Logical Fallacies

An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in
one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps
us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to
manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a
position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of
reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a
few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are
more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak
of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of
reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.

Formal and Informal Fallacies

There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for
instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies)

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For
each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a
good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true
and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot
happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:
(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is
deductively valid.
Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical
error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would
usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly
probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid,
are said to commit a “formal fallacy”.
Informal Fallacies
Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good
arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their
premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions
are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false
conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only
establishes that its conclusion is probably true.
All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so
“fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are
not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best
inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.
Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed
to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and
bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label:
“invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments
are “strong” and “weak”.
An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit
fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often
described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical
thinking courses and of this site.
Logical and Factual Errors
Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad
inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the
conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether
arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called
fallacious.
If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not
fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies
are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this
site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and
informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors.
Taxonomy of Fallacies
Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to
how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of
fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and ofpresumption.
Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the
truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as
are ad hominems.
Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw
manfallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.
Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to
establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma orcircular
arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.
These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in
any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’fallacy, for example,
could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of
“Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the
evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the
evidence).

Fallacies of Relevance
• Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
• Bandwagon Fallacy
• Fallacist’s Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Fallacy of Division
• Gambler’s Fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy
• Irrelevant Appeals
o Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
o Appeal to Authority
o Appeal to Consequences
o Appeal to Force
o Appeal to Novelty
o Appeal to Pity
o Appeal to Popularity
o Appeal to Poverty
o Appeal to Wealth
• Moralistic Fallacy
• Naturalistic Fallacy
• Red Herring
• Weak Analogy
Fallacies of Ambiguity
• Accent Fallacies
• Equivocation Fallacy
• Straw Man Fallacy
Fallacies of Presumption
• Affirming the Consequent
• Arguing from Ignorance
• Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
• Complex Question Fallacy
• Cum Hoc Fallacy
• False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
• Hasty Generalisation Fallacy
• ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
• Post Hoc Fallacy
• Slippery Slope Fallacy
• Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy
• Subjectivist Fallacy
• Tu Quoque Fallacy
Fallacies of Rellevance
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Explanation
It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind
of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an
argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you
know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for
example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad
hominem.
The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this
kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it;
they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always
important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that
commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
Example
(1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an
intelligent designer who created life.
(2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious.
Therefore:
(3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design.
This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science
based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern
biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious
argument ad hominem.

Bandwagon Fallacy
Explanation
The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity
of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea
suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become
adherents of the idea ourselves.
This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead
to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity
could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an
idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference
between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and
trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.
Example
(1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in
touch with our true inner being.
Therefore:
(2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that
an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not
reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more
fashionable does not imply that they are true.

Fallacist’s Fallacy
Explanation
The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument
offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and
found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This,
however, would be to go beyond the evidence.
It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are
true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Simon Singh
says that 2+2=4″. Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using
a post hoc: “I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!”
Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not
be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.
Example
“People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t accept that when
we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore there is no life after death.”

Fallacy of Composition
Explanation
The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a
whole has a given property that the whole also has that property. This pattern of
argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of division. It is not always fallacious, but we
must be cautious in making inferences of this form.
Examples
A clear case of the fallacy of composition is this:
(1) Every song on the album lasts less than an hour.
Therefore:
(2) The album lasts less than an hour.
Obviously, an album consisting of many short tracks may itself be very long.
Not all arguments of this form are fallacious, however. Whether or not they are depends
on what property is involved. Some properties, such as lasting less than an hour, may be
possessed by every part of something but not by the thing itself. Others, such as being
bigger than a bus, must be possessed by the whole if possessed by each part.
One case where it is difficult to decide whether the fallacy of composition is committed
concerns the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This argument takes the
contingency of the universe (i.e. the alleged fact that the universe might not have come
into being) as implying the existence of a God who brought it into being. The simplest
way to argue for the contingency of the universe is to argue from the contingency of
each of its parts, as follows:
(1) Everything in the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist).
Therefore:
(2) The universe as a whole is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist.
It is clear that this argument has the form of the fallacy of composition; what is less clear
is whether it really is fallacious. Must something composed of contingent parts itself be
contingent? Or might it be that the universe is necessarily existent even though each of
its parts is not?
Another controversial example concerns materialistic explanations of consciousness. Is
consciousness just electrical activity in the brain, as mind-brain identity theory suggests,
or something more? Opponents of mind-brain identity theory sometimes argue as
follows:
(1) The brain is composed of unconscious neurons.
Therefore:
(2) The brain itself is not conscious.
It is certainly difficult to see how consciousness can emerge from purely material
processes, but the mere fact that each part of the brain is unconscious does not entail
that the whole brain is the same.

