how to avoid using fallacies in an essay

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Avoiding Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors of reasoning—specific ways in which arguments fall apart due to faulty connection making. While logical fallacies may be used intentionally in certain forms of persuasive writing (e.g., in political speeches aimed at misleading an audience), fallacies tend to undermine the credibility of objective scholarly writing. Knowledge of how successful arguments are structured, then—as well as of the different ways they may fall apart—is a useful tool for both academic reading and writing. If you are writing an annotated bibliography or literature review, for instance, being able to recognize logical flaws in others‘ arguments may enable you to critique the validity of claims, research results, or even theories in a particular text. Along the same lines, if you are putting together your own argumentative paper (KAM, dissertation proposal, prospectus, etc.), understanding argument structure and fallacies will help you avoid errors of reasoning in your own work.

Argument Structure

The basic structure of all arguments involves three interdependent elements:

• Claim (also known as the conclusion)—What you are trying to prove. This is usually presented as your essay‘s thesis statement.
• Support (also known as the minor premise)—The evidence (facts, expert testimony, quotes, and statistics) you present to back up your claims.
• Warrant (also known as major premise)—Any assumption that is taken for granted and underlies your claim.

Consider the claim, support, and warrant for the following examples:

Example 1   Claim : The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) has led to an increase in high school student drop-out rates.   Support : Drop-out rates in the US have climbed by 20% since 2001.   Warrant : (The claim presupposes that) it‘s a "bad" thing for students to drop out.

Example 2   Claim : ADHD has grown by epidemic proportions in the last 10 years   Support : In 1999, the number of children diagnosed with ADHD was 2.1 million; in 2009, the number was 3.5 million.   Warrant : (The claim presupposes that) a diagnosis of ADHD is the same thing as the actual existence of ADHD; it also presupposes that ADHD is a disease.

Claims fall into three categories: claims of fact, claims of value, and claims of policy. All three types of claims occur in scholarly writing although claims of fact are probably the most common type you will encounter in research writing. Claims of fact are assertions about the existence (past, present, or future) of a particular condition or phenomenon:

Example: Japanese business owners are more inclined to use sustainable business practices than they were 20 years ago.

The above statement about Japan is one of fact; either the sustainable practices are getting more popular (fact) or they are not (fact). In contrast to claims of fact, those of value make a moral judgment about a phenomenon or condition:

Example: Unsustainable business practices are unethical.

Notice how the claim is now making a judgment call, asserting that there is greater value in the sustainable than in the unsustainable practices. Lastly, claims of policy are recommendations for actions—for things that should be done:

Example: Japanese carmakers should sign an agreement to reduce carbon emissions in manufacturing facilities by 50% by the year 2025.

The claim in this last example is that Japanese carmakers‘ current policy regarding carbon emissions needs to be changed.

For the most part, the claims you will be making in academic writing will be claims of fact. Therefore, examples presented below will highlight fallacies in this type of claim. For an argument to be effective, all three elements—claim, support, and warrant—must be logically connected.

Although there are more than two dozen types and subtypes of logical fallacies, many of these are likelier to occur in persuasive, rather than expository or research, writing. Below are the most common forms of fallacy that you may encounter in the type of expository/research writing you are apt to do at Walden:

Example: Special education students should not be required to take standardized tests because such tests are meant for nonspecial education students.

Example: Two out of three patients who were given green tea before bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to treat insomnia.

• Sweeping generalizations are related to the problem of hasty generalizations. In the former, though, the error consists in assuming that a particular conclusion drawn from a particular situation and context applies to all situations and contexts. For example, if I research a particular problem at a private performing arts high school in a rural community, I need to be careful not to assume that my findings will be generalizable to all high schools, including public high schools in an inner city setting.

Example: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology. Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

Example: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed. Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.

Example: Japanese carmakers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2025.

In addition to claims of policy, false dilemma seems to be common in claims of value. For example, claims about abortion‘s morality (or immorality) presuppose an either-or about when "life" begins. Our earlier example about sustainability ("Unsustainable business practices are unethical.") similarly presupposes an either/or: business practices are either ethical or they are not, it claims, whereas a moral continuum is likelier to exist.

As you can see from the examples above, there are many ways arguments can fall apart due to faulty connection making. When trying to induce inferences from data, for instance, it‘s important not to draw conclusions too quickly or too globally; otherwise, you may end up with errors of hasty or sweeping generalization that will weaken your overall thesis. Similarly, it‘s important not to construct an either-or argument when dealing with a complex, multi-faceted issue or to assume a causal relationship when dealing with a merely temporal one; the ensuing errors—false dilemma and post hoc ergo procter hoc, respectively—may weaken argument as well. Being attentive to logical fallacies in others‘ writings will make you a more effective "critic" and writer of literature review assignments, annotated bibliographies and article critiques. Being attentive to fallacies in your own writing will help you build more compelling arguments, whether putting together a dissertation prospectus or simply writing a short discussion post on the applications of a particular theory.

Related Resources

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Comparing & Contrasting
• Next Page: Addressing Assumptions
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

How to Support an Argument and Avoid Logical Fallacies

What is an argument.

Every day we are presented with dozens of arguments that purport to be factual. Every day we must evaluate these statements and decide what we think about them—not only whether we agree with them or not, but also whether we think they are true. As you read this, you might take a minute to stop and think about how many such messages and statements you have already encountered today and how you thought about them.

Parts of an Argument

There are three basic parts to any argument, that is, three basic parts to any statement that is intended to persuade or prove something.

• Conclusion : This may or may not come at the end and is the author’s main idea
• Evidence : This is whatever the author or speaker uses to support the conclusion. (Below you will read about the various kinds of evidence, how to use them, and how to recognize when they are being misused.)
• Assumption (or Warrant) : This is rarely stated explicitly in the argument, but is absolutely central. The assumption is what holds the argument together and determines how the author or speaker looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion.

Evaluating Arguments by Identifying the Assumption

The following examples illustrate how you can identify an author’s assumption by looking at the other parts (evidence and conclusion) of their argument:

• Evidence : Arbuthnot looks out his window and sees that it is snowing heavily.
• Conclusion : Winter is a difficult and dangerous time of year.

What is Arbuthnot’s assumption in making this statement? Although we cannot know with absolute certainty, we can make a well-informed guess that his assumption has to do with how dangerous snow is. For instance, Arbuthnot may be afraid of driving in snow or afraid that he will fall while shoveling snow. Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, you can at least see his assumption at work. Here is another example:

• Evidence : Montgomery looks out his window and sees that it is snowing heavily.
• Conclusion : Winter is great! I look forward to it every year.

What is Montgomery’s assumption? Well, without more to go on we cannot say absolutely, but we can safely guess that it must be something that includes an enjoyment of snow. For instance, Montgomery might love downhill skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobile-riding or making snow angels. Do you see how this works?

So, in order to evaluate the worth of any argument, you must consider what the author’s assumption might be. In the examples, Montgomery and Arbuthnot have exactly the same evidence, and yet have come to very different conclusions. What makes the difference? They started from different assumptions. Thus, when you are evaluating an argument presented to you, ask yourself what the author’s assumption might be. Then, consider whether you think that is a sound assumption. For instance, here is an argument:

We are the best because we sell the most!

Have you ever heard this argument before? What is the assumption here? It is that quantity (of sales) equals quality (of product)? Do you think that is a sound assumption? Do you agree with it?

Tools for an Effective Argument

In addition to operating on a sound assumption, to argue convincingly the author must present evidence and analysis that support the conclusion.

Five common tools in an effective argument:

• Expert opinions

Correct and Incorrect Use of Logic and Evidence

Evidence from experts.

The opinions of experts (also called authorities) can be invaluable. These are people who have some special knowledge on the subject, and their support lends believability to the author’s point. For instance, in a paper on why smoking is unhealthy, the U.S. Surgeon General and the chairs of either the American Lung Association or American Cancer Association would be strong authorities. Their authority comes from their professional experience. People become authorities for different reasons. They may have academic or professional training and experience, or they may also be people with extensive personal experience. Another authority on this topic might be a life-long smoker who now has extensive health problems.

However, using authorities may pose some dangers: The person may not be an authority in the right area. For example, “My lawyer told me about a great way to make my car run more fuel efficiently.” Advertising is notorious for using false authorities. For instance, Michael Jordan might be a good authority on the best basketball shoes, but does he really know more about underwear than anyone else? The classic example: “I may not be a doctor, but I play one on TV, so I know this is the best flu relief out there.”

Additionally, the topic may be hotly debated within the field—experts may disagree. When citing an authority, ask yourself not only if the person is truly an authority, but if they are in the area you are discussing. Also, note whether peers in the field generally accept what the authority says as true.

Evidence from Facts

Facts are proven to be true. For example, Helen Keller died on June 1, 1968. Support for this comes from many sources, one of which is her obituary in the The New York Times : http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0627.html

Facts are reliable sources of evidence. The problem comes in distinguishing fact from opinion. Opinions may look like facts, but they cannot be proven. For example, “The death penalty is wrong.” While one could gather evidence to support this opinion, one could also gather evidence against it. Ultimately, whether something is “wrong” or “right” is opinion.

Additionally, people may disguise opinion as fact by saying things like “The truth of the matter is . . .” or “It is a fact that . . .” but that does not mean what follows is fact. As a reader and writer, you need to evaluate what follows to determine if it is truly fact or opinion.

Evidence from Examples

Examples can be useful forms of evidence. In fact, in conversation, we often ask people to “give me an example.” For instance, your child comes home and says, “My teacher is not fair and does not like me.” You would most likely ask your child to give you some examples to support this claim. What could your child say back to you that would support the claim about the teacher?

Here are some possibilities: “They never call on me,” “They laugh when I give the wrong answer,” and so on. These examples clearly support your child’s claim, so they would be considered useful. What if, instead, your child said, “They wear the same outfit every day” or “They drink too much coffee”? Unless the teacher wears a shirt that says “I dislike Bobby” on it every day, you would say, “What does that have to do with how much they like you?” These examples do not support the claim. This example is an exaggeration, of course, but oftentimes people will use examples as evidence even though they really do not support their claims. You have to be on the alert for this as a writer and reader.

Using Logic

Authors use logic to build one known or proven fact upon another, leading the reader to agree that a certain point is true. For example, consider the case of Frank who has six cats. To prevent having even more cats, all Frank’s cats are female. Now consider his cat Zoe. What is Zoe’s sex? We know that all Frank’s cats are female, and we know Zoe belongs to Frank, so we can conclude that Zoe is a female. That is logic.

Logical arguments fall into two categories: induction and deduction. Deduction takes a generally known fact and uses it to argue for a more specific point. The example above of Frank and his cats is an example of deductive reasoning. Deduction is common. Induction, on the other hand, takes a specific case (or cases) and uses it to argue for a bigger generalization.

For example, it was hot today. It was hot yesterday, the day before, and the day before that. A logical conclusion is that it is summer. Induction is widely used in science. Scientists studying a particular species may notice that several individuals of that species exhibit a particular behavior.

They may then induce that all members of that species exhibit the behavior, even though they have not examined every individual member.

Induction is used less frequently because it can be faulty. For example, it was hot today. It was hot yesterday, the day before, and the day before that. What if it is not summer, but actually just a record-breaking October? Induction becomes more valid as the instances used to support the general conclusion become more specific.

Common Logical Fallacies

As seen above, even logical reasoning can result in incorrect conclusions. These are called logical fallacies. Several are common enough to have their own names and are described below.

Anecdotal Fallacy

Anecdotal fallacy, also called a hasty generalization or jumping to conclusions, is an inductive fallacy that occurs when one instance supports a general claim that is not true. For example, “I had a female boss once. She was demanding and unfair. Female bosses are the worst.” The speaker is using one example, the one female boss he or she had, to argue that all female bosses are horrid. Obviously—and your own personal experience may speak to this—they are not all bad.

Mistaking Time for Cause and Effect

Just because one thing happened prior to another does not mean the first caused the second, yet frequently people will argue just that. For instance, “The repair person was here this morning, and now my keys are missing. They must have stolen them.” The speaker could have just as easily misplaced them. Maybe their child grabbed them by accident. Just because A (the repair person at the house) happened before B (the loss of the keys) does not mean A caused B.

