PATRICK ISRAEL CAMAYANG BSN 3D

Logical fallacies are bogus modes of reasoning that can appear legitimate but in fact violate
accepted rules of inference. Logical fallacies can be tricky. By masquerading as legitimate arguments,
they can fool us into thinking that they are legitimate. But closer inspection reveals the critical flaw at the
heart of any given logical fallacy. Such flaws are not always easily detected, especially in the heat of
debate.

To confound matters, logical fallacies often have an element of truth. But the truth gets misused by
faulty logic so that the desired conclusion is not properly justified. A fallacy may even reach a true
conclusion, but by arriving there in the wrong way, render the conclusion unconvincing. Moreover,
fallacies aren’t always driven by the desire to deceive or manipulate. Fallacies can also be rooted in bias,
emotion, or misunderstanding, which can sometimes be less immediately apparent.

Why are logical fallacies so common? The answer is simple: they work! To say that logical fallacies
work does not mean that they help us gain knowledge or insight into truths about the world. Rather, it
means that bogus types of reasoning are often amazingly effective at getting people to believe things that
they shouldn’t believe.

Lawyers, politicians, and marketers often have the keen ability to use fallacious arguments as
weapons. This is rarely an accident. Unfortunately, when people want to believe something, they’ll often
enlist logical fallacies to help convince themselves and others of its truth. Clear, careful, and critical
thinking, therefore, requires calling out logical fallacies.

Ad Hominem - An abbreviated phrase meaning “to the person,” argumentum ad hominem refers to an
argument which relies on an attack directed at the speaker rather than the substance of the speaker’s
argument. This rhetorical strategy is often fallacious in nature, employing an approach designed to
discredit the character, substance or motive of a person in lieu of deconstructing the person’s claims.

Example 1
Speaker 1: I think the idea of a moral law requires the existence of a lawgiver (i.e. God).
Speaker 2: Of course you would say that. You’re a Christian. Why should we listen to you?

Example 2:
Speaker 1: I think marijuana should be legalized. It would be better for the country if we didn’t have this
drug war.
Speaker 2: Of course you think that. You’re a pothead.

 Appeal to Authority - The argumentum ad verecundiam, sometimes also called an “argument from
authority,” describes an argument in which a speaker claims that their view is endorsed by a relevant
authority figure. This claim of endorsement is presented as a sufficient argument unto itself, relieving the
speaker of presenting any additional evidence to further their case. An alternate form of this fallacy is
sometimes called the appeal to false or unqualified authority. In this case, the speaker might cite an
individual with some measure of clout, but generally in an area outside the subject of the given argument.
For instance, one might fallaciously cite a medical doctor’s opinion about politics simply because she is a
very smart doctor.

Example 1:
My philosophy professor believes in ghosts and goes to séances. She’s an intelligent, educated, person,
so ghosts must be real, and spiritualism must be true.
Example 2:
My minister says the Covid vaccine will cause genetic mutations. He has a college degree, and is a holy
man, so he must be right.

 Appeal to Ignorance - Argumentum ad ignorantiam, also sometimes referred to as an “argument from

ignorance,” occurs when a speaker presents an argument as fact simply because there is no readily
available evidence to prove the contrary. This fallacy is based on a false dichotomy which posits that
what we don’t know must not be true. This strategy incorrectly assumes that a lack of sufficient
evidence is concrete proof that something can’t be true, a position which precludes the possibility that
things may be unknown or even unknowable.

Example 1:
No one has proven God exists, so He doesn’t.

Example 2:
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so He does.

 Appeal to Pity - The argumentum ad misericordiam is a strategy in which one speaker appeals to the
emotions of another by exploiting their feelings of guilt or pity. This strategy of debate seeks to validate
one’s argument by playing on the sympathy or sensitivity of the other. The aim is to invoke an array of
emotions that might cloud the individual’s ability to approach the argument in a rational way. It should
also be noted though that the invocation of empathy is not by itself evidence that a fallacy has
occurred. If we take, for instance, commercials which feature starving people in developing countries,
the goal of invoking our pity is not to deceive but to connect real human emotion with a call to action.
An appeal to any type of emotion is not by itself fallacious, but becomes fallacious when combined
with a faulty premise.

