Skip to main content

List of Common Logical Fallacies | Basic Idea of Logical Fallacies


Do you want to argue without making any logical fallacy?
Here you are going to know about some common logical fallacies that you are probably committing unknowingly.


Basic Idea of Logical Fallacies:


Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. They often appear persuasive but lack logical foundation. Recognizing these fallacies is essential for critical thinking and avoiding manipulation in discussions.


History of Logical Fallacies:

The logical fallacies were first recognized and categorized in Nyaya Sutras, the fundamental scripture of Nyaya school of Indian philosophy, propounded by Aksapada Gautama.
Greek philosopher Aristotle also identifies thirteen logical fallacies in his Sophistical Refutations.

Classifications of Logical Fallacies:

Logical fallacies can be broadly classified into formal fallacies and informal fallacies:

1. Formal Fallacies

These occur when the structure of an argument is invalid, regardless of the content.

Example: Affirming the Consequent
If A, then B.
B is true, so A must be true.
Flawed Reasoning: Just because B is true doesn’t mean A caused it.
Example:
Premise 1: If it rains (A), then the streets will be wet (B).
Premise 2: The streets are wet (B).
Conclusions: It rained (A).
Raining is a reason for the streets being wet. But raining is not the only reason. There are several other reasons for the street being wet.
Isn’t it?
So, it’s a fallacious argument.


2. Informal Fallacies


These arise from errors in reasoning related to the content or context of the argument. They are further divided into several categories:



Informal Fallacies

Errors in reasoning due to content or context.

A. Fallacies of Relevance

Arguments where irrelevant points are introduced.



Ad Hominem: 

The fallacy of ad hominem occurs when you attack the person instead of their argument.

Person A: The unemployment rate of the country going high. The inflation rate is also rising. To divert people’s attention, the government is pushing them into hatred and riots. You must raise your voice against the government.

You: You don’t live in our country, so, you don’t have any right to criticize our government.

Here you have committed a fallacy by attacking A personally instead of refuting his arguments.



Appeal to Authority: 

Assuming something is true because an authority figure says so. A person tries to convince others to agree with them by appealing to a supposed authority, let’s say a religious scripture; a doctor the government etc.
For example,
You: God created the heavens and the earth and is the king of everything.
Person A: How do you know? 
You: The Bible says so.
Here you committed a fallacy by referring to a religious scripture that you may consider to be the truest thing because of your religious beliefs.



Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon):

The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when you believe something to be true because many people believe it.
For example,
Everyone is buying this sinker, so, it must be the best.


Straw Man Argument: 

The fallacy of strawman fallacy occurs when you misrepresent an argument and attack the misrepresentation to win easily.

For example:
Person A: Chimney emissions should be reduced.
You: So, you say that there should be no development.



Red Herring:

The fallacy of red herring occurs when you attempt to introduce irrelevant information to distract the opponent from a relevant issue.

Examples:
Person A: Companies shouldn’t cut their budgets.
You: Let’s not discuss the budget cuts; think about how hardworking the employees are.

Here you committed the fallacy of red herring, because, the budget cut is a relevant issue and the information how hardworking the employees are is irrelevant.



Appeal to Emotion:

The fallacy of appeal to emotion occurs when you express your emotions to win an argument instead of providing.

Examples:
You: Please buy this insurance.
Your friend: Why?
You: Your family will be safe at least.

You: You should not fire me.
Your boss: What are you saying?
You: I have a family to feed, sir!


Equivocation:

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when one uses a word in two different senses within the same argument.
Examples:
Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.
Here the word “man” has two senses. The first man denotes the entire human world, while the second man implies only those who are male.

The sign said “fine for parking here,” so I thought it was fine to park.



Amphiboly:

Amphiboly occurs when one uses a phrase or a sentence that can have multiple interpretations because of the ambiguous sentence structure. 

Examples:
The police shot the man with a gun. 
Here it means that using a gun the police shot the man. And it could also mean that the police shot the man who was holding a gun.

Flying planes can be dangerous.
The phrase “flying planes” may imply planes that are flying, but it could also mean travelling by air. 



Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):

The fallacy of Begging the question occurs when the premise assumes the conclusion instead of supporting it.

Examples:
God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s God’s word.

Smoking causes cancer, because the smoke from a cigarette is carcinogenic. (Carcinogenic – cancer-causing). 




False Dilemma (Either/Or):

The fallacy of false dilemma involves presenting limited number of options when more exist.

Examples:
1. Either you support this law, or you don’t care about safety and security of the people.
2. If we don’t increase taxes, the economy will collapse.


Hasty Generalization:

The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when you draw a broad conclusion about a whole group based on very little or small sample that doesn’t really represent the whole.

Examples:
1. Relatives must be jealous, because all my relatives are jealous of my success.
2. Some people from religion X became militants. So all the people belonging to the religion X must be militants.



False Cause or Post Hoc ergo propter hoc:

The fallacy of false cause of post hoc occurs when you assume a temporal succession implies a causal relation.

