Logical Fallacies

Definition
 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.
 Overstatement
 Overstatement occurs when the argument’s
assertion is unqualified referring to all
members of a category. Overstatements often
result from stereotyping , giving the same
traits to everyone in a group. Overstatements
are frequently signaled by words such as
all,every,always,never, and none.
 Example :
a. Students are only interested in getting good
grades.

Even those interested in knowledge? Isn’t

there at least one student who’s interested in
learning?
Aren’t they interested in anything else?
 Example:
b. All politicians in Lebanon are corrupt .

Isn’t there any politician who’s interested in

people’s welfare?
(Just one honest politician is enough to defy
your claim).
 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 their evaluation of the
entire course on only one
 class, and on 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 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.
 Forced Hypothesis
 The forced hypothesis is a forced or illogical
reasoning because sufficient evidence does not exist
to draw any conclusion or the evidence can be
explained more simply by a different hypothesis.
 Example : Professor Smith’s students received A’s or
B’s last semester. He must be an excellent teacher.
Is excellence in teaching giving high grades? Could
he have an excellent group of students?
 Non Sequitur
 The term non sequitur means literally it doesn’t
follow. It applies to the arguments in which the
conclusions are not logically connected to the reasons.
 Example :
a. Donna will surely get a good grade in physics; she
earned an A in her biology class.

If one person is good in one field, does it follow that

he or she is excellent in everything?
Is an excellent doctor an excellent musician?
 False Dilemma
 It oversimplifies by asserting only two
alternatives when there are more than two.

The Federal Reserve System must lower

interest rates, or we will never pull out of the
recession.

Isn’t there any other solution?

There is no single perfect solution.
 Example:
 We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth .
 In this example where 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.
 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.
 Ad hominem
 This is an attack on the character of a person rather
than their 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
 This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive
(such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative
(such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the
real issue at hand. Example:
 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 effect 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.