Fallacies

Front 1

Anecdotal Evidence

Back 1

Discounting evidence arrived at by systematic search or testing in favor of a few firsthand stories.

“I’m going to carry on smoking. Someone told me their grandfather smoked 40 packs a day and he lived until he was 90!”

Front 2

Composition Fallacy

Back 2

A hasty generalization that assumes the characteristics or beliefs of some of a group applies to the entire group

“Recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by radical Islamic groups. Therefore all terrorists are Muslims.”

Front 3

Division Fallacy

Back 3

A hasty generalization that assumes the characteristic or beliefs of a group automatically apply to any individual member

“Many Conservatives wish to ban gay marriages, discredit climate change, and deny evolution. Therefore all conservatives are homophobic, anti-enviromental creationists.”

Front 4

Design Fallacy

Back 4

Assuming that because something is nicely designed or beautiful visualized it’s more true.

“Er…?.”

Front 5

Gambler’s Fallacy

Back 5

Assuming the history of outcomes will affect future outcomes.

“I’ve flipped this coin 10 times in a row and it’s been heads. Therefore the next coin flip is more likely to come up tails.”

Front 6

Hasty Generalization

Back 6

Drawing a general conclusion from a tiny sample.
“I just got cut off by a woman driver. Women can’t drive.”

Front 7

Non Sequitar

Back 7

A false conclusion that does not logically follow from the rasoning provided.

“John does not smoke; therefore, he will make an excellent tennis player.”

Front 8

Jumping to Conclusions

Back 8

Drawing a quick conclusion without fairly considering relevant (and easily available) evidence

“She wants birth control in her medical coverage? What a s1ut!”

Front 9

Middle Ground

Back 9

Assuming because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie somewhere between them. This usually ignores that one side could simply be wrong.

“I rear ended your car but I don’t think I should pay for the damage. You think I should pay for all the damage. A fair compromise would be to split the bill in half.

Front 10

Perfectionist Fallacy

Back 10

Assuming that the only option on the table is perfect success, then rejecting anything that will not work perfectly.

“What’s the point of this anti-drunk driving campaign? People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.”

Front 11

Relativist Fallacy

Back 11

Rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group. This also ignores that one side could simply be wrong.

“That’s perhaps true for you. But it’s not true for me.”

Front 12

Spotlight

Back 12

Assuming an observation from a small sample size applies to an entire group

“This large shoe manufacturer employed children in sweatshops in 1992. Therefore all shoe companies are evil child-slave owners!”

Front 13

Sweeping Generalization

Back 13

Applying a general rule too broadly.

“Those young men rioted because they lacked morally responsible fathers.”

Front 14

Undisputed Middle

Back 14

Assuming because two things share a property, that makes them the same thing.

“A theory can mean an unproven idea. Scientists use the term evolutionary theory. Therefore evolution is an unproven idea.”

Front 15

Rationalization (aka Self-Delusion)

Back 15

Rationalization is a device used to avoid unpleasant realities.

“I wasn’t a bad student that failed because I didn’t do as I was asked or attend class regularly; there was no time to study and the teacher didn’t like me”

Front 16

False Analogy (aka Illogical Comparisons)

Back 16

An analogy is a specific form of comparison: finding similarities between two things that are normally classified under different categories. A false analogy makes a comparison on trivial similarities that ignore fundamental differences.

“We should lower the drinking age like European countries, such as German and Switzerland.”

Front 17

Affirming the Consequent

Back 17

Assuming there’s only one explanation for the observation you’re making.

“Marriage often results in the birth of children. So that’s the reason why it exists.”

Front 18

Circular Logic

Back 18

A conclusion is derived from a premise based on the conclusion.

“Stripping privacy rights only matters to those with something to hide. You must have something to hide if you oppose privacy protection.”

Front 19

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Back 19

Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship. (Correlation = causation)

“Teenagers in gangs listen to rap music with violent themes. Rap music inspires violence in teenagers.”

Front 20

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Back 20

A doubtful cause. Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it.

“Since the election of the President more people than ever are unemployed. Therefore the President has damaged the economy.”

Front 21

Denying the Antecedent

Back 21

There isn’t only one explanation for an outcome. So it’s false to assume the cause based on the effect.