False Authority

When we trust authorities, we need to make sure they are authorities on the subject about which they are speaking. The speaker could tell you a great deal about acting, but not about your health.

Slippery Slope

Slippery-slope arguments are based on the idea that if one thing happens, then another thing will, then another, and another. Think of this as the “domino effect.” The problem is that while the first thing might lead to the next, there is no proof that any of the other things will happen. For example, “If I let my brother borrow this CD, then he will borrow my books, then he will want to borrow my clothes, and pretty soon, he will take over my bedroom!” (Children, among others, use this argument a lot.) While a brother allowed to borrow a CD might then ask to borrow a book, the guarantee that this will lead to room invasion is nonexistent. This logical fallacy should seem familiar—it is frequently used in political discussions on gun control and abortion.

Either-Or Dilemmas (A False Dichotomy)

“It is your choice—get a gym membership or be alone forever.” Are these really the only two options? Are there ways other than a gym membership to find that special someone? Of course there is. Either-or dilemmas, however, hide that fact by claiming only two options exist. Whenever you hear only two options, be suspicious. Other options likely exist.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, also called begging the question, happens when an assumption is used to prove the same assumption is true. In other words, the conclusion simply puts the assumption in other words. For example, “Jennifer Anniston is more popular than Courtney Cox-Arquette because more people like her.” Being popular and being liked are basically the same thing, so all this says is “She is more popular because she is more popular,” which is not saying much.

This literally means “against the person.” When a claim is rejected based simply on the person making it and not on the evidence the person has put forth, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. The person, not the claim, is attacked. Why is this a logical fallacy? Because the claim the person is making is never attacked—only the person is. This personal attack is then used, falsely, to undermine the claim. Since the claim was never attacked, logically it has not been undermined, yet the attacker claims that it has. Here is an example:

• Meg : I hope the NFL is able to keep its eligibility requirements. According to ESPN, there are 1200 agents registered with the NFL. Over half have no clients. If the eligibility requirements are dropped, these agents are going to be filling high school football stadiums, scouting for new prospects, and convincing a lot of kids to forgo college in hopes of an NFL career. The bottom line is most won’t make it, and what will they have? No education, no job, and no hopes.
• Alan : You’re just a girl—what do you know about football?

For more examples of logical fallacies used in argument, refer to the Purdue Global Writing Center resource on Hasty Generalizations and Other Logical Fallacies .

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive email notifications of new posts.

Email Address

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments
• COLLEGE WRITING
• USING SOURCES & APA STYLE
• EFFECTIVE WRITING PODCASTS
• LEARNING FOR SUCCESS
• PLAGIARISM INFORMATION
• FACULTY RESOURCES
• Student Webinar Calendar
• Academic Success Center
• Writing Center
• About the ASC Tutors
• DIVERSITY TRAINING
• PG Peer Tutors
• PG Student Access

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

• College Writing
• Using Sources & APA Style
• Learning for Success
• Effective Writing Podcasts
• Plagiarism Information
• Faculty Resources
• Tutor Training

Twitter feed

• Library Catalogue

Avoiding logical fallacies in writing

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. Fallacies are most often identified when a conclusion, claim, or argument is not properly supported by its premises (supporting statements). The following is a list of common logical fallacies:

Translation: "To the people", from Latin

Definition: Countering an argument by attacking the opponent's character, rather than the argument itself.

Example: "Reza Aslan, a religious scholar with a Ph.D. in the sociology of religions from the University of California and author of the new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth , went on FoxNews.com's online show Spirited Debate to promote their book only to be prodded about why a Muslim would write a historical book about Jesus."

Why a fallacy? The interviewer is countering the author's arguments by attacking their faith, rather than their arguments as outlined in the book.

Argument from Ignorance

Also Known as: Ad Ignorantium; Non-Testable Hypothesis

Definition: An argument that cannot be refuted because it has not been proven wrong; arguments from ignorance often based on untested/untestable claims.

A : "I believe in UFOs."

B : "But they've never been proven to exist…"

A : "But they've never been proven to not exist."

Why a fallacy? A's argument that UFOs exist cannot be proven because UFOs have never been proven to not exist; scientific inquiry cannot conclusively determine that they cannot exist. Hence, this is an untestable claim.

Appeal to authority

Also known as: Argument from authority

De f inition: An argument believed to be true, because it is presented by a figure perceived to carry legitimate authority.

A : "This doctor says that a low-carb diet is an effective method to lose weight, so I'm going to cut out all breads and pasta."

B : "Shouldn't you cut out your high-fat meat as well?"

A : "According to the doctor, I can eat as much meat as I want, and I'll still lose weight."

B : "Are the doctor's conclusions supported by the medical community?"

A : "I don't know, but they're a doctor, right? Their arguments have to be legit."

Why a fallacy? A supports the doctor's claims regarding a low-carb diet based on the assumption that, as a doctor, they have the education and experience to carry legitimate authority. However, just because the doctor speaks from authority, this doesn't mean their claim is true, especially if support from the medical community is questionable.

Begging the question

Definition: An argument that includes a conclusion within a premise; or assuming as true something that needs to be proved.

A : I'm so sorry my sibling wasn't that friendly to you at the party yesterday.

B : Oh, the vegan? Let me guess, your sibling saw me going for the chicken wings?

Why a fallacy? B's second question assumes that A's vegan sibling doesn't like them because they eat meat.

Similar to: Circular reasoning

Definition: Restating the claim, rather than trying to prove or support it.

Difference: In circular reasoning, the premise and conclusion are the same; in Begging the Question, the premise and conclusion may be different

Example: Some US presidents were considered excellent communicators because they spoke effectively.

Why a fallacy? Being an "excellent communicator" and "talking effectively" are essentially the same thing; hence, the same point is being used to explain the same point.

False analogy

Definition: An argument based on the assumed similarity between the two things being compared, when in fact they are not similar.

A : "I decided to go vegetarian because I find the state of the meat industry abhorrent. The way the animals are treated is like the way the Nazis treated the Jews in the concentration camps."

Why a fallacy? Although it is true that the living conditions of animals in the present meat industry can be terrible, it is fundamentally different to the living conditions of the Jews in Nazi Europe; A is presenting them as more alike than they are.

False dilemma

Also Known as: Black-or-White; Either/Or; Excluded Middle; False Dichotomy

Definition: Simplifying an issue to where only two possibilities, outcomes, or choices are available, when in fact, more exist.

A : "How do you propose we tackle terrorism?"

B : "Either we kill them or they kill us."

Why a fallacy? B is simplifying the issue of terrorism to two possibilities: kill, or get killed. There are number of possibilities (e.g. diplomacy) between these two extremes that are being ignored.

Hasty generalization

Definition: A conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence; often involves mistaking a small incident for a larger trend.

A : "I got a bad mark on my first assignment; this is going to be a bad course."

Why a fallacy? A is concluding that just because they got a bad mark on their first assignment, A is going to get bad marks on all the rest.

Moral equivalence

Definition: Assuming that two moral issues have similar weight, even though they may be completely different; often equates minor incidents with major events.

A : "The professor that gave me a bad mark on my assignment because I made one small mistake is a total Nazi."

Why a fallacy? A is equating the hard-marking professor with the Nazis, when the implications of the actions of both is completely different. The professor just gave the student a lower-than-expected grade, while the Nazis killed millions of people in the 1930s and 40s.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc

Translation: "After this, therefore because of this" (Latin).

Definition: A conclusion based on the premise that if B occurs after A, then B must happen because of A; assumes cause and effect for two events that are related based only on their positions in time.

A : "I ate out, but now I am sick, so the food I ate while out must have made me sick."

Why a fallacy? A is assuming that because they ate out before getting sick, the food they ate must have made them sick. However, the food they ate is only one of a multitude of reasons why they might be sick.

Similar to: Correlation not causation

Definition: A's conclusion based on the premise that an observed correlation between A and B means that A caused B; this excludes the possibility of an external factor causing the correlative relationship between A and B.

Difference: Post Hoc is based on a temporal relationship between two events, whereas Correlation not Causation can be any kind of relationship.

Red herring

Definition: Avoiding opposing arguments by diverting attention away from the core issue being argued; this is often done by raising tangential issues mid-debate.

Example: North Korea consistently blaming US "imperialist" aggression for their domestic problems.

Why a fallacy? By laying blame on the US, the North Korean government is trying to distract the populace from its own difficulties in properly managing domestic affairs.

Slippery slope

Definition: A conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then B will happen, then C, and so on, which will lead to (a much more extreme) Z, therefore A should not be accepted/occur; in other words, A is equated with Z.

A : "If we legalize soft drugs, like marijuana, more people will be interested in using hard drugs, and then crime rates will increase, which will result in the failure of society as we know it. So we should ban drugs altogether."

Why a fallacy? A assumes that opening the door to soft drugs will eventually cause the collapse of society, through a number of small intermediate steps that may not necessarily follow.

Definition: Countering an argument by attacking a different position than the one argued; this is often done by misrepresenting the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to counter, and then countering the misrepresented argument.

A : "I support a woman's right to control her body, thus I support abortion."

B : "You realize that you're supporting mass-murder, right? Women who abort their fetuses are killing innocent lives."

Why a fallacy? B is misrepresenting A's argument about women having control over their own bodies by equating abortion to murder, then countering A's argument on the basis that by supporting abortion, A is, in fact, supporting mass-murder.

Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of fallacies; there are many others.

If you have questions about the logic of your argument(s), talk to your professor or TA, and/or come to see one of the peers at the Student Learning Commons.

• The Concise Canadian Writer's Handbook, 2nd ed. William E. Messenger, Jan de Bruyn, Judy Brown, and Ramona Montagnes. Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies
• The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
• ScribblePreach
• Drake's List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies

Handout created by Helen Bowman, SFU student and Learning and Writing Peer Educator, 2013

Unit 6: Argumentative Essay Writing

47 Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning based on faulty logic . Good writers want to convince readers to agree with their arguments—their reasons and conclusions. If your arguments are not logical, readers won’t be convinced. Logic can help prove your point and disprove your opponent’s point—and perhaps change a reader’s mind about an issue. If you use faulty logic (logic not based on fact), readers will not believe you or take your position seriously.

Read about five of the most common logical fallacies and how to avoid them below:

• Generalizations
• Loaded words
• Inappropriate authority figures
• Either/or arguments
• Slippery slope

Common Logical Fallacies

Below are five of the most common logical fallacies.

#1 Generalizations

Explanation: Hasty generalizations are just what they sound like—making quick judgments based on inadequate information. This kind of logical fallacy is a common error in argumentative writing.

Example 1: Ren didn’t want to study at a university. Instead, Ren decided to go to a technical school. Ren is now making an excellent salary repairing computers. Luis doesn’t want to study at a university. Therefore, Luis should go to a technical school to become financially successful.

Analysis: While they have something in common (they both want to go to school and earn a high salary), this fact alone does not mean Luis would be successful doing the same thing that their friend Ren did. There may be other specific information which is important as well, such as the fact that Ren has lots of experience with computers or that Luis has different skills.

Example 2: If any kind of gun control laws are enacted, citizens will not be allowed to have any guns at all.

Analysis: While passing new gun control laws may result in new restrictions, it is highly unlikely the consequences would be so extreme; gun control is a complex issue and each law that may be passed would have different outcomes. Words such as “all,” “always,” “never,” “everyone,” “at all” are problematic because they cannot be supported with evidence. Consider making less sweeping and more modest conclusions.

Suggestions for Avoiding Generalizations

Replace “absolute” expressions with more “softening” expressions.

• Replace words like “all” or “everyone” with “most people.” Instead of “no one” use “few people.”
• Replace “always” with “typically” or “usually” or “often.”
• Replace “never” with “rarely” or “infrequently” or the “to be verb” + “unlikely.”
• Replace “will” with “may or might or could” or use the “to be verb” + “likely.”

Example 1 revised: Luis could consider going to a technical school. This education track is more likely to lead to financial success.

Example 2 revised: If extensive gun control laws are enacted, some citizens may feel their constitutional rights are being limited.