Fallacy of Division
Explanation
The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed by
inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the
whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition, this is only a fallacy for
some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form of inference.
Example
An example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of division is this:
(1) Water is liquid.
Therefore:
(2) H2O molecules are liquid.
This argument, in attributing a macro-property of water, liquidity, to its constituent parts,
commits the fallacy of division. Though water is liquid, individual molecules are not.
Note, however, that an argument with the same logical form but inferring from the fact
that a computer is smaller than a car that every part of the computer is smaller than a
car would not be fallacious; arguments with this logical form need not be problematic.
Gambler’s Fallacy
Explanation
The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from
probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are
statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very
tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results, though,
has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes of the next coin toss.
Example
(1) This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row.
Therefore:
(2) It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed.
This inference is an example of the gambler’s fallacy. When a fair coin is tossed, the
probability of it landing heads-up is 50%, and the probability of it landing tails-up is 50%.
These probabilities are unaffected by the results of previous tosses.
The gambler’s fallacy appears to be a reasonable way of thinking because we know that
a coin tossed ten times is very unlikely to land heads-up every time. If we observe a
tossed coin landing heads-up nine times in a row we therefore infer that the unlikely
sequence will not be continued, that next time the coin will land tails-up.
In fact, though, the probability of the coin landing heads-up on the tenth toss is exactly
the same as it was on the first toss. Past results don’t bear on what will happen next.

Genetic Fallacy
Explanation
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of
its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just
because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea
because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better
than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are
fallacious.
Examples
(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
Therefore:
(2) The tooth fairy is real.
(1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
Therefore:
(2) Eugenics is a bad thing.
Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy, because each judges an idea by
the goodness or badness of its source, rather than on its own merits.
Irrelevant Appeals
Explanation
Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive,
is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal,
many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence. Each is a
different type of fallacy of relevance.
Examples
For example, an appeal to authority seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a
perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. The degree of
support that such an appeal lends to a claim varies depending on the particular authority
in question, the relevance of their expertise to the claim, and other factors, but in all
cases is limited.
An appeal to consequences seeks to persuade by getting the listener to consider either
the attractiveness of a belief, or the unattractiveness of the alternatives. We should form
beliefs, however, not on the basis of what we would like to be true, but on the basis of
what the evidence supports.
An appeal to pity, which can be very effective, persuades using emotion—specifically,
sympathy—rather than reason.
These are just some of the common irrelevant appeals.

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition

Explanation
An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity
assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while
implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and
new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an
idea just by considering how old it is.
Example
(1) Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent
development).
Therefore:
(2) Some form of religion is true.
This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favour
of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false:
e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar system. It therefore could
be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism)
but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that no religion is true). We need a lot more
evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified
in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an
authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority
speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any
authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an
authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone
either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re
speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
Example
(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the
problem of evil.
Therefore:
(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is
not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has
ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if
there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then
there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is
therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.