“If you get a degree, you’ll get a good job. If you don’t get a degree, you won’t get a good job.”

Front 22

Ignoring a Common Cause

Back 22

Claiming one event must have caused the other when a third (unlooked for) event is probably the cause.

“We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS.”

Front 23

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Back 23

Assuming that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out

“Sure – the conditions in this prison are cruel and dehumanizing. But these inmates are criminals!”

Front 24

Ad Hoc Rescue (aka Moving the Goal Post)

Back 24

Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatly revising the argument to explain away problems.

“…But apart from better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, a freshwater system and public order…what have the Romans done for us?”

Front 25

Begging the Question (aka Circular Reasoning)

Back 25

Making claim while leaving out one or more major
contributing factors that may affect the conclusion.

“I think; therefore, I am.”

Front 26

Biased Generalizing

Back 26

Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument

“Our website poll found that 90% of internet users oppose online piracy laws.”

Front 27

Confirmation Bias

Back 27

Cherry-picking evidence that supports your idea while ignoring contradicting evidence.

“It’s obvious 9-11 was an American-governmental conspiracy to justify war in Iraq and Afghanistan. No plane hit the Pentagon. The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition…etc”

Front 28

False Dilemma (aka Polarization)

Back 28

Presenting two opposing options as the only two opitons while hiding alternatives
.
“We’re going to have to cut the education budget or go deeper into debt. We can’t afford to go deeper into debt. So we’ll have to cut the education budget.”

Front 29

Lie

Back 29

An outright untruth repeated knowingly as a fact.

“I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.”

Front 30

Equivocation

Back 30

Using the ambiguity of a word with two different meanings to change the nature of the debate.

“Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal.” (Here the term “criminal actions” is used with two different meanings.)

Front 31

Misleading Vividness

Back 31

Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is a rare occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

“After legalizing gay marriages, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories and even manuals or explicit homosexual advocacy and many went home to their parents in tears to ask unsettling questions about male-on-male sexual positions.”

Front 32

Red Herring

Back 32

Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion.

“Why should the Senator account for irregularities in his expenses? After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.”

Front 33

Slippery Slope

Back 33

Assuming a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events
“If we legalize marijuana, more people will start using crack and heroin. Then we’d have to legalize those too.”

Front 34

Suppressed Evidence

Back 34

Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information which counts against one’s own conclusion.

“The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Front 35

Unfalsifiability

Back 35

Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is no way to check if it is false or not.

“He lied because he’s possessed by demons, but he got better.”

Front 36

Ad Hominem

Back 36

Bypassing the argument by launching an irrelevant attack on the person and not their claim.

“Anyone that says we should build the Ground Zero Mosque is an American-hating liberal.”

Front 37

Poisoning the Well

Back 37

Weakening the argument of the opponent by launching a preemptive attack on the person and not their claim before he/she is able to speak.

“My opponent will talk about how health care is something everyone is entitled to, but he got this idea while participating at a Communist rally last summer.”

Front 38

Ad Baculum

Back 38

An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.

“You should believe in the God of the Bible, because if you do not and you die, you will go to hell.”

Front 39

Burden of Proof (aka Ad Ignorantiam)

Back 39

I don’t need to prove my claim-you must prove it is false.

“I maintain long-term solar cycles are the cause of global warming. Show me I’m wrong.”

Front 40

Circumstance Ad Hominem

Back 40

Stating a claim isn’t credible only because of the advocate’s interests in his/her claim.

“A study into the health risk of mobile phones involved mobile phone companies. Therefore, the study cannot be trusted.”

Front 41

Genetic Fallacy

Back 41

Attacking the cause or origin of a claim, rather than it’s substance.

“Of course, mainstream liberal media aren’t going to say Barack Obama is a Muslim.”

Front 42

Guilt by Association

Back 42

Discrediting an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group.

“Oh you want to relax the anti-terrorism laws just like the terrorist want us to do. Are you saying you support terrorism?”

Front 43

Straw Man

Back 43

Creating a distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent’s argument, and then arguing against that.

‘You say Israel should stop building settlements on the West Bank in violation of treaty. So you’re saying Israel doesn’t have the right to be a nation?”