#2 Loaded Words

Explanation: Some words contain positive or negative connotations, which may elicit a positive or negative emotional response. Try to avoid them in academic writing when making an argument because your arguments should be based on reason (facts and evidence), not emotions.  In fact, using these types of words may cause your reader to react against you as the writer, rather than being convincing as you hoped.  Therefore they can make your argument actually weaker rather than stronger.

Example 1: It is widely accepted by reasonable people that free-trade has a positive effect on living standards, although some people ignorantly disagree with this.

Analysis: The words “reasonable” (positive) and “ignorantly” (negative) may bias the readers about the two groups without giving any evidence to support this bias.

Example 2: This decision is outrageous and has seriously jeopardized the financial futures for the majority of innocent citizens.

Analysis: The words “outrageous,” “seriously,” and “innocent” appeal to readers’ emotions in order to persuade them more easily. However, the most persuasive arguments in academic writing will be supported with evidence instead of drawing on emotions.

Suggestions for Avoiding Loaded Words

Choose appropriate vocabulary.

• Omit adjectives and adverbs, especially if they carry emotion, value, or judgment.
• Replace/add softeners like, “potentially” or modals like “might” or “may.”

Example 1 revised: It is widely accepted by many people that free-trade may have a positive effect on living standards, although some people may disagree with this.

Example 2 revised: This decision has potentially serious consequences for the financial futures for the majority of citizens.

#3 Inappropriate authority figures

Explanation: Using famous names may or may not help you prove your point. However, be sure to use the name logically and in relation to their own area of authority.

Example 1: Albert Einstein , one of the fathers of atomic energy, was a vegetarian and believed that animals deserved to be treated fairly. In short, animal testing should be banned.

Analysis: While Einstein is widely considered one of the great minds of the 20th century, he was a physicist , not an expert in animal welfare or ethics.

Example 2: Nuclear power is claimed to be safe because there is very little chance for an accident to happen, but little chance does not have the same meaning as safety. Riccio (2013), a news reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal, holds a strong opinion against the use of nuclear energy and constructions of nuclear power plants because he believes that the safety features do not meet the latest standards.

Analysis: In order to provide strong evidence to support the claim regarding the safety features of nuclear power plants, expert opinion is needed ; the profession of a reporter does not provide sufficient expertise to validate the claim.

Suggestions for Avoiding Inappropriate Authority Figures

Replace inappropriate authority figures with credible experts.

• Read through your sources and look for examples of experts. Pay attention to their credentials. (See examples below.)
• Find new sources written by or citing legitimate experts in the field.
• Google the authority figure you wish to use to determine if they are an expert in the field. Use the Library Databases to locate a substantive or scholarly article related to your topic. Cite the author of one of these articles or use an indirect citation to cite an expert mentioned in the article.

Example 1 revised: Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. , emphasizes the need for researchers to work with international governments and agencies to follow new guidelines to protect animals and minimize their use in animal testing.

Example 2 revised: Edwin Lyman, senior scientist of the Global Security Program, points out that while the U.S. has severe-accident management programs, these plans are not evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and therefore may be subject to accidents or sabotage.

#4 Either/Or Arguments

Explanation: When you argue a point, be careful not to limit the choices to only two or three. This needs to be qualified.

Example 1: Studying abroad either increases job opportunities or causes students to become depressed.

Analysis: This statement implies that only two things may happen, whereas in reality these are two among many possible outcomes.

Example 2: People can continue to spend countless amounts of tax dollars fighting the use of a relatively safe drug, or they can make a change, legalize marijuana, and actually see a tax and revenue benefit for our state. (owl.excels ior.edu)

Analysis: Most issues are very complex and hardly ever either/or, i.e. they rarely have only two opposing ways of looking at them or two possible outcomes. Instead, use language that acknowledges the complexity of the issue.

Suggestions for Avoiding Either/Or Arguments

Offer more than one or two choices, options, or outcomes.

• If relevant for your essay focus, offer more than one or two choices, options, or outcomes.
• Acknowledge that multiple outcomes or perspectives exist.

Example 1 revised: Studying abroad may have a wide spectrum of outcomes , both positive and negative, from increasing job opportunities to leading to financial debt and depression.

Example 2 revised: There are a number of solutions for mitigating the illegal sale of marijuana, including legalizing the use of the drug in a wider range of contexts, increasing education about the drug and its use, and creating legal businesses for the sale, among other business related solutions.

#5 Slippery Slope

Explanation: When you argue that a chain reaction will take place, i.e. say that one problem may lead to a greater problem, which in turn leads to a greater problem, often ending in serious consequences. This way of arguing exaggerates and distorts the effects of the original choice. If the series of events is extremely improbable, your arguments will not be taken seriously.

Example 1: Animal experimentation reduces society’s respect for life. If people don’t respect life, they are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives.

Analysis: This statement implies that allowing animal testing shows a moral problem which can lead to completely different, greater outcomes: war, death, the end of the world!  Clearly an exaggeration.

Example 2: If stricter gun control laws are enacted, the right of citizens to own guns may be greatly restricted, which may limit their ability to defend themselves against terrorist attacks. When that happens, the number of terrorist attacks in this country may increase. Therefore, gun control laws may result in higher probability of widespread terrorism. (owl.excelsior.edu)

Analysis: The issue of gun control is exaggerated to lead into a very different issue. Check your arguments to make sure any chains of consequences are reasonable and still within the scope of your focused topic. (writingcenter.unc.edu)

Suggestions for Avoiding Slippery Slope

Think through the chain of events.

• Carefully think about the chain of events and know when to stop to make sure these events are still within the narrowed focus of your essay.

Example 1 revised: If animal experimentation is not limited, an increasing number of animals will likely continue to be hurt or killed as a result of these experiments.

Example 2 revised: With stricter gun laws, the number of citizens who are able to obtain firearms may be reduced, which could lead to fewer deaths involving guns.

As you read your own work, imagine you are reading the draft for the first time. Look carefully for any instances of faulty logic and then use the tips above to eliminate the logical fallacies in your writing.

Adapted from Great Essays by Folse, Muchmore-Vokoun, & Soloman

For more logical fallacies, watch this video.

from GCFLearnFree.org

Academic Writing I Copyright © by UW-Madison ESL Program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Logical Fallacies

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

Grand Valley State University

Search fred meijer center for writing & michigan authors, fred meijer center for writing & michigan authors.

• About Our Staff
• Mission, Vision, Values, & Services
• Hours & Locations
• Brooks College
• How to Prepare
• Weekly Appointment
• Language Rights
• Consultant Training
• Our History
• Undergraduate Support
• Graduate Support
• English Language Services
• Online Services
• Writing Resources
• Become A Consultant
• Teaching Support
• Writing Support
• SWS Connect
• GVSU Centers
• Library Research Center
• Knowledge Market
• For Consultants

Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Your Writing

How to argue well.

One of the easiest ways to strengthen a paper that presents an argument is to free it from improper logical reasoning. Here’s a list of commonly used yet fallacious types of argument to be sure to avoid.*

*Note: The examples of this document are not written to offend. Rather, they serve solely as an example of what is often seen in essay writing.

Reductio ad Absurdum/Slippery Slope:

This type of argument assumes the truth of the opponent’s position, and draws out the consequences of it being true, looking for a contradiction or an undesirable, absurd consequence. It is possible for this argument to be valid, but the fallacy occurs when the opponent’s consequences become unrealistic.

• Let’s say we allow homosexuals to marry. Then we would also need to allow people to have multiple spouses. Then we’d need to allow people to marry dogs. Soon the institution of marriage will just be a joke.

An argument in which a weak, generally inaccurate version of an opposing viewpoint is presented as a means of strengthening one’s own argument.

• Opponents of the war say that we can just have tea with the terrorists and everything will be okay. Obviously, this is wrong, so we need to bomb Iraq

False Dilemma:

Also called a false dichotomy, this is an argument that falsely states or implies that only two options are available: the position being argued, or something undesirable.

• If we don’t teach people Christian values in schools, they will not learn morals. Therefore, we must teach people Christian values in schools.

Affirming the Consequent:

This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true.

• If Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda, then Al Qaeda would have had enough money to attack us on 9/11. They had enough money to attack us, so Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda.

Denying the Antecedent:

This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; not A; therefore not B.” It contains the incorrect assumption that B cannot be true if A is not true in cases where B must be true if A is true.

• If I get hit with a Cruise missile, then I’ll die. I won’t get hit with a Cruise missile. Therefore, I won’t die.

Circular Arguments:

This is an argument in which the truth of the premises of the argument depends upon the truth of the very conclusion to which the premises lead.

• The Bible is correct because it was divinely inspired. The Bible says that God exists. Therefore, since the Bible says that God exists and the Bible is correct, God exists.

Equivocating:

This argument takes two terms that are different but that can be misconstrued as similar, and treats them as similar to prove a point.

• Grand Valley says that a liberal education is important, but most of the people who go here are conservatives. Therefore, if we want to make the most people happy, we need to stop focusing on liberal education. (“Liberal” as it is used by political pundits is not what is meant by “liberal” in “liberal education”, but this argument treats the two terms as if they mean the same thing.)

Ad Hominem:

This is an argument where a point is made by attacking a person rather than the soundness of the argument that the person is making.

• Michael Moore has pointed out that the Bush family has a financial relationship with the Bin Ladin Family. However, Michael Moore is fat, and obviously dislikes the President, so we can disregard that fact.

Appeal to the Populous:

This form of argument involves an appeal to the popularity of an idea rather than the construction of a sound argument to support it.

• Most people in America think that passing laws banning gay marriage doesn’t amount to discrimination. Therefore, those laws aren’t discriminatory.

Appeal to Authority:

Students often use the fact that a noted authority made some statement, “X”, as evidence for the proof of statement X. However, this is not a sound argument.

• My professor in my class said that the war in Iraq is not going anywhere. Therefore, it obviously isn’t going anywhere.

Appeal to Tradition:

Often times, the fact that something has gone on for a long time is presented as evidence that it should go on.

• There have been rich people and poor people throughout the entire history of the United States. Therefore, I don’t see any reason to change the way the system runs.

Red Herring:

An argument that brings attention a matter irrelevant to the actual topic in order to prove one’s point about the topic at hand. This can be used very subtly, especially when distracting the audience with a matter that arouses strong emotion.

• My opponents have stated that an invasion of Iraq would be a drastic misstep in the war on terror, but we must remember that 3000 people died on 9/11, and that the terrorist threat is ever-looming.

To view or print our Helpful Handout, click here: Avoiding Logical Fallacies

For more resources on Argumentation, consider reviewing the following pages and/or handouts:

The Communication Triangle

Attention to Audience

Persuading Your Reader *

Have other questions? Stop in and visit! Or call us at 331-2922.

• GVSU is an AA/EO Institution
• Privacy Policy
• HEERF Funding
• Disclosures
• Copyright © 2024 GVSU

• Writing Center
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Video Introduction
• Become a Writing Assistant
• All Writers
• Graduate Students
• ELL Students
• Campus and Community
• Testimonials
• Encouraging Writing Center Use
• Incentives and Requirements
• Open Educational Resources
• How We Help
• Get to Know Us
• Conversation Partners Program
• Weekly Updates
• Workshop Series
• Professors Talk Writing
• Computer Lab
• Starting a Writing Center
• A Note to Instructors
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Research Proposal
• Argument Essay
• Rhetorical Analysis

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that are based on poor or faulty logic. When presented in a formal argument, they can cause you to lose your credibility as a writer, so you have to be careful of them.

Sometimes, writers will purposefully use logical fallacies to make an argument seem more persuasive or valid than it really is. In fact, the examples of fallacies on the following pages might be examples you have heard or read. While using fallacies might work in some situations, it’s irresponsible as a writer, and, chances are, an academic audience will recognize the fallacy.

However, most of the time, students accidentally use logical fallacies in their arguments, so being aware of logical fallacies and understanding what they are can help you avoid them. Plus, being aware of these fallacies can help you recognize them when you are reading and looking for source material. You wouldn’t want to use a source as evidence if the author included some faulty logic.

The following pages will explain the major types of fallacies, give you examples, and help you avoid them in your arguments.

Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

  Person 1:  I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change. Person 2: So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a “rain dance.”