Appeal to Consequences
Explanation
An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the
good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or
may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no
guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be.
Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is
therefore just as likely to be false as true.
Examples
Appeal to Good Consequences:
(1) If believe in God then you’ll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you’ve never felt before.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.
Appeal to Bad Consequences:
(1’) If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life doesn’t have
any meaning.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.
Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence for their
conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In the case of
the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited as evidence that
God exists. In the case of the second argument, the negative consequences of disbelief
in God are cited as evidence that God exists. Neither argument, though, provides any
evidence for Santa’s existence. The consequences of a belief are rarely a good guide to
its truth. Both arguments are therefore fallacious.
Real-World Examples
Each of the arguments above features in real-world discussions of God’s existence. In
fact, they have been developed into an argument called Pascal’s Wager, which openly
advocates belief in God based on its good consequences, rather than on evidence that it
is true.
Another example occurs in the film The Matrix. There Neo is asked whether he believes
in fate; he says that he doesn’t. He is then asked why, and replies, “I don’t like the
thought that I’m not in control.” This is not an appeal to evidence, but to the
unpleasantness of believing in fate: Fate would imply that the world is a way that I don’t
want it to be, therefore there is no such thing.

Appeal to Force
Explanation
An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name, “argumentum
ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a cudgel”. Disbelief, such arguments go, will
be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore, you’d better believe.
Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences, where
the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the arguer.
Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a pragmatic
justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be true. Appeals to
force are therefore fallacious.
Example
(1) If you don’t accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around,
then you’ll be excommunicated from the Church.
Therefore:
(2) The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.
This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no attempt to provide
evidence for its conclusion; whether or not you’ll be excommunicated for disbelieving the
geocentric model has no bearing on whether the geocentric model is true. The argument
therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy.

Appeal to Novelty
Explanation
An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume
that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus also related to
the bandwagon fallacy.
That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no
merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject
as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely
go the same way.
Examples
(1) String theory is the most recent development in physics.
Therefore:
(2) String theory is true.
(1) Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development.
Therefore:
(2) Atheism is true.
Each of these arguments commits the appeal to novelty fallacy. The former takes the
newness of string theory to be evidence that string theory is true; the latter takes the
newness of atheism to be evidence that atheism is true. Merely being a new idea, of
course, is no guarantee of truth. The newness of string theory and atheism alone, then,
should not be taken to be evidence of the truth of these two positions.

Appeal to Pity
Explanation
An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather
than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can
certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so
quite common, fallacy.
This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a
good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our
beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.
Examples
Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of
appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to
disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.
A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear example of
an appeal to pity:
“A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11
September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter
Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life… Prosecutors hope such
emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.”

Appeal to Popularity
Explanation
Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.
This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight
makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the
Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits;
neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
Example
(1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.
Therefore:
(2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist.
This argument is an appeal to popularity because it suggests that God must exist based
solely on the popularity of belief in God. An atheist could, however, accept the premise
of this argument (the claim that belief in God is widespread) but reject its conclusion
without inconsistency.

Appeal to Poverty
Explanation
The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position is correct
because it is held by the poor. The opposite of the appeal to poverty is theappeal to
wealth.
There is sometimes a temptation to contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality of the
rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of the poor. This can give rise to arguments
that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy.
The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that the view is
true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs.
Example
(1) The working classes respect family and community ties.
Therefore:
(2) Respect for family and community ties is virtuous.
This argument is an appeal to poverty because it takes the association between a
position and poverty as evidence of the goodness of that position. There is, however, no
necessary connection between a position being associated with poverty and its being
true, and so the argument is fallacious.

Appeal to Wealth
Explanation
The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone
or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the
opposite of the appeal to poverty.
In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to which
we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth
is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more
expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because
of their price.
This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be associated with all that is good, and all that is good
need not be associated with wealth.
Examples
(1) My computer cost more than yours.
Therefore:
(2) My computer is better than yours.
(1) Warren is richer than Wayne.
Therefore:
(2) Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne.
Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of superiority.
They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy.