Example 1:
You should give me a promotion. I have a lot of debt and am behind on my rent.

Example 2:
You can’t give me a C. I’ll lose my scholarship.

 Appeal to Popular Opinion - The argumentum ad populum, also sometimes referred to as the common
belief fallacy, refers to an instance in which a speaker asserts that something is true because many
people believe it to be so. This is a fallacy in which the speaker, in lieu of providing evidence to
support an argument, asserts that something is demonstrably true only because a majority of people
believe it to be the case. Another form of this fallacy is called the bandwagon fallacy, so named for its
implication that one should adopt a view or opinion (i.e. join the bandwagon) because so many others
believe it to be so. One more variation, the appeal to elite status, suggests that you might want to
share a view or position because it is held by an elite set of individuals. For instance, a well-known
recruitment slogan “The few. The proud. The Marines.” both conferred elite status upon the Marines
and in doing so, implied that you might want to join this select group.

Example 1:
Most people think the world is flat, therefore it is flat.

Example 2:
Most actors in Hollywood were against the war in Iraq, therefore the war in Iraq was wrong. (This is a
subsection of ad populum: snob appeal. In this case, the opinion is outside the expertise of the people
appealed to.)

 Appeal to the Stone - The argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy in which one speaker dismisses
the argument of another as being outright absurd and patently untrue without presenting further
evidence to support this dismissal. This constitutes a rhetorical effort to exploit a lack of readily
available evidence to support an initial argument without necessarily presenting sufficient evidence to
the contrary. By its very nature, Appeal to the Stone preempts further debate. It insulates itself against
counter-argument by declining to present sufficient evidence to be rebutted. A fallacy relying on
inductive reasoning, appeal to the stone is a particularly vulnerable fallacy in contexts where new
evidence may eventually reveal itself.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: Humans share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.
Speaker 2: No they don’t. Don’t be ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Why am I ridiculous?
Speaker 2: Evolution is absurd.
Speaker 1: Why do you say that?
Speaker 2: Well, it just obviously is. Look at apes, and then look at us. It’s just obviously an absurd theory.

 Causal Fallacy - Also sometimes called the fallacy of the single cause, or causal reductionism, this is a
logical fallacy in which the speaker presumes that because there is a single clear explanation for an
effect, that this must be the only cause. This fallacy makes the incorrect and reductive assumption that
one cause precludes that possibility of multiple causes. This is a false dilemma, one which requires
the speaker to ignore the possibility of other overlapping explanations and to consequently draw an
unwarranted connection between a perceived cause and effect.

Example 1:
I go to my front porch every morning and yell, “May no tigers enter this house!” and for 20 years, not a
single tiger has entered my house. My tiger prevention strategy clearly works.

Example 2:
It’s cold on a summer day. Global warming is a hoax.

 Circular Argument - Circulus in probando in Latin, this logical fallacy occurs when the premise of an
argument is dependent upon acceptance of the conclusion, and the conclusion is dependent upon
acceptance of the argument. In other words, both the argument and the conclusion are left wanting
further proof. In circular reasoning, the originating premise lacks grounding in independent evidence,
and therefore brings to the discussion no further proof to support the conclusion.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: You should trust the Bible because it’s the Word of God.
Speaker 2: How do you know it’s the Word of God?
Speaker 1: Because God tells us it is.
Speaker 2: Where does God tell us this?
Speaker 1: Right here, in the Bible.

 Equivocation - Sometimes called the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy, this is a logical fallacy in which a
speaker blurs the line between two distinct positions which have some overlapping qualities. By
 blurring this line, it becomes possible to create an association between one position which is modest
(Motte), and therefore easily defended, and a position which is likely to be more extreme (Bailey), and
which is therefore more difficult to defend. By equating these positions, the speaker is presenting a
false equivalence, thus forcing the other speaker to move to the defense of a position which is more
difficult to defend.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: Did you torture the prisoner?
Speaker 2: No, we just held him under water for a while, and then did a mock hanging.