The comic below gives you a little insight into what this fallacy might look like. Join Captain Logic as he works to thwart the evil fallacies of Dr. Fallacy!

In this example, you’ll notice how Dr. Fallacy completely distorted the speaker’s point. While this is an extreme example, it’s important to be careful not to fall into this kind of fallacy on a smaller scale because it’s quite easy to do. Think about times you may have even accidentally misrepresented the other side in an argument. We have to be careful to avoid even the accidental straw man fallacy!

False Dilemma Fallacy

Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray.

  Person 1:  You’re either for the war or against the troops. Person 2: Actually, I do not want our troops sent into a dangerous war.

The comic below gives you a little insight into what this fallacy might look like. Observe as Captain Logic saves the day from faulty logic and the evil Dr. Fallacy!

In this comic, you’ll notice that Dr. Fallacy is presenting only two options, but the first person clearly has a middle position. You have to be really careful of this kind of fallacy, as it can really turn your audience away from your position. The world is complex, and the way people think is complex. If you dismiss that, you could lose the respect and interest of your audience.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it just too small. Essentially, you can’t make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.

  Example:  Some teenagers in our community recently vandalized the park downtown. Teenagers are so irresponsible and destructive.  

You can see Dr. Fallacy in action with this type of fallacy in the comic below.

In this example, Dr. Fallacy is making a claim that all teenagers are bad based on the evidence of one incident. Even with the evidence of ten incidences, Dr. Fallacy couldn’t make the claim that all teenagers are problems.

In this instance, the fallacy seems clear, but this kind of fallacious thinking is quite common. People will make claims about all kinds of things based on one or two pieces of evidence, which is not only wrong but can be dangerous. It’s really easy to fall into this kind of thinking, but we must work to avoid it. We must hold ourselves to higher standards when we are making arguments.

Appeal to Fear Fallacy

This type of fallacy is one that, as noted in its name, plays upon people’s fear. In particular, this fallacy presents a scary future if a certain decision is made today.

  Example: 

Elizabeth Smith doesn’t understand foreign policy. If you elect Elizabeth Smith as president, we will be attacked by terrorists.  

You can see this fallacy in action in Dr. Fallacy’s campaign ad in the comic below.

Thankfully, the voters saw through Dr. Fallacy’s faulty logic. While this kind of claim seems outlandish, similar claims have been made by candidates in elections for years. Obviously, this kind of claim isn’t logical, however. No one can predict the future, but making a bold claim like this with no evidence at all is a clear logical fallacy.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

Person 1: 

I am for raising the minimum wage in our state.

She is for raising the minimum wage, but she is not smart enough to even run a business.

Check out Dr. Fallacy as he tries to get away with this type of fallacy. Thankfully, Captain Logic OWL saves the day!

In this example, Dr. Fallacy doesn’t address the issue of minimum wage and, instead, attacks the person. When we attack the person instead of tackling the issue, our audience might think we don’t understand the issue or can’t disprove our opponent’s view. It’s better to stick to the issue at hand and avoid ad hominem fallacies.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion. Along the way, each step or event in the faulty logic becomes more and more improbable.

Example: 

If we enact any kind of gun control laws, the next thing you know, we won’t be allowed to have any guns at all. When that happens, we won’t be able to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, and when that happens terrorists will take over our country. Therefore, gun control laws will cause us to lose our country to terrorists.

See Dr. Fallacy in the comic below try to get away with this fallacy. Fortunately, Captain Logic saves logic and saves the day!

In this example, Dr. Fallacy is following a slippery slope to get to the point that any kind of gun regulation will lead to terrorists taking over the country. The series of events is extremely improbable, and we simply can’t make claims like this and be taken seriously in our arguments.

Of course, this example is extreme, but we do need to make sure, if we are creating a line of reasoning in terms of events leading to other events, that we aren’t falling into a slippery slope fallacy.

Bandwagon Fallacy

The bandwagon fallacy is also sometimes called the appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses because it’s all about getting people to do or think something because “everyone else is doing it” or “everything else thinks this.”

Everyone is going to get the new smart phone when it comes out this weekend. Why aren’t you?

In the comic below, Dr. Fallacy tries to persuade people using this type of fallacy.

Of course, the problem with this fallacy is not everyone is actually doing this, but there is another problem that’s important to point out. Just because a lot of people think something or do something does not mean it’s right or good to do. For example, in the 16th century, most people believed the earth was the center of the universe; of course, believing that did not make it true.

You want to be careful to avoid this fallacy, as it’s easy to fall into this kind of thinking. Think about what your parents asked you when you insisted that “everyone” was doing something that you were not getting to do: “If everyone of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?” It’s important to fight the urge to fall into a bandwagon fallacy.

Guilt by Association Fallacy

A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.

We cannot have the educational reform that my opponent calls for because Dr. Corrupt has also mentioned this kind of educational reform.

See Dr. Fallacy use this fallacy by associating his opponent with someone named Dr. Corrupt. Clearly, this person isn’t someone to be associated with. Thankfully, Captain Logic OWL points out this flawed logic to the school board.

Here, we don’t see what issues Dr. Fallacy has with the educational reform plan, as this isn’t addressed in the fallacy. Instead of dealing with the issue, this person tries to just dismiss the point by connecting his or her opponent’s ideas with the ideas of a person who the audience wouldn’t believe.

This is problematic, of course, because we don’t deal with the issue at hand. Plus, just because “Dr. Corrupt” thinks the same thing or something similar doesn’t mean we should automatically dismiss it. We need to look more closely at the issue at hand, and it seems like the person using this fallacy doesn’t want us to.

Since Dr. Fallacy is once again thwarted by Captain Logic, this may, indeed, be his last fallacy!

Putting It All Together

It’s time to see the fallacies in action! In the videos below, you will see how one student, Mateo, engages in the process of locating sources but struggles to find sources without fallacies. Watch as he applies what he has learned about logical fallacies to his research process. Click on the first video to see Mateo’s assignment and learn about his goals. Then, click on the video that follows in order to see what fallacies Mateo encountered in his sources. When you’re finished, select the activity at the end of this page to see how well you can locate logical fallacies in sources.

Analyze This

This material was developed by Excelsior Online Writing Lab (OWL) and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International License . You are free to use, adapt, and/or share this material as long as you properly attribute. Please keep this information on materials you use, adapt, and/or share for attribution purposes. 

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Report a Concern
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Understanding Common Logical Fallacies (and How to Avoid Them)

June 13, 2023

Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning that can undermine the credibility and validity of arguments. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore what these fallacies are, why understanding them is important, and how you can avoid falling into their traps. Additionally, we’ll introduce Yoodli , an AI speech and communication coach, and discuss how it can assist you in identifying and avoiding logical fallacies in your speeches, presentations, and everyday conversations.

What Are Logical Fallacies?

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that occur when arguments are structurally or content-wise flawed, leading to unreliable or invalid conclusions. They can appear in various forms, such as errors in logic, deceptive tactics, or manipulative techniques. By familiarizing yourself with common fallacies, you can both strengthen your critical thinking skills and engage in more effective communication.

The Importance of Understanding Logical Fallacies

Understanding fallacies is essential for several reasons. Firstly, it enables you to evaluate the soundness and validity of arguments presented to you, whether in professional discussions, political debates, or everyday conversations. By recognizing fallacious reasoning, you can avoid being swayed by weak or misleading arguments.

Secondly, knowing these fallacies helps you construct stronger and more persuasive arguments yourself. By avoiding fallacies, you both enhance the credibility of your claims and increase the chances of effectively communicating your ideas to others.

Yoodli: Your AI Speech and Communication Coach

Yoodli is an advanced AI speech and communication coach designed to help you improve your speaking skills as well as avoid common pitfalls like logical fallacies. One remarkable feature of Yoodli is its ability to generate interactive transcripts from your uploaded or recorded videos. This feature allows you to review your speech or presentation and spot potential gaps in reasoning without the need to listen to the entire recording repeatedly.

Moreover, Yoodli offers smart re-wording suggestions, helping you refine your language and express your ideas more effectively. By utilizing Yoodli’s AI-powered capabilities, you can enhance your overall critical thinking skills. This will help you strengthen your arguments and also become a more persuasive communicator.

Types of Common Logical Fallacies + Examples

Logical fallacies can take many forms, each with its own distinctive characteristics and pitfalls. Here are some common types of logical fallacies along with examples to help you recognize them in arguments:

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy

This fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. For example:

• “John’s proposal for improving the healthcare system shouldn’t be considered because he’s not a doctor.”

2. Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents their opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example:

• “My opponent wants to cut defense spending. This means they don’t care about the safety of our country.”

3. Appeal to Authority Fallacy

This fallacy involves relying on the opinion or authority of an individual as evidence for the truth of an argument. For example:

• “Dr. Smith, a famous scientist, says that climate change is a hoax. Therefore, it must be untrue.”

4. Slippery Slope Fallacy

The slippery slope fallacy assumes that a small action will lead to extreme and unlikely consequences. For example:

• “If we allow same-sex marriage, it will pave the way for people to marry animals.”

5. False Cause Fallacy

This fallacy assumes causation based on correlation without sufficient evidence. For example:

• “Since I started carrying a lucky charm, I’ve been winning all my basketball games. Therefore, the charm must be bringing me luck.”

These are just a few examples of the many types of logical fallacies that can arise in arguments. By familiarizing yourself with these fallacies, you’ll be better equipped to spot them and build more robust and logical arguments.

How to Avoid Logical Fallacies: 5 Tips

To avoid logical fallacies, it’s important to not only be aware of their various forms but also learn how to identify them in arguments. Here are some key strategies to help you navigate through the pitfalls of faulty reasoning:

1. Educate Yourself

Familiarize yourself with different types of common fallacies by studying comprehensive lists and examples. Understand their underlying principles and recognize the patterns in which they appear. This knowledge will empower you to spot fallacious reasoning more effectively.

2. Practice Critical Thinking

Develop your critical thinking skills by analyzing arguments and claims more critically. Ask questions, seek evidence, and evaluate the reasoning behind the assertions made. This practice will help you identify flaws and weaknesses in reasoning, including logical fallacies.

3. Challenge Assumptions

Don’t accept claims at face value. Challenge assumptions and scrutinize the evidence provided. Look for logical inconsistencies, unsupported assertions, or manipulative tactics that may indicate the presence of fallacies.

4. Seek Diverse Perspectives

Engage with a variety of perspectives and seek constructive debates. Exposing yourself to different viewpoints will sharpen your ability to identify fallacies and strengthen your reasoning abilities.

5. Use Yoodli for Feedback and Improvement

Utilize Yoodli’s AI speech and communication coach functionalities to receive feedback on your speeches, presentations, or logical arguments. Take advantage of the interactive transcripts and smart re-wording suggestions to identify potential logical fallacies and refine your communication style.

Understanding logical fallacies is crucial for effective communication and critical thinking. By familiarizing yourself with common fallacies, practicing critical analysis, and utilizing tools like Yoodli, you can avoid falling into the traps of faulty reasoning. Enhancing your ability to recognize and address these fallacies will elevate the quality of your arguments and make you a more persuasive and informed communicator.

Remember, by striving for logical coherence and sound reasoning, you can navigate discussions, debates, and everyday conversations with clarity and credibility.

Q: What are some common examples of logical fallacies?

A: There are several common logical fallacies, including ad hominem attacks (attacking the person instead of their argument), straw man arguments (misrepresenting an opponent’s position), slippery slope fallacy (claiming a small action will lead to extreme consequences), and false cause fallacy (assuming causation based on correlation). These are just a few examples, and there are many more.

Q: How do I politely point out a logical fallacy in someone’s argument?

A: When addressing a logical fallacy, it’s important to focus on the issue at hand rather than attacking the person. Politely and respectfully point out the flaw in their reasoning, providing clear explanations and supporting evidence. This approach encourages constructive dialogue and promotes a better understanding of the topic.

Q: Can logical fallacies be unintentional?

A: Yes, logical fallacies can be unintentional. Often, people may not be aware of the flaws in their reasoning or may fall into cognitive biases that lead to faulty arguments. It’s crucial to approach discussions with an open mind and be willing to recognize and correct any contradictions in our own thinking.