Moralistic Fallacy
Explanation
The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy
moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be, the
moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about
how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is
as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy; sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be.
Examples
Have you ever crossed a one-way street without looking in both directions? If you have,
reasoning that people shouldn’t be driving the wrong way up a one way street so there’s
no risk of being run over from that direction, then you’ve committed the moralistic fallacy.
Sometimes things aren’t as they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in directions that
they shouldn’t. The rules of the road don’t necessarily describe actual driving practices.

Naturalistic Fallacy
Explanation
There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact which
describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that
the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a
statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind.
Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The argument,
“(1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a philosopher” is
clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is
because the conclusion contains an idea—that of being a philosopher—that isn’t
contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so
cannot establish a conclusion about being a philosopher.
Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the same
way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose
conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the
conclusion in just the same way as the above example. If the premises merely describe
the way that the world is then they say nothing about the way that the world ought to be.
Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgement; you can’t get an ‘ought’
from an ‘is’.
Examples
(1) Feeling envy is only natural.
Therefore:
(2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling envy.
This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore
commits the naturalistic fallacy. The argument’s premise simply describes the way that
the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel envious. To describe the way that the world
is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be. The argument’s conclusion,
then, which is value judgement, cannot be supported by its premises.
It is important to note that much respectable moral argument commits the naturalistic
fallacy. Whether arguments of the form described here are fallacious is controversial. If
they are, then the vast majority of moral philosophy commits a basic logical error.

Red Herring
Explanation
The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of
distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his
argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and
effective, fallacies to observe.
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked
herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a
hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an
arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential
issue.
Example
Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for
example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he
feel if you made him sit it again?”

Weak Analogy
Explanation
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the
universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the
fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a
product of intelligent design too.
An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak
analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the
comparison is not strong enough.
Example
The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an
example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind and degree of order exhibited
by watches and the universe sufficient to support an inference to a similarity in their
origins?
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Accent Fallacies
Explanation
Accent fallacies are fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a word or
sentence. The meaning of a set of words may be dramatically changed by the way they
are spoken, without changing any of the words themselves. Accent fallacies are a type
of equivocation.
Example
Suppose that two people are debating whether a rumour about the actions of a third
person is true. The first says, “I can imagine him doing that; it’s possible.”
The second replies, “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This looks like
agreement.
If however, the second person stresses the word imagine, then this appearance
vanishes; “Yes, it’s possible to imagine him doing that.” This now sounds like a pointed
comment meaning that though it may just about be possible to imagine him doing that,
there’s no way that he would actually do it.

Equivocation Fallacy
Explanation
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different
senses within a single argument.
For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in
its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words
equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a
change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things,
then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former
cannot support the latter.
Example
(1) The church would like to encourage theism.
(2) Theism is a medical condition resulting from the excessive consumption of tea.
Therefore:
(3) The church ought to distribute tea more freely.
This argument is obviously fallacious because it equivocates on the word theism. The
first premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood as belief in a particular
kind of god; the second premise of the argument is only true if theism is understood in a
medical sense.
Real-World Examples
(1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.
(2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
Therefore:
(3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.
This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two different
meanings of “faith”. The kind of faith that Christianity holds is necessary for salvation is
belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does not matter where the
belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on
evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven, according to Christianity.
For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for the kind of
faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is no one understanding of faith according to
which both of the argument’s premises are true, and the argument therefore fails to
establish its conclusion.
Another argument relating to Christianity that crops up from time to time goes like this:
(1) Jesus is the Word of God.
(2) The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore:
(3) Jesus is the Bible.
This is usually used to to support some further conclusion about the authority of the
Bible or something similar, but there’s no need to go any further to see that there’s a
problem here: the phrase “Word of God” means very different things in the two premises,
so this argument rests on an equivocation.