 Fallacy of Sunk Costs - The sunk cost fallacy proceeds from the faulty logic that the expenditure of
past resources justifies the continued expenditure of resources. This fallacy contradicts rational choice
theory, which holds that in economics, the only rational decisions are those which are made based on
future expenses, rather than past expenses. In a broader sense, this fallacy can apply to a wide range
of scenarios including the sunk cost of having remained in an unhappy relationship, having engaged in
a failed war, or having dedicated years to an unsatisfying job. In each case, one might commit a
fallacy by determining that past commitment to any of these scenarios necessitates a continuation of
the status quo.

Example 1:
Our marriage is terrible, but we’ve been together so long we might as well stay together. If we get
divorced, I will have wasted 30 years.

Example 2:
I hate this book. It isn’t very good. I’ve started reading it, though, so I should finish it. If I don’t finish it, I will
have wasted 8 hours of my life.

 False Dilemma - Also sometimes referred to as a “false dichotomy,” this is a fallacy in which one
incorrectly places limitations on one’s possible options in a given scenario. This fallacy rests on the
false premise that one is faced with a binary choice when it’s possible that multiple options are
available. In essence, this occurs when one reduces the array of available options and alternatives to
a simplified either-or condition.

Example 1:
If you aren’t a capitalist, you must be a communist.

Example 2:
Either God created the world or evolution is true.

Example 3:
Speaker 1: I’m against the war.
Speaker 2: You must hate our troops.

 Genetic Fallacy - Also sometimes referred to as the fallacy of origins, this is a fallacy which presumes
that an argument holds no merit simply because of its source. In this instance, the history or origin of
the source is used to dismiss an argument, in lieu of using actual rhetoric to address the substance of
the argument.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: That scientist gave a report last week on the relationship between fossil fuel and global
warming. He says burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming.
Speaker 2: He belongs to the Sierra Club and owns stock in a solar energy company. What he says
cannot be true.

 Hasty Generalization - Also sometimes called a faulty generalization, this is a form of argument which
arrives at a conclusion about numerous instances of a phenomenon based on evidence which is
limited to only one or a few instances of said phenomenon. This denotes that one might attempt to
generalize the explanation for an occurrence based on an unreliably small sample set.
Example 1:
My grandmother smoked for 80 years and died at 100. Obviously, smoking isn’t harmful.

Example 2:
I know five people from Kentucky. They are all racists. Therefore, Kentuckians are racist.

Example 3:
My neighbor’s child was kidnapped while playing alone in her yard. My city must be a dangerous place for
children.

 Loaded Question Fallacy - A loaded question is one in which the speaker has employed rhetorical
manipulation in order to limit the possible array of answers that another speaker can rationally provide.
The fallacy is couched in the phrasing of such a question, which presupposes certain facts that may
not be true or proven, within the content of the question. The fallacy occurs when that question is
underscored by a presupposition which is not agreed upon by the person to whom the question is
posed.

Example 1:
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Example 2:
Why did you steal my keys?

 Post Hoc Fallacy - In full Latin phrasing, Post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this, therefore
because of this.” Instances of this fallacy occur when one incorrectly attributes a cause and effect
relationship between two phenomena in the absence of proof that one causes the other. The flaw in
this strategy is that it draws a singular relationship between a premise and a conclusion without
considering an array of variables that might disqualify the possibility of such a relationship.

Example 1:
Every time we sacrifice virgins, it rains. Therefore, sacrificing virgins causes it to rain.

Example 2:
Violence among teens has risen the last five years. Video game playing among teens has also risen the
last five years. Therefore, playing video games causes teens to be violent.

Example 3:
Every time I wear this necklace, I pass my exams. Therefore, wearing this necklace causes me to pass
my exams.