Q: Is it possible to avoid all logical fallacies?

A: While it’s challenging to completely avoid all logical fallacies, becoming familiar with common lapses in reasoning and practicing critical thinking can significantly reduce their occurrence. The key is to develop a habit of questioning arguments, evaluating evidence, and striving for logical coherence in our own reasoning.

Q: Can Yoodli help me identify logical fallacies in my own speeches or presentations?

A: Yes, Yoodli’s AI speech and communication coach functionalities can assist you in identifying potential logical fallacies in your speeches or presentations. By generating interactive transcripts and providing smart re-wording suggestions, Yoodli enables you to review your content and spot any fallacious reasoning, allowing you to refine your arguments and enhance your communication skills.

Q: Are logical fallacies always deliberate attempts to deceive?

A: Not always. While some instances of logical fallacies may involve deliberate manipulation or deception, many times they occur due to cognitive biases, lack of critical thinking skills, or inadequate understanding of reasoning. It’s important to approach discussions with empathy and educate others about their missteps in a constructive manner.

Remember, understanding logical fallacies and striving to avoid them is an ongoing process that requires continuous learning and self-reflection.

Start practicing with Yoodli.

Getting better at speaking is getting easier. Record or upload a speech and let our AI Speech Coach analyze your speaking and give you feedback.

Logical Fallacies

When considering your argument or the arguments of others, writers and readers need to be aware of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are found in many places—ads, politics, movies.

Logical fallacies make an argument weak by using mistaken beliefs/ideas, invalid arguments, illogical arguments, and/or deceptiveness. If you are arguing, avoid fallacies of thought because they create weaknesses in an argument. Here are some of the most common fallacies to be aware of.

• Attacking one’s character rather than the issue; an insult is not addressing the concern.
• Does your reason for arguing stand on solid ground, or are you just insulting the opponent?

Appeal to False Authority

• Using a source quote from someone who is not an expert in the field.
• Who qualifies as an “expert”?
• Are there credentials for your “expert”?
• Do you/they have the authority?
• Is your/their source biased?

Bandwagon Fallacy

• When evidence merely says that the reasoning is because others do or like it, you are not providing solid evidence.
• Who is “everyone”?
• Are they really “all” thinking the same way?

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

• Affirming the claim in a circular manner that essentially supports itself.
• Is your claim supported by something other than its own concept?

Either/Or Fallacy

• Reducing complex arguments to simply right/wrong
• There are more than two sides to arguments.
• Ask yourself if someone can come up with an alternative?

Faulty Analogy

• Comparing things that are similar in some ways, but not where it matters most.
• Using a metaphor can support a claim, but are the parts of your metaphor connected? If not, your argument will fall apart.

Faulty Causality

• Drawing the conclusion that when two events happen close together one has caused the other.
• Has event A caused event B, or did it just happen at the same time?

Hasty Generalization

• Making a claim based on one or two examples that may not be relevant to the claims or subject.
• Does every single American like it, really?

Slippery Slope

• Arguments that proclaim that one incident will start a chain of events leading to devastating results.
• Are your claims over-reaching or exaggerated?
• Aren’t always completely off base, but usually inaccurate and blown out of proportion.

Vagueness, Evasions, Misstatements

• Vagueness is simply lies in truth’s clothing.
• Misstatements often take a quote out of context to “prove” a point.
• Are you clearly interpreting the information/evidence?
• A misstatement would suggest that “billions” of people are happy with the product just because billions were served the product.

Contributor: Derrian Goebel

ENGL001: English Composition I

Logical fallacies.

Read this article to learn about logical fallacies and how to avoid them. Logical fallacies occur when the chain of reasoning breaks down, which invalidates the conclusion. Try to identify any logical fallacies in your writing by revisiting one of the writing activities for this course or another course.

By now you know that all arguments operate according to an internal logic. No matter which of the four rhetorical appeals the author uses, her thesis will succeed or fail based on the soundness of her argument. In classical logic, an argument is sound only if all of its premises are true and the argument is valid. And an argument is valid only if its conclusion follows logically from the combination of its premises. For example, Plato's classic syllogism, "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man: therefore, Socrates is mortal" is both valid and sound. Its premises are true, and the conclusion is undeniable given an understanding of the definitions of the terms.

Plato's famous syllogism is an example of a deductive argument; that is, it relies on a process of reasoning from general statements of common knowledge to arrive at a specific and logically consistent conclusion. But most of the arguments you will encounter in college and in life in general take the form of inductive arguments, which move in the opposite direction: from statements of specific instances toward a general conclusion. For instance, if I say that the sun has always risen in the morning, and then conclude that the sun will therefore rise tomorrow, I have formulated an inductive argument. Notice, however, that my conclusion is not necessarily valid given the definitions of the terms. I can be fairly confident that the sun will rise tomorrow in the morning, but I can't be absolutely certain of it. After all, the sun might go supernova overnight.

Of course, given the fact that astronomers suggest that the sun isn't likely to die for at least another four billion years, my inductive argument's lack of absolute certainty shouldn't bother anyone. The point is that because my argument relies on a specific instance known to be true ("the sun has always risen in the morning"), and then moves to a general conclusion ("the sun will therefore rise tomorrow in the morning"), the possibility that I have committed a logical fallacy in the course of my argument is relatively high. That is, somewhere in the chain of reason leading from the premise to the conclusion, I might have unknowingly violated the internal logic my argument needs in order to succeed. The term "logical fallacy" refers to the point – or points – at which that chain of reason snaps, rendering the conclusion invalid.

Not all inductive arguments commit logical fallacies. Indeed, most of the argumentative texts you will encounter in college manage to avoid such faulty reasoning, mainly because successful authors – i.e., those who publish – have learned how to avoid such pitfalls. They know that inductive argumentation is vulnerable to logical fallacies, not only because such arguments start with specific premises and move to general conclusions, but also because their premises so often rely on human values and abstract concepts. Furthermore, poorly constructed inductive arguments often make statements that on the surface appear plausible, but after consideration or further research reveal inconsistencies or outright falsehoods.

For example, let's say that I'm writing an essay attempting to prove that same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. One of my premises suggests that if same-sex marriage were legal, pretty soon humans would be marrying their dogs. This statement commits a number of logical fallacies, but the most egregious of them is called the slippery slope, which describes a situation in which a generally unacceptable situation (humans marrying dogs) is proposed as the inevitable outcome of a policy change (allowing same-sex marriage). But no evidence exists that such an outcome will in fact obtain. Furthermore, the argument commits a variant of a categorical mistake, because dogs and humans do not belong to the same species; a dog cannot consent to or decline a marriage vow, and marriage legally requires that both parties are willing and able to provide consent. A reader who accepts such arguments at face value simply cannot make an informed decision about the issue at hand. Logical fallacies not only result in bad writing; they also translate to irresponsible citizenship.

Many more logical fallacies exist than can be included in this article. In the sections that follow, you will find explanations of some of the more common examples as they play out within the context of the four rhetorical appeals. Further research in the library and on reliable websites will yield an inexhaustible amount of information on the various logical fallacies (see some example websites below). As you read assigned texts and write your own argumentative essays, you should constantly test the arguments they contain, examining the premises and their links to one another and to the conclusion. Learning to recognize logical fallacies is a skill essential to college-level writing and to critical thinking in general.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

III. Rhetorical Situation

3.6 Logical Fallacies

Melanie Gagich; Emilie Zickel; and Terri Pantuso

As previously noted, using ethos, pathos, and logos in an argument does not mean that the argument made is necessarily a good one. In academia, especially, we care a lot about making our arguments logically sound; we care about logos. We seek to create work that is rooted in rational discourse . We seek to produce our own rational discourse. We value carefully researched, methodically crafted work. Thus, to be a strong academic writer, one should seek to avoid logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning.

To refer to something as a fallacy means to say that it is false. Think of the concept of a logical fallacy as something that makes an argument problematic, open to attack, or weak. In academic discourse, logical fallacies are seen as failures – as things we want to avoid.

Thinking about fallacies can be confusing because we see them all the time: in advertising, in conversation, in political discourse. Fallacies are everywhere. But as students of rhetoric, part of our job is to spend time identifying these fallacies in both our own writing and in others’ as a way to avoid them.

Table 3.6.1 contains a partial list of logical fallacies.

Table 3.6.1. Logical Fallacies – A Partial List

When reading or listening to an argument, be cognizant of when the reasoning relies upon one of these fallacies of logic. If it does, question the source and the information presented carefully.

As you draft ideas for your own arguments, test each of your reasons/claims against these definitions. If you find that you have used any of these fallacies to build your argument, revise for clarity.

Select five (5) of the logical fallacies presented above and write an example for each. Then, in a brief statement explain the nature of the fallacies you have written.

This section contains material from:

Gagich, Melanie and Emilie Zickel. “Logical Fallacies.” In A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing , by Melanie Gagich and Emilie Zickel. Cleveland: MSL Academic Endeavors. Accessed July 2019. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/csu-fyw-rhetoric/chapter/logical-fallacies/ . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

To enter into a dialogue or conversation about a topic; to consider a subject formally in speech or writing. Public discourse refers to the speeches, publications, media attention, social media posts, and other statements that discuss the public good, the function of government, and the role of the individual in society.

Having awareness.

3.6 Logical Fallacies Copyright © 2022 by Melanie Gagich; Emilie Zickel; and Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Your Arguments

A large part of academic writing is argumentative writing. However, it isn't as easy as many students would think. Making an argument requires research and fully understanding both sides of the argument before putting words to paper. Many students tend to make logical fallacies in their arguments, decreasing the merit of their writing.

In this article, I will explore the common logical fallacies that students and inexperienced writers tend to make. I'll also help you learn how to counter their use, so you can improve your writing skills.

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is an unsupported argument or mistaken belief that lacks logical reasoning. The problem with logical fallacies is that they prevent the exchange of ideas and will not help you in making a good argument.

Note that an argument may contain a logical fallacy even if the conclusion is true. The problem is that the weak argument may convince readers that the conclusion is false.

In order to understand how to structure an argument, you should learn how it is supported. In turn, this will teach you to avoid using logical fallacies in supporting your arguments. Otherwise, you will find that arguments tend to fall apart very quickly.

Common logical fallacies in argumentative writing

Despite the great diversity that exists among students and other academic writers, they still have a lot in common when it comes to the challenges they face in their argumentative writing. The logical fallacies that most writers make typically fall within one of the categories below:

Slippery slope

In this case, a claim or suggestion is dismissed because of the belief that it would lead to a chain reaction of unfavorable events. Without any supporting evidence, the writer claims that going down the slippery slope is inevitable. An example:

Argument: "If we allow students to use calculators in elementary school math classes, they will become overly dependent on them. By the time they reach high school, they will have forgotten basic math skills. This will then result in an entire generation of engineers and scientists incapable of doing simple arithmetic."

In this argument, the writer is asserting that a relatively small first step (allowing the use of calculators in elementary school) inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact (an entire generation of engineers and scientists incapable of doing simple arithmetic). This is a classic example of a slippery slope fallacy, as it assumes without sufficient evidence that one action will inevitably lead to a certain negative outcome.

Red herring

Here, the writer moves attention away from the main problem by focusing on irrelevant information. This is a distraction that confuses the reader. Note that some writers or debaters use this fallacy intentionally as well. An example:

Argument: "Research has shown a significant correlation between excessive screen time and poor sleep patterns. We should encourage policies that limit screen time for children."

Counterargument: "It's important to note that many successful entrepreneurs and tech leaders, like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, have spent countless hours in front of screens and have become very successful."

In this case, the counterargument presents a red herring. The success of tech leaders who spent a lot of time in front of screens doesn't address the original argument about the correlation between excessive screen time and poor sleep patterns in children. Their success, while potentially true, is not relevant to the discussion on the potential health impact of screen time on children.

Hasty generalization

More often than not, academic writers tend to hastily generalize a fact and come to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. This leads to a logical fallacy because one tends to predict a trend based on a negligible point. An example:

Argument: "In my survey of 50 students at University X, 70% said they preferred online classes to in-person classes. Therefore, most students in all universities prefer online classes."