Straw Man Fallacy

Explanation
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear
weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then
concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because
the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually
been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
Example
(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false.
This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents
trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its
conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that
three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth.
Fallacies of Presumption

Affirming the Consequent

Explanation
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A
The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A obtained then a
consequence B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that this consequence B
does obtain. The faulty step then follows: the inference that the state of affairs A obtains.
Examples
(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.
This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be
going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked:
e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see
the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.
(1) If Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his existence,
then we wouldn’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
(2) We don’t have any evidence of a historical Zeus today.
Therefore:
(3) Zeus was a real, historical figure, but the Catholic Church covered up his existence.

Arguing from Ignorance

Explanation
Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not
known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the
proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from
ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are
fallacious.
Example
(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.
This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with
no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence.
Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Explanation
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either
explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question.
A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those
who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its
premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument
as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the
argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In
neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.
This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as
its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the
argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the
argument as a whole.
Real-World Examples
The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument.
Other examples can be a little more subtle.
Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say
what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose
whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn
has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”.
Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have
X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to
prove.

Complex Question Fallacy

Explanation
The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a
questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that
assumption.
Examples
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a
presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.
“Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”
Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question
implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is
left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex question, and a subtle false
dilemma.

Cum Hoc Fallacy

Explanation
The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur
together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is
possible without causation. This fallacy is closely related to the post hoc fallacy.
Example
As the graph below (taken from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website)
shows, two things have happened since the early 19th-century: one is that the number of
pirates has declined, the other is that global average temperatures have risen.

If correlation implied causation, we would be able to infer a connection between these

two events. It is not the case, however, that global warming is an effect of the decline in
piracy. Neither is the decline in piracy the result of increasing temperatures. Mere
correlation does not imply a causal connection.
Real-World Example
Nestle, the makers of the breakfast cereal Shredded Wheat, once ran an advertising
campaign in which the key phrase was this: “People who eat Shredded Wheat tend to
have healthy hearts.” This is very carefully phrased. It does not explicitly state that there
is any causal connection between eating Shredded Wheat and having a healthy heart,
but it invites viewers of the advertisements to make the connection; the implication is
there. Whether or not there is any such connection, the mere fact that the two things are
correlated does not prove that there is such a connection. In tempting viewers to infer
that eating Shredded Wheat is good for your heart, Nestle are tempting viewers to
commit a fallacy.

False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy

Explanation
The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when
someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other
option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less
than there really are are similarly fallacious.
Examples
(1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into
existence out of nothing.
(2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from
nothing).
Therefore:
(3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the
universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of
nothing, because it existed from eternity.
Another example emerged when George W Bush launched the war on terror, insisting
that other nations were either for or against America in her campaign, excluding the
quite real possibility of neutrality.
Complex questions are subtle forms of false dilemma. Questions such as “Are you going
to admit that you’re wrong?” implicitly restrict the options to either being wrong and
admitting it or being wrong or not admitting it, thus excluding the option of not being
wrong.

Hasty Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is
the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.
Example
(1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
Therefore:
(2) Christians / atheists are grouches.
This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general
rule from it, assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.
The conclusion that it reaches hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that
the neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

Explanation
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the
refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as
irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are
not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a
proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-
example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’
fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his
porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be
true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus
becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious
groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent,
that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to
this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using
the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians.
The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an
approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
Post Hoc Fallacy
Explanation
The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore
because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one
thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal
succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows
another does not mean that it was caused by it. This fallacy is closely related to the cum
hoc fallacy.
Example
(1) Most people who are read the last rites die shortly afterwards.
Therefore:
(2) Priests are going around killing people with magic words!
This argument commits the post hoc fallacy because it infers a causal connection based
solely on temporal order.
Real-World Examples
One example of the post hoc flaw is the evidence often given for the efficacy of prayer.
When someone reasons that as they prayed for something and it then happened, it
therefore must have happened because they prayed for it, they commit the post hoc
fallacy. The correlation between the prayer and the event could result from coincidence,
rather than cause, so does not prove that prayer works.
Superstitions often arise from people committing the post hoc fallacy. Consider, for
example, a sportsman who adopts a pre-match ritual because one time he did
something before a game he got a good result. The reasoning here is presumably that
on the first occasion the activity preceded the success, so the activity must have
contributed to the success, so repeating the activity is likely to lead to a recurrence of the
success. This is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy in action.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Explanation
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They
begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we
know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we
therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is
possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things;
restraint is possible.
Example
(1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and
before you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and everything.
(2) You don’t want to become a punk.
Therefore:
(3) You shouldn’t buy a Green Day album.
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a
Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then
stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first
premise is false.

Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
A sweeping generalisation applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a
general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case,
the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy. This
fallacy is the reverse of a hasty generalisation, which infers a general rule from a specific
case.
Example
(1) Children should be seen and not heard.
(2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
Therefore:
(3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard.
No matter what you think of the general principle that children should be seen and not
heard, a child prodigy pianist about to perform is worth listening to; the general principle
doesn’t apply.

Subjectivist Fallacy
Explanation
There are two types of claim: objective and subjective.
Objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone. For example, the claim that the
Earth is cuboid is an objective claim; it’s either true for everyone or false for everyone. It
isn’t possible for the Earth to be cuboid for me, spherical for you, but flat for everyone
else, because whatever shape the Earth is it is only one shape.
Subjective claims can have different truth-values for different people. For example, the
claim that running a marathon takes more than three hours is a subjective claim: for
many people it is true, but for a good number of runners it is false.
The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an
argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its conclusion,
but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. Typically this is
done by labelling the arguer’s conclusion as just an “opinion”, a “perspective”, a “point of
view”, or similar.
This is one of those cases where the objectionable logic is so underdeveloped that it is
difficult to pin down precisely what is wrong with it. Someone who just grunts “that’s just
your opinion” is clearly trying to imply something, but their reasoning isn’t explicit.
They might have in mind something like the following:
(1) Your argument concludes that p is objectively true.
(2) P is subjective.
Therefore:
(3) Your argument fails.
This argument is fine as long as its premises are true, but where (2) is false it commits
the subjectivist fallacy.
Alternatively, they might mean something like this:
(1) Your argument concludes that p is true.
(2) Many people don’t accept that p is true.
Therefore:
(3) Your argument fails.
This argument doesn’t commit the subjectivist fallacy; it has nothing to do with objectivity
and subjectivity. Instead it is an example of an appeal to popularity, giving far too much
weight to the opinion of those who don’t accept the conclusion of the argument, failing to
recognise that even an argument for a conclusion that many people don’t accept can be
sound.

Tu Quoque Fallacy
Explanation
The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has
done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by
children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, with the implied
conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This
is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we
were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Example
(1) The Romans kept slaves.
Therefore:
(2) We can keep slaves too.
This argument commits the tu quoque fallacy because it assumes that if someone else
does a thing then it’s okay for us to do it too. It does not follow, however, from the simple
fact that the Romans kept slaves, that there is nothing wrong with keeping slaves. It is
plausible to think that the Romans acted immorally in keeping slaves, and that we would
act immorally if we followed their example. The conclusion of the argument therefore
does not follow from its premise.
Examples of the tu quoque fallacy occur all the time. For instance, in an article
entitled Man United defend ticket price rise, BBC Sport reported:
“Manchester United have hit their fans with a 12.3% average rise in season ticket prices
for the next campaign. A top-price ticket will cost £38 and the cheapest £23… But United
have defended the price rises, saying they compare favourably with the rest of the
Premiership. ‘We do not know what most of our rivals will charge next year, buy even a
price freeze across the rest of the Premiership would mean that next year only seven
clubs will have a cheaper ticket than £23 and nine clubs will have a top price over £39 –
in some cases almost double,’ said Humby [Manchester United finance director].”
The representative of Manchester United’s argument was essentially this: “Other
Premiership clubs charge more, therefore our ticket prices are justified.” This commits
the tu quoque fallacy because it’s quite possible that all clubs, including Manchester
United, overcharge for their tickets.

Source : www.logicalfallacies.info