Logical Fallacies

Front 1

Attacking opponent's character rather than arguments; name-calling; poisoning the well.

Back 1

Ad Hominem Attacks

Front 2

Relying on popularity rather than reasoning; appeal to common practice.

Back 2

Bandwagon Appeal

Front 3

Circular reasoning in which a claim is restated, usually in different words, as support for itself; "I think, therefore I am."

Back 3

Begging the Question

Front 4

Linguistic slight-of-hand whereby the key term in an argument is employed in an ambiguous manner that reflects two or more different things.

Back 4

Equivocation

Front 5

Basing an appeal on an authority figure who lacks competence in the field under consideration.

Back 5

False Authority

Front 6

Maintaining that an issue permits only two options, a favorable one and a worst-case representative of the opposing side.

Back 6

False Dichotomy

Front 7

Making a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples.

Back 7

Hasty Generalization

Front 8

Using reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made.

Back 8

Non Sequitur

Front 9

Reducing or ignoring complex causal relationships in favor of a simple claim that fails to address significant dimensions of the issue.

Back 9

Oversimplification

Front 10

Confusing chronology with causation, asserting that because one event happened AFTER another, it must have been CAUSED BY the earlier event.

Back 10

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Front 11

Introducing an irrelevant but sensational issue in order to divert the argument from its proper focus.

Back 11

Red Herring

Front 12

Implying that a small step in a certain direction will inevitably lead one down a slippery slope toward ruin/disaster.

Back 12

Slippery Slope

Front 13

Using powerful symbols to appeal to emotions instead of reason; flag waving.

Back 13

Stirring Symbols

Front 14

Invalid form of counter-argument; setting up an exaggerated, simplified, or falsified version of the opposing position and "refuting" it with claims that ignore the opponent's actual reasoning.

Back 14

Straw-Person Arguments