COMMON FALLACIES

In reasoning
 FORMAL FALLACIES
• A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can
be seen in the argument’s form
Appeal to probability – a statement that takes
something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might be the case).

It looks like

Possible P
Therefore P
Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy) –
assumption that if an argument for some conclusion is
fallacious, then the conclusion is false.

Example :
Karen: I am sorry, but if you think man used to ride dinosaurs, then you are
obviously not very well educated.
Kent: First of all, I hold a PhD in creation science, so I am well-
educated. Second of all, your ad hominem attack shows that you are wrong,
and man did use to ride dinosaurs.
Karen: Getting your PhD in a couple of months, from a “college” in a
trailer park, is not being well-educated. My fallacy in no way is evidence
for man riding on dinosaurs, and despite what you may think, the
Flintstone’s was not a documentary!
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome
simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more
probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of
them.

EXAMPLE :
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear
demonstrations.
Which is more likely?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
Masked–man fallacy (illicit substitution of
identicals) – the substitution of identical designators
in a true statement can lead to a false one.

As a paradox, "the masked man" is based on a story along the following

lines: suppose that you see a man but don't recognize him as your father
because he's wearing a mask―perhaps it's Hallowe'en. So, you don't know
who the masked man is, but you do know who your father is, yet your
father and the masked man are one and the same. Therefore, you both
know and don't know who your father is, which is paradoxical. The
solution to the paradox is to realize that the argumentjust given
is fallacious.
 MASKED MAN contd.
Examples
The masked man is Mr. Hyde. The witness believes that the
The witness believes that the masked man committed the
masked man committed the crime.
crime. The witness doesn't believe that
Therefore, the witness believes Mr. Hyde committed the crime.
that Mr. Hyde committed the Therefore, Mr. Hyde is not the
crime. masked man.
Counter-Examples
The masked man is Mr. Hyde. The witness testified that the
The witness testified that the masked man committed the
masked man committed the crime.
crime. The witness did not testify that Mr.
Therefore, the witness testified Hyde committed the crime.
that Mr. Hyde committed the Therefore, Mr. Hyde is not the
crime. masked man.
• Mark Twain wrote Huck Finn and that Sam
Clemens was the same person as Mark
Twain, then Sam Clemens wrote Huck
Finn. The context "x wrote Huck Finn" is
extensional, which means that we can
validly substitute identicals within it. In
contrast, if Joe said "Mark Twain
wrote Huck Finn", it does not follow that he
said "Sam Clemens wrote Huck Finn", for
he may have said no such thing. A quoted
context is an intensional context, as are such
other contexts as:
 Propositional Fallacies
A