In this example, the writer is making a generalization. They're basing their conclusion about "most students in all universities" on a small sample from just one university. This sample may not accurately represent the preferences of all university students, making it a fallacious generalization.

Begging the question

This is a logical fallacy that is a type of circular reasoning. Here, the writer assumes the conclusion is true, and therefore it must be. In other words, this is when you assume that the premise of your claim provides that the claim is true. An example:

Argument: "Social media is harmful because it has damaging effects on people."

In this example, the writer is assuming what they are supposed to be proving. The premise "social media has damaging effects on people" is not backed by any evidence but is just a reiteration of the conclusion "social media is harmful." This is a clear case of begging the question – where the argument is circular, and the initial assumption requires proof.

False analogy

In this fallacy, you may be comparing two situations that are not actually analogous to one another. This is common when the writer misunderstands one (or both) of the situations. An example:

Argument: "Reading a book is just like watching a movie on the TV. Both tell stories and have characters, settings, and plots. Therefore, if you've read the book, there's no need to watch the movie."

In this case, the writer is making a false analogy between reading a book and watching a movie. While it's true that both mediums can tell stories and have characters, settings, and plots, the experience of reading a book is fundamentally different from watching a movie. Books allow for a deeper dive into characters' internal thoughts and offer more room for interpretation, while movies can provide a visual and auditory experience that books cannot. It's also extremely common for filmmakers to incorporate plot and character changes when making a movie adaptation of a book. Therefore, the conclusion—that if you've read the book, there's no need to watch the movie—is based on a flawed comparison, making it a false analogy.

Moral equivalence

This logical fallacy is where a writer would give two situations the same moral significance even if they are vastly different. An example:

Argument: "Lying about one's age to get a senior discount is no different than a company evading taxes. Therefore, if we prosecute companies for tax evasion, we should also prosecute individuals who lie about their age for discounts."

In this argument, the writer is making a false moral equivalence between an individual lying about their age to get a discount and a company evading taxes. While both actions involve dishonesty, the scale, impact, and legal implications are significantly different. Tax evasion by a company is a major crime that can affect the economy and public services, whereas lying about one's age for a discount is unethical but has a far lesser impact. The writer's claim that these two situations are morally equivalent is fallacious.

False dilemma

This is a common fallacy that debaters and writers fall into, whereby they reduce an issue into an oversimplified black-and-white choice. In reality, most issues are complex and reducing them to an either/or dilemma is not productive. An example:

Argument: "We must either invest in fossil fuels to keep our economy running, or we must face economic collapse. Therefore, despite the environmental impact, we should continue investing in fossil fuels."

In this argument, the writer presents the situation as having only two options: investing in fossil fuels or facing economic collapse. This is a false dilemma, as it disregards other potential options such as investing in renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, or developing new economic models that aren't as dependent on fossil fuels. This fallacy oversimplifies a complex issue into a binary choice, when in reality, there may be other viable solutions.

In this logical fallacy, the argument is made by attacking the opponent and not their views. Basically, this is name-calling when you don't have a good counterargument. Many politicians tend to use this tactic, but it does not always work. An example:

Argument: "Why should we believe Dr. Smith's findings on the effects of caffeine? He drinks five cups of coffee a day himself, so his research is obviously biased."

In this argument, the writer is attacking Dr. Smith's personal habits instead of addressing the research findings he has presented. This is an ad hominem fallacy, as it diverts the focus from the actual argument — the research on caffeine — to the person making the argument. The validity of Dr. Smith's research should be assessed based on its methodology, data, and interpretation, not his personal coffee-drinking habits.

Appeal to ignorance

This common logical fallacy bases part of the argument on claims that cannot be proven wrong because they are untested or cannot be tested. An example:

Argument: "There is no empirical evidence that proves the existence of extraterrestrial life. Therefore, extraterrestrial life does not exist."

In this argument, the writer is asserting that because something has not been proven to be true (the existence of extraterrestrial life), it must be false. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that extraterrestrial life does not exist; it may simply mean that we have not yet discovered it or have the means to prove it. The conclusion is not supported by the premise, making it a flawed argument.

In this type of fallacy, a counter argument is characterized by oversimplifying or misrepresenting in order to attack the absurd characterization rather than attack the argument. In other words, instead of directly arguing against your opponents claim, you are calling them names or otherwise mocking them. An example:

Argument: "We should put more funding into arts education in schools. Studies have shown that exposure to art can help students improve their critical thinking skills."

Strawman Argument: "My opponent believes we should divert all our educational funding into the arts. But what about critical subjects like math and science? We can't neglect these core areas of our students' education."

In this case, the person constructing the strawman argument is misrepresenting the original argument. The original argument suggested increasing funding for arts education, not diverting all educational funding into the arts at the expense of other subjects. By misrepresenting the original argument, the person using the strawman fallacy makes it easier to counter and dismiss.

Appeal to irrelevant authority

While it is always a good idea to follow the advice of an expert on any subject, some people mistakenly think that authority figures in one field are capable of understanding other fields. A logical fallacy of irrelevant authority is when you argue for or against a topic based on information from someone who isn't an expert. An example:

Argument: "Albert Einstein once said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Therefore, our education system should focus more on encouraging creativity and imagination rather than the acquisition of knowledge."

In this argument, the writer cites Albert Einstein, a renowned physicist, to support a claim about educational policy. While Einstein was an expert in physics, he wasn't an expert in education policy. Thus, using his quote as the primary support for a claim about educational policy is an appeal to irrelevant authority. His authority and expertise in one field do not make him an authoritative source on all subjects.

Appeal to authority

Finally, this logical fallacy is an argument that is presented as true simply because an authority figure (or someone who is perceived as one) supports it. The authority figure often does not have relevant knowledge or expertise related to the argument. An example:

Argument: "World-renowned novelist John Smith believes that climate change is a hoax. Given his stature and influence, we should seriously consider his perspective."

In this argument, the writer is appealing to the authority of John Smith, a novelist, on a topic outside of his area of expertise: climate change. While Smith might be an authority in the field of literature, he is not a climate scientist or an expert in related fields. Using his opinion as a significant piece of evidence in an argument about climate change is an appeal to authority fallacy. His expertise in literature does not automatically make him a credible source on all subjects, including climate science.

How to stop using logical fallacies

In order to for your argument to stand up to challenge, you should steer clear of logical fallacies. Here are two steps you can follow to stop using logical fallacies in your arguments:

Understand the structure of an argument

Any solid argument is structured into three parts:

• Claim: This is the point you are trying get across, or the claim you are trying to make. You can also consider this the conclusion that the reader draws from your writing.
• Support: The minor premise of your claim is what proof you are using as evidence to support your claim.
• Warrant: The major premise is an underlying claim that the reader and writer supposedly agree on.

If you think of your arguments in this way, you should be able to move on to identifying fallacies in your argumentative writing.

Identify logical fallacies in your writing

By familiarizing yourself with the common logical fallacies mentioned above, you should be able to spot any mistakes you might make. Before you write any content, consider writing an outline so that you are sure that your argument is solid and does not fall apart easily.

Writing an outline will also allow you to brainstorm ideas related to your argument and enable you to spot any errors in logic and change them before you do the bulk of your writing.

Once you are able to identify fallacies in your arguments, you can work toward changing the argument to ensure that it doesn't rely on the logical fallacy and won't fall apart upon closer inspection.

Final thoughts

The use of logical fallacies can negatively your ability to make sound arguments that will stand up to scrutiny. By following the tips I've mentioned above and watching out for the common fallacies that writers tend to make, you will be able to significantly improve your argumentative writing.

Header image by Ijeab .

Effectiviology

Logical Fallacies: What They Are and How to Counter Them

• A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that contains a flaw, either in its logical structure or in its premises.

An example of a logical fallacy is the false dilemma , which is a logical fallacy that occurs when a limited number of options are incorrectly presented as being mutually exclusive to one another or as being the only options that exist, in a situation where that isn’t the case. For instance, a false dilemma occurs in a situation where someone says that we must choose between options A or B, without mentioning that option C also exists.

Fallacies, in their various forms, play a significant role in how people think and in how they communicate with each other, so it’s important to understand them. As such, the following article serves as an introductory guide to logical fallacies, which will help you understand what logical fallacies are, what types of them exist, and what you can do in order to counter them successfully.

Examples of logical fallacies

One example of a logical fallacy is the ad hominem fallacy , which is a fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the source of an argument directly, without addressing the argument itself. For instance, if a person brings up a valid criticism of the company that they work in, someone using the ad hominem fallacy might reply by simply telling them that if they don’t like the way things are done, then that’s their problem and they should leave.

Another example of a logical fallacy is the loaded question fallacy , which occurs when someone asks a question in a way that presupposes an unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with. An example of a loaded question is the following:

“Can you get this task done for me, or are you too busy slacking off?”

This question is fallacious, because it has a flawed premise, and specifically because it suggests that if the person being questioned says that they can’t get the task done, then that must be because they’re too busy slacking off.

Finally, another example of a logical fallacy is the argument from incredulity , which occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. For instance, this fallacy is demonstrated in the following saying:

“I just can’t believe that these statistics are true, so that means they must be false.”

In this case, the speaker’s reasoning is fallacious, because their premises are flawed, and specifically their assumption that if they can’t believe the statistics that they’re shown are true, then that must mean that the statistics are false.

Formal and informal logical fallacies

There are two main types of logical fallacies:

• Formal fallacies. A formal logical fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, which renders the argument invalid and consequently also unsound . For example, a formal fallacy can occur because the conclusion of the argument isn’t based on its premises.
• Informal fallacies. An informal logical fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the premises of an argument, which renders the argument  unsound , even though it may still be valid . For example, an informal fallacy can occur because the premises of an argument are false , or because they’re unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Therefore, there are two main differences between formal and informal logical fallacies. First, formal fallacies contain a flaw in their logical structure , while informal fallacies contain a flaw in their premises . Second, formal fallacies are invalid patterns of reasoning (and are consequently also unsound), while informal fallacies are unsound patterns of reasoning, but can still be valid.

For instance, the following is an example of a formal fallacy :

Premise 1: If it’s raining, then the sky will be cloudy. Premise 2: The sky is cloudy. Conclusion:  It’s raining.

Though both the premises in this example are true, the argument is invalid , since there is a flaw in its logical structure.

Specifically, premise 1 tells us that if it’s raining, then the sky will be cloudy, but that doesn’t mean that if the sky is cloudy (which we know it is, based on premise 2), then it’s necessarily raining. That is, it’s possible for the sky to be cloudy, without it raining, which is why we can’t reach the conclusion that is specified in the argument, and which is why this argument is invalid, despite the fact that its premises are true.

On the other hand, the following is an example of an informal fallacy :

Premise 1: The weatherman said that it’s going to rain next week. Premise 2: The weatherman is always right. Conclusion:  It’s going to rain next week.

Here, the logical structure of the argument is valid. Specifically, since premise 1 tells us that the weatherman said that it’s going to rain next week, and premise 2 tells us that the weatherman is always right, then based on what we know (i.e. on these premises), we can logically conclude that it’s going to rain next week.

However, there is a problem with this line of reasoning, since our assumption that the weatherman is always right (premise 2) is false . As such, even though the logical structure of the argument is valid, the use of a flawed premise means that the overall argument is unsound .

Overall, a sound argument is one that has a valid logical structure and true premises. A formal logical fallacy means that the argument is invalid, due to a flaw in its logical structure, which also means that it’s unsound. An informal logical fallacy means that the argument is unsound, due to a flaw in its premises, even though it has a valid logical structure.

Example of a formal logical fallacy

As we saw above, a formal fallacy occurs when there is an issue with the logical structure of an argument, which renders the argument invalid.

An example of a formal logical fallacy is the masked-man fallacy , which is committed when someone assumes that if two or more names or descriptions refer to the same thing, then they can be freely substituted with one another, in a situation where that’s not the case. For example:

Premise 1: The citizens of Metropolis know that Superman saved their city. Premise 2: Clark Kent is Superman. Conclusion: The citizens of Metropolis know that Clark Kent saved their city.

This argument is invalid, because even though Superman is in fact Clark Kent, the citizens of Metropolis don’t necessarily know Superman’s true identity, and therefore don’t necessarily know that Clark Kent saved their city. As such, even though both the premises of the argument are true, there is a flaw in the argument’s logical structure, which renders it invalid.