Examples:
1. The cat crossed the road. Then there was a road accident. Therefore, cats crossing the roads causes accidents.
2. After the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.



Correlation and Causation:

The correlation-causation fallacy occurs when you assume causation-and-effect relation between two incidents. But actually, there is only a correlation.

Examples:
1. Ice cream sales and drowning rates both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.
2. I won the match because I wore this lucky jersey, so the lucky jersey caused me to win.



Appeal to Ignorance:

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when you claim something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or false because it hasn’t been proven true).

Examples:
1. Aliens are real, because no one has proved that they are not.
2. God does not exist, because it has not been proved that He exists.





Composition

The fallacy of composition occurs when you assume what 
is true of the parts is true of the whole.

Examples:
1. Bricks are light. So, a house, that is made of bricks, must be light.
2. Atoms are invisible to the naked eye. So, my car, that is made of atoms, is also invisible.



Division:

The fallacy of composition occurs when one assumes what is true of the whole is true of its parts.

Examples:
1. The house is big, so each brick used to build the house is also big.
2. Americans spend a lot of money in restaurants and cafes. John is an American. John must spend a lot of money in restaurants and cafes.




Slippery Slope:

The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when you argue, without providing evidence for such inevitability, that a relatively small initial step will inevitably lead to a chain of events with significant consequences.

Example:

Argument: “If we allow students to use calculators in exams, next they’ll start using computers, and soon no one will know basic math anymore.”

Why it’s fallacious: The argument assumes a chain reaction without proof that allowing calculators will lead to these extreme outcomes.




False Analogy (Faulty Analogy):

This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that there must be multiple similarities only because they share one similarity. 

Example:
Person A: Guns should be banned to avoid crimes,
You: So, you say that kitchen knives should also be banned to avoid kitchen accidents, right? Both are just tools.


Why it’s fallacious: Using guns and using kitchen knives are fundamentally different, and treating them the same ignores the complexities.



False Equivalence:

The fallacy of false equivalence occurs when you claim two entirely different things as equal based in one single similarity ignoring crucial differences between them.

Example:
A goat has beards, a man also has beards. Therefore, a man is a goat.

Simply sharing one characteristic (having a beard) does not make a man and a goat the same. They have a lot of differences that you should take into consideration.



No True Scotsman / Appeal to Purity:

This fallacy occurs when you redefine a prior claim to exclude counterexamples that disprove your claim.

Example:

Your claim: “No true patriot would criticize their country.”

Counterexample: “But John is a patriot, and he criticizes the government when necessary.”

Your redefined claim: “Well, John isn’t a true patriot.”

Why it’s fallacious: The definition of “patriot” is arbitrarily altered to dismiss valid counterexamples.

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Is Logic and Why It Matters in Today's World

In today’s fast-paced digital age, we are constantly bombarded with information from social media, news outlets, and everyday conversations.  But how often do we pause and think to evaluate the validity of what we hear or see?  This is where logic comes into play. Logic, the foundation of rational thinking, is more than just a subject studied in philosophy—it is a skill that empowers us to make informed, data-driven decisions, resist manipulation, and contribute to a more rational society. What Is Logic? At its core, logic is the science of reasoning. It helps us distinguish between valid and invalid arguments, allowing us to separate truth from falsehood. Logic is used in various disciplines—mathematics, computer science, law, and even everyday problem-solving. There are three primary types of reasoning in logic – 1. Deductive Reasoning:  Starting with a general statement and arriving at a specific conclusion. Example: All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Theref...

The Role of Logical Reasoning in Overcoming Superstitions

  Superstitions have been a part of human society for centuries. Why? Because they often stem from fear, ignorance, and traditions.  They thrive in the absence of rational inquiry, relying on emotional appeals and a lack of understanding about the natural world.  Why should you overcome them? Are they harmful at all? Well, ofcourse many superstitions are harmless, but others can perpetuate harmful practices, hinder scientific progress, and exploit the vulnerable section of a society.  Okay, then how can you overcome them? You can overcome them only by logical reasoning and pave the way for a more rational and progressive society. Now let us understand what a superstition is: What is Superstition? Superstitions are irrational beliefs or practices that attribute supernatural causes to natural events. They often involve rituals or taboos believed to bring good luck, prevent bad fortune, or explain unexplained phenomena.  Examples include the fear of black cats cros...

Scientific Temper: A Rational Approach to Progress and Values

  What is Scientific Temper? The scientific approach and temper are, or should be, a way of life, a process of thinking, a method of acting and associating with life, a process of thinking, a method of acting and associating with our fellowmen.  – Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. Why do you need to have a scientific temper? Okay. First, The article 51A (h) of the Constitution of India states that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop a scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of enquiry and reform” .  So, it is, if you are an Indian, your Fundamental Duty to be scientifically tempered. Second, Being scientifically tempered you can accept the world objectively. No one can easily manipulate you towards their own interests. For instance, you can see both the good and the bad aspects of an object or idea, while other people around you are able to see only one aspect because of their emotional biases. Third, You will be able to fin...