 Red Herring Fallacy - The red herring fallacy refers to an instance in which one speaker attempts to
divert the attention of another speaker from the primary argument by offering a point which may be
true, but which does not actually further the substance of a counterargument. So named for the
implication that the odoriferous fish in question might “throw one off the scent” of the actual argument
 itself, the red herring will typically support a conclusion with a fact which does not actually provide
substantive support.

Example 1:
Child: This fish tastes funny. I don’t want to eat this.
Parent: There are children starving in Africa. Eat your dinner.

Example 2:
Speaker 1: I think it’s terrible that a game hunter killed Cecil the lion.
Speaker 2: What about all the babies that are killed every day by abortion?

 Slippery Slope Fallacy - Sometimes also called the continuum fallacy, this fallacy occurs when a
speaker claims that a single step taken in a particular direction will inevitably lead to a series of
subsequent and unintended events. This argument is used to draw a series of unforeseen and
unprovable conclusions based on a single provable premise. The flaw in the slippery slope argument
is that it typically forecasts an extreme range of likely subsequent events, thereby excluding the
possibility that a series of more moderate events might play out instead.

Example 1:
You smoke pot? If you keep doing that, you’ll be a heroin addict within two years.

Example 2:
If we legalize pot, the next thing you know people will want to legalize meth and heroin.
Fun Fact: In the literary context, “slippery slope” is sometimes referred to as “the camel’s nose.” This
refers to a metaphor taken from an allegory published by Geoffrey Nunberg in 1858, which tells the story
of a miller who allows a camel to stick its nose through the doorway of his bedroom. Bit by bit, the camel
moves other body parts into the room until he is entirely inside. Once this occurs, the camel refuses to
leave.

 Strawman Argument - The strawman fallacy occurs when a speaker appears to refute the argument of
another speaker by replacing that argument with a similar but far flimsier premise. In essence, the
speaker is “setting up a straw man” which can then be easily knocked down by a counterargument.
The flaw in this rhetorical approach is that it fails to actually engage the original argument, in essence
changing the subject so as to face a more manageable argument.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: I think we should lower the age of sexual consent to 16.
Speaker 2: 16 year olds are children. So, you think it’s OK for children to have sex? No, we shouldn’t
lower the age of consent.

Example 2:
Speaker 1: I think we should have single payer, universal, health care.
Speaker 2: Communist countries tried that. We don’t want America to be a communist country. We
shouldn’t have single payer health care.

 Tu Quoque - Tu quoque, which translates to “you also,” is a fallacy in which one speaker discredits
another by attacking their behavior as being inconsistent with their argument. This is a specious attack
line because it seizes on certain characteristics presented by the speaker rather than on the merits of
the speaker’s actual argument. Similar to ad hominem in that it resorts to a personal line of attack
rather than a rhetorical argument, the primary distinction is that this personal attack is framed as
having a direct connection to the argument itself. This framing is not designed to disqualify the speaker
 for who they are (as with ad hominem) but for how they act, and consequently, how this action
appears to diverge from the premise of the speaker’s argument.

Example 1:
Speaker 1: No fault divorce is really harmful to the family and the larger society.
Speaker 2: Well, you must not really think that since you’re divorced yourself.

Example 2:
Parent: I really don’t want you to smoke pot. It’s still illegal, and could get you into trouble.
Child: Didn’t you smoke pot when you were my age? You must not think it’s a big deal.

 Affirming the Consequent - Sometimes also referred to as a converse error, this is a fallacy which
occurs when one assumes that, because a conditional statement is true, then the converse of that
statement must also be true. In such instances, this assumption is based on a failure to consider other
possible antecedents which might also be used to offer true conditional statements. In other words, the
speaker has failed to consider the full range of possible conditions for that which is consequent.

Example 1:
If Hunter was human, he would be mortal. Hunter is mortal. Therefore, Hunter is a human.(Hunter may
actually be my cat.)

Example 2:
If it was raining outside, it would be dark. It’s dark outside, so it must be raining. (It might be 10PM.)

Example 3:
If I’m psychic, I will be able to see dead people. I see dead people, therefore I’m psychic. (I might actually
just be insane.)

References: https://academicinfluence.com/inflection/study-guides/logical-fallacies