Example of an informal logical fallacy

As we saw above, an informal fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the premises of an argument, which renders the argument unsound.

An example of an informal logical fallacy is the  strawman fallacy , which occurs when a person distorts their opponent’s argument, in order to make it easier to attack. For example:

Alex: I think we should increase the education budget. Bob: I disagree, because if we spend the entire budget on education, there won’t be any money left for other essential things.

Here, Bob’s argument is valid from a formal, logical perspective: if we spend the entire budget on education, there won’t be anything left to spend on other things.

However, Bob’s reasoning is nevertheless fallacious, because his argument contains a false, implicit premise, and namely the assumption that when Alex suggests that we should increase the education budget, he means that the entire budget should be allocated to education. As such, Bob’s argument is unsound, because it relies on flawed premises, and counters an irrelevant point that his opponent wasn’t trying to make.

Fallacious techniques that aren’t logical fallacies

The term ‘fallacious’ has two primary meanings:

• Containing a logical fallacy.
• Tending to deceive or mislead.

Accordingly, some misleading rhetorical techniques and patterns of reasoning can be described as “fallacious”, even if they don’t contain a logical fallacy.

For example, the Gish gallop is a fallacious debate technique, which involves attempting to overwhelm your opponent by bringing up as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the relevance, validity, or accuracy of those arguments. Though a Gish gallop may have some arguments that contain logical fallacies, it isn’t a single argument by itself, and therefore isn’t considered a logical fallacy. However, because its overall argumentation pattern revolves around the intent to deceive, this technique is said to be fallacious.

In this regard, note that logical fallacies, in general, tend to include a form of reasoning that is not only logically invalid or unsound in some way, but that is also misleading.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that fallacies and other fallacious techniques aren’t always used with the intention of misleading others. Rather, people often use fallacious arguments unintentionally, both when they’re talking to other people, as well as when they conduct their own internal reasoning process, because the fact that such arguments are misleading can lead those who use them to not notice that they’re flawed in the first place.

Logical fallacies are different from factual errors

It’s important to note that logical fallacies are errors in reasoning, rather than simple factual errors.

For example, though the statement “humans are birds” is flawed, that’s because it contains a simple factual error, rather than a logical fallacy. Conversely, the argument “humans have eyes, and birds also have eyes, therefore humans are birds” contains a logical fallacy, since there is a flaw in its logical structure, which renders it invalid.

How to counter logical fallacies

To counter the use of a logical fallacy, you should first identify the flaw in reasoning that it contains, and then point it out and explain why it’s a problem, or provide a strong opposing argument that counters it implicitly.

For example, consider a situation where someone uses the appeal to nature , which is an informal logical fallacy that involving claiming that something is either good because it’s considered ‘natural’, or bad because it’s considered ‘unnatural’.

Once you’ve identified the use of the fallacy, you can counter it by explaining why its premises are flawed. To achieve this, you can provide examples that demonstrate that things that are “natural” can be bad and that things that are “unnatural” can be good, or you can provide examples that demonstrate the issues with trying to define what “natural” and “unnatural” mean in the first place.

The steps in this approach, where you first identify the use of the fallacy and then either explain why it’s a problem or provide strong counterarguments, are generally the main ones to follow regardless of which fallacy is being used. However, there is some variability in terms of how you implement these steps when it comes to different fallacies and different circumstances, and an approach that will work well in one situation may fail in another.

For example, while a certain approach might work well when it comes to resolving a formal fallacy that you’ve used unintentionally in your own reasoning process, the same approach might be ineffective when it comes to countering an informal fallacy that was used intentionally by someone else for rhetorical purposes.

Finally, it’s also important to keep in mind that sometimes, when responding to the use of fallacious reasoning, dismantling the logic behind your opponent’s reasoning and highlighting its flaws might not work. This is because, in practice, human interactions and debates are highly complex, and involve more than just exchanging logically sound arguments with one another.

Accordingly, you should accept the fact that in some cases, the best way to respond to a logical fallacy in practice isn’t necessarily to properly address it from a logical perspective. For example, your best option might be to modify your original argument in order to counter the fallacious reasoning without explicitly addressing the fact that it’s fallacious, or your best option might be to refuse to engage with the fallacious argument entirely.

Account for unintentional use of fallacies

When you counter fallacies that other people use, it’s important to remember that not every use of a logical fallacy is intentional, and to act accordingly, since accounting for this fact can help you formulate a more effective response.

A useful concept to keep in mind in this regard is  Hanlon’s razor , which is a philosophical principle that suggests that when someone does something that leads to a negative outcome, you should avoid assuming that they acted out of an intentional desire to cause harm, as long as there is a different plausible explanation for their behavior. In this context, Hanlon’s razor means that, if you notice that someone is using a logical fallacy, you should avoid assuming that they’re doing so intentionally, as long as it’s reasonable to do so.

In addition, it’s important to remember that you too might be using logical fallacies unintentionally in your thinking and in your communication with others. To identify cases where you are doing this, try to examine your reasoning, and see if you can identify any flaws, either in the way that your arguments are structured, or in the premises that you rely on in order to make those arguments. Then, adjust your reasoning accordingly, in order to fix these flaws.

Make sure arguments are fallacious before countering

Before you counter an argument that you think is fallacious, you should make sure that it is indeed fallacious, to the best of your ability.

There are various ways to do this, including slowing down your own reasoning process so you can properly think through the argument, or asking the person who proposed the argument to clarify their position.

The approach of asking the other person to clarify their position is highly beneficial in general, because it helps demonstrate that you’re truly interested in what the other person has to say. Furthermore, in cases where the argument in question does turn out to be fallacious, this approach can often help expose the issues with it, and can also help the other person internalize these issues, in a way that you won’t always be able to achieve by pointing them out yourself.

Finally, note that a useful tool to remember in this regard is the principle of charity , which is a philosophical principle that denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant to convey. In this context, the principle of charity means that you should not attribute falsehoods, logical fallacies, or irrationality to people’s argument, when there is a plausible, rational alternative available.

Remember fallacious arguments can have true conclusions

It’s important to keep in mind that even if an argument is fallacious, it can still have a true conclusion. Assuming that just because an argument is fallacious then its conclusion must necessarily be false is a logical fallacy in itself, which is known as the fallacy fallacy .

For instance, consider the following example of a formal logical fallacy (which we saw earlier, and which is known as affirming the consequent ):

Premise 1: If it’s raining, then the sky will be cloudy. Premise 2: The sky is cloudy. Conclusion: It’s raining.

This argument is logically invalid, since we can’t be sure that its conclusion is true based on the premises that we have (because it’s possible that the sky is cloudy but that it’s not raining at the same time). However, even though the argument itself is flawed, that doesn’t mean that its conclusion is necessarily false. Rather, it’s possible that the conclusion is true and that it is currently raining; we just can’t conclude this based on the premises

The same holds for informal fallacies. For example, consider the following argument:

Alex: It’s amazing how accurate this personality test I took is. Bob: No it isn’t, it’s pure nonsense.

Here, Bob is using an appeal to the stone , which is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person dismisses their opponent’s argument as absurd, without actually addressing it, or without providing sufficient evidence in order to prove its absurdity. However, even though Bob’s argument is fallacious, that doesn’t mean that its conclusion is wrong; it’s possible that the personality test in question is indeed nonsense, we just can’t tell whether that’s the case based on this argument alone.

Overall, the important thing to understand is that an argument can be fallacious and still have a conclusion that is factually correct. To assume otherwise is fallacious, which is why you shouldn’t discount people’s conclusions simply because the argument that they used to reach those conclusions contains a logical fallacy.

The difference between logical fallacies and cognitive biases

While logical fallacies and cognitive biases appear to be similar to each other, they are two different phenomena. Specifically, while logical fallacies are flawed patterns of argumentation , and are therefore a philosophical concept, cognitive biases are systematic errors in cognition , and are therefore a psychological concept.

Cognitive biases often occur at a more basic level of thinking, particularly when they’re rooted in people’s intuition, and they can lead to the use of various logical fallacies.

For example, the appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is assumed to be either good or better than something else, simply because it’s perceived as being new and novel.

In some cases, people might use this fallacy due to a cognitive bias that causes them to instinctively prefer things that they perceive as newer. However, people can experience this instinctive preference for newer things without it leading to the use of the appeal to novelty, in cases where they recognize this preference and account for it properly. Furthermore, people can use arguments that rely on the appeal to novelty even if they don’t experience this instinctive preference, and even if they don’t truly believe in what they’re saying.

Overall, the main difference between logical fallacies and cognitive biases is that logical fallacies are a philosophical concept, that has to do with argumentation , while cognitive biases are a psychological concept, that has to do with cognition . In some cases, there is an association between cognitive biases and certain logical fallacies, but there are many situations where one appears entirely without the other.

Summary and conclusions

• To counter the use of a logical fallacy, you should first identify the flaw in reasoning that it involves, and then point it out and explain why it’s a problem, or provide a strong opposing argument that counters it implicitly.
• Note that there is some variability in terms of how you should counter different fallacies under different circumstances, and an approach that will work well in one situation may fail in another.
• When responding to the use of a logical fallacy, it’s important to make sure that it’s indeed a fallacy, to remember that the use of the fallacy might be intentional, and to keep in mind that just because an argument is fallacious doesn’t mean that its conclusion is necessarily wrong.
• Certain rhetorical techniques and patterns of reasoning can be described as “fallacious” even if they don’t contain a logical fallacy, because they’re used with the intent to deceive or mislead listeners.

Other articles you may find interesting:

• False Premise: When Arguments Are Built on Bad Foundations
• False Dilemmas and False Dichotomies: What They Are and How to Respond to Them
• The Fallacy Fallacy: Why Fallacious Arguments Can Have True Conclusions

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Avoid the False Dilemma Fallacy in Academic Writing

4-minute read

• 4th February 2021

Students and researchers need to be aware of fallacies (i.e., bad or faulty arguments) in their work. Here, for example, we’re going to look at the false dilemma fallacy. Read on to find out what this is and how to avoid it in your writing.

What Is the False Dilemma Fallacy?

The false dilemma fallacy involves incorrectly presenting something as a choice between a limited set of options (usually two). Also known as a “false dichotomy” or “either-or fallacy,” such arguments typically have two key features:

• They present options as mutually exclusive . This means only one can be true (e.g., X could be true, or Y could be true, but X and Y can’t both be true).
• They present these options as exhaustive . This means there are no other possibilities available (e.g., X or Y could be true, but there is no Z option).

However, arguments presented like this are often misleading. For instance, they may leave out other options or hide the possibility of finding a middle ground somewhere. You should therefore treat such arguments with caution.

Let’s take a look at some examples of false dilemmas to see how they work.

Example False Dilemma #1

We can see an example of an argument with misleading or “false” exclusivity below:

Coursework is a better predictor of final grades than exams among most school children. As such, we should eliminate exams and focus entirely on coursework.

This focuses first on how well coursework and exams predict final grades, then goes on to argue that this makes coursework the only good option.

However, this is also a false dilemma! It misleadingly presents a choice between exams and coursework as an “either-or” situation. But schools can use both methods of assessment, so they are not exclusive alternatives. A more pertinent question would be how they are used and the balance between the two.

Example False Dilemma #2

In terms of false dilemmas excluding possibilities, take the following argument:

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Either we increase capital punishment or accept that crime levels will rise.

Here, the issue is presented as a set of two mutually exclusive, exhaustive options:

• Increase use of capital punishment.
• Let crime levels rise unchecked.

Taken at face value, this may seem like a convincing argument, since it implies that being against the death penalty is essentially being “pro-crime.”

But is this a fair way of presenting the debate over capital punishment? The causes of crime are complex and disputed. Consequently, it seems unlikely that criminality in general can be addressed with one simple solution. And if we present the death penalty as the only way to reduce crime, we’re guilty of the false dilemma fallacy.

How to Avoid the False Dilemma Fallacy

The key in both of the examples above is that they force a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities. But while the simplicity of such black-and-white thinking may be appealing, it can lead us to overlook the reality of the situations at hand.

