source of income!

Example 1 is a great way to make your kids eat vegetables, but someday
they’ll really wonder why you compared them to starving children, and they’ll
just pig out on meat. It would have been better if we explained to them the
health benefits of eating vegetables.

Example 2 is also known as appeal to pity, quite effective in certain situations.

However, justification for a raise usually follows the accountants’ assessment
of a company’s solvency, and the employee’s performance is usually the
basis for a raise, not his/her economic situation.

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: when an argument avoids logic by attempting to

manipulate an audience’s feelings

View Video → Appeal to Emotion

Hasty Generalization: Broad Conclusion
Based on Insufficient Evidence!
Hasty Generalization

The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when a conclusion is made about a

whole group based on an insufficiently small or representative sample. The
key aspect here is the “haste” – coming to a quick conclusion without
considering all the necessary or relevant evidence.

Example

“You conclude that all smartphones are fragile because of the two models that
you owned broke easily.”

Example

If you see a group of football player sneeze and conclude, “all football players
have allergies.”

Example

Believing that a specific diet is effective for weight loss just because your
neighbor lost weight on it and ignoring a broader scientific research on the
effectiveness of this diet.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy: a claim made on the basis of insufficient
evidence. Instead of looking into examples and evidence that are much more
in line with the typical or average situation, you draw a conclusion about a
large population using a small, unrepresentative sample.

View Video → Hasty Generalization