The best way to avoid the false dilemma fallacies is thus to be skeptical about “either-or” situations. If something is presented as either X or Y , with no other possibilities, think about what may have been left out from the situation.

This isn’t to say that “either-or” arguments are always wrong! Sometimes the circumstances or logic dictates a binary choice . The key, though, is being aware of when something has been falsely set up as a binary.

Another helpful tip is to get your work proofread. This will help you to communicate your ideas clearly, ensuring that you don’t accidentally present something as a false dilemma. Submit a free trial document today to find out more.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

18 Common Logical Fallacies and Persuasion Techniques

The information bombardment on social media is loaded with them..

Posted August 25, 2017 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

It has been suggested that approximately five exabytes (i.e. about 5,000,000,000 pickup truck beds full of information typed on paper) of data are created each day. What is tougher to decipher is how much of this information is simply spurious assertions, conspiracy theories, or misinterpreted information.

Navigating this bombardment of information and processing it appropriately requires not only attaining knowledge but also adapting in light of existing knowledge, through critical thinking. For example, when we engage with information on social media , we must decide whether or not what has been presented in the post is a legitimate claim. However, what often increases "cognitive load" (Sweller, 2010) is the multitude of arguments presented, by social media users, in the ensuing comment threads.

The quality of each argument in a thread varies from comment to comment, with respect to credibility, relevance, logical strength, the balance of evidence, and the level of bias . Generally, users will present an argument so as to persuade you to "see their side" of the argument. There is nothing wrong with trying to persuade someone else to look at a topic from your perspective, particularly if you present credible evidence. Quite often, however, users will not have credible evidence and will use other devices of argumentation to sway thinking, such as logical fallacies.

Social media is many things: entertainment, education , and networking, just to name a few. Unfortunately, it is also a vehicle for promoting faulty thinking. Below, I have compiled a list of 18 forms of persuasion techniques, illogical argumentation, and fallacious reasoning that I commonly encounter in my use of social media. By learning about these devices, you will be more likely to recognise their use, avoid using them yourself, and better assess arguments presented to you.

1. Ad hominem ("to the man") refers to an attack on the person; for example, regarding their past or personal traits, as a means of undermining/opposing their argument, without having to provide any evidence. Loaded questions evoke a similar effect.

2. Anecdotal Evidence is personal experience. Anecdotes can be a very powerful tool of persuasion but are a weak basis for an argument. We cannot generalize one person’s experience to the population at large. Other people may have had very different experiences. If we account for many experiences (e.g. 1,000 instead of 1), then we might be able to make some generalizations.

3. The Appeal to Authority can be tricky because it’s not always illogical. It would be wrong to think something is true just because an authority figure said it is; however, if it was an authority who is an expert in the field relevant to the issue, then it might be illogical to believe the opposite. Expert opinions are a strong source of credibility, given that these opinions are often based on empirical evidence. However, experts do not always agree when it comes to evaluating the evidence; and sometimes, an expert makes a bold statement that lacks credibility because it lacks supportive evidence (in which case the appeal to authority would be a fallacy).

4. An Appeal to Emotion aims to manipulate emotions or evoke an affective response to gain acceptance, as opposed to using logically compelling evidence. Appeals to pity and compassion are among the most common forms of this argument.

5. The Bandwagon Argument is simply an appeal to popularity. For example, “Everyone else is doing it, so why don’t you?” or “Most people believe X, so X must be true.” The bandwagon argument is often based on common belief statements (e.g. “Everyone knows that opposites attract” a common adage that is actually not the case), which are generally weak with respect to credibility.

6. Begging the Question is based on circular reasoning (e.g. “We need to cut spending as too much money is being spent” ), generally resulting from an individual taking a certain premise for granted.

7. The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. That is, numerous "shades of grey" are also possible, but are not addressed.

8. The Burden of Proof Fallacy occurs when a claim is made and expected to be accepted because it has not been disproved or even adequately disputed. However, this does not mean the claim is true. As this issue often rests on potential (un)certainty, in such cases, it will require reflective judgment (King & Kitchener, 1994).

9. Card-stacking is a method of argumentation in which important counter-arguments are purposefully omitted, creating an imbalance of evidence in an effort to bias the argument.

10. The Fallacy Fallacy refers to dismissing a claim (which may be true) altogether solely because it has been poorly argued (e.g. illogical or with suspect evidence) or because a fallacy was used in arguing its case.

11. The False Cause Argument , or correlation not causation , refers to the assumption that because two things are related means that one causes the other. For example, 100% of murderers drink water; therefore, drinking water causes people to kill.

12. The Gambler's Fallacy refers to the belief that streaks affect statistically independent phenomena. Simply, there is a one in two chance of a coin landing tails up, so based on this assessment, some might say if heads comes up on the first flip, then it seems likely the coin will come up tails on the second flip. This would be an incorrect assessment of probability, as coins do not have a memory . The same goes for roulette wheels. Every flip and every spin is new and is not dictated by what happened previously. Thus, the probability of flipping a coin and getting tails eight times in a row is the very same as getting HTHTHTHT. The conceptualisation of the gambler’s fallacy is quite similar to the Representativeness Heuristic (Kahneman, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

13. The Middle Ground Fallacy is almost the exact opposite of the black-or-white fallacy . For example, where two alternatives are proposed (generally extremes), the middle ground fallacy incorrectly supposes that the truth must rest somewhere in between (i.e. a shade of grey). However, it could very well be the case that truth rests in one of the two ‘extremes’.

14. Moving the Goalposts refers to adding related propositions with just enough content altered to continue an argument, in order to avoid conceding after the initial claim had been successfully counter-argued. Similar argument types that fall under this umbrella of fallacies include Special Pleading and No True Scotsman .

15. Personal Incredulity refers to the dismissal of a claim by an individual due to a lack of understanding of either the claim itself or the supports for that claim (e.g. an individual’s dismissal of evolution because they don’t understand it).

16. The Slippery Slope Argument is an argument that concludes that if an action is taken, other negative consequences will follow. For example, “If event X were to occur, then event Y would (eventually) follow; thus, we cannot allow event X to happen.” This is often difficult to refute because it is not possible for us to see into the future and guarantee that the subsequent event won’t occur. Often, after critically thinking about patterns in human history, it may be that the subsequent event is likely to happen, in which case, the slippery slope argument may not be illogical. However, such judgment depends on the context of the argument. Regardless, what makes the argument fallacious is that it avoids engaging the argument at hand. It adds a component that isn’t necessarily relevant to the initial argument. Furthermore, the added component is generally emotionally loaded (e.g. fear -evoking).

17. The Strawman Fallacy involves misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. For example, someone in opposition to your argument refutes it, often irrelevantly, by claiming that you are actually arguing in favor of something else. In this case, the "something else" is the strawman the opposition has purposefully built in order to make it easier to refute your stance, even though the "something else" was never argued for in the first place. Simply, a strawman is built so it can be knocked down.

18. Tu Quoque (translated from Latin as "you too"), or the argument of hypocrisy , refers to avoiding refutation or critique by reverting the same criticism back on to the accuser, without addressing the initial refutation. Another way of looking at this fallacy is as challenging a claim by asserting that the claimant’s behavior is inconsistent with the conclusion they have drawn. In this context, it is a type of ad hominem that rejects a proposition based on the traits of the claimant. For example, in response to the claim that "Eating fast food is unhealthy": “But I saw you eat a burger and fries for lunch only a few hours ago!"

These are not the only logical fallacies or persuasion techniques out there—just the most common in my experience. If you’re interested in learning more about fallacies, I recommend checking out yourlogicalfallacyis.com . Given the ever-expanding ocean of worldwide information, it is important to learn about these argumentation devices so that you can become better able to navigate it.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Powerful Learning, 1–10. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines. UK: Cambridge University Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory, 29–47. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dwyer, C. P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool. Doctoral Thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. UK: Penguin.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Heuristics and biases: Judgement under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Planitin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Sample Arguments with Fallacies

What this handout is about.

This is an adjunct to our fallacies handout. It presents a sample argument with many fallacies and another, less fallacious, argument.

Sample argument

Try to spot the fallacies in the following passage. To see a breakdown of this argument with comments on the various fallacies, click here.

• The feminist argument that pornography is harmful has no merit and should not be discussed in college courses. I read “Playboy” magazine, and I don’t see how it could be harmful. Feminists might criticize me for looking at porn, but they shouldn’t talk; they obviously look at it, too, or they couldn’t criticize it. Many important people, including the Presidents, writers, and entertainers who have been interviewed by the magazine and the women who pose in it, apparently agree. Scientific studies so far have not proved that pornography is harmful, so it must not be harmful. Besides, to be harmful, pornography would either have to harm the men who read it or the women who pose in it, and since they both choose these activities, they must not be harmful. Feminists should take a lesson from my parents—they don’t like loud music and won’t have it in their house, but they don’t go around saying it’s harmful to everyone or trying to prevent others from listening to it. Ever since feminists began attacking our popular culture, the moral foundation of our society has been weakened; the divorce rate, for example, continues to rise. If feminists would just cease their hysterical opposition to sex, perhaps relationships in our society would improve. If feminists insist, instead, on banning porn, men will have no freedom and no pleasure left, and large numbers of women will be jobless and will have to work as prostitutes to support themselves. In light of these consequences, feminists shouldn’t be surprised if their protests are met with violence. Truly, the feminist argument is baseless.

A less fallacious argument for roughly the same claim

How might we make a stronger argument for the claim that “the feminist argument that pornography is harmful has no merit”? Let’s try to construct an argument that avoids the fallacies above. Please note that much of the “evidence” here will be made up to serve as a model—don’t use this page as a source for any actual research on pornography! We’ll see what a good argument could look like, even if the evidence needed to make that argument doesn’t currently exist.

• The feminist argument that pornography is harmful lacks adequate support. First, the feminist argument typically alleges that pornography increases men’s willingness to rape women, or at least to think of them only as sex objects. But this argument ignores the fact that the print pornography industry alone earns more money each year than the entire “legitimate” bookselling industry. For that to be true, there must be many, many men and women who read pornography regularly. And yet crime statistics suggest that not many men rape women. Furthermore, most men today believe in women’s equality, as a study by Dr. Knowitall and her research group at the Institute on the Status of Women demonstrates. Feminists acknowledge that scientific studies have failed to show that porn harms women. If there had been only a few such studies, or if we had reason to believe they were unreliable, we should conclude that nothing has yet been shown about whether porn harms women. But I think that when reliable studies have repeatedly failed to show a relationship, that fact constitutes some evidence that the relationship doesn’t exist. So it seems unlikely that porn is harming women in the way the feminist argument alleges.
• In the absence of positive evidence from studies, we have to rely on common sense. Can people distinguish between the sometimes-degrading scenarios they see in porn and real life? I believe they can. I think pornography is a lot like television and movies—it presents images that, while they certainly do have some impact on us, we all realize are nothing more than fiction. Young children may have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality, but they are not often exposed to pornography. Men and women who look at porn should know better than to think that it gives a realistic picture of sexual relationships between men and women. If porn cannot be shown to harm women as a class by making them more vulnerable to sexual violence or causing men to think of them as inferior, how else might it be harmful? Feminists have often argued that the porn industry is harmful to the women who work within it—that many of them are abused and exploited. I agree with them that if an industry is mistreating people, it needs to be reformed, and they are doing a public service by pointing out such abuses. But what sort of reform are feminists proposing?
• One suggestion I know about has been made by Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who argue that there should be a civil rights statute that allows anyone who has been harmed by porn to seek civil damages from pornographers. My concern about this proposal is that although it will not legally be censorship, since the law would not empower the government to stop anyone from producing material based on the ideas it contains, the civil rights statute will have the same effect as censorship. Pornographers may be so afraid of facing lawsuits that many of them will stop producing porn—and a situation where people are afraid to put forward certain kinds of writing or pictures because they will face legal consequences seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Porn, like books, may express certain ideas about men, women, and sex, and those ideas may have political ramifications—but just as controversial books are protected, porn should be. It may even do more good than harm by provoking thoughtful discussion and debate about men, women, and sexuality.

To see an explanation of this argument, click here and then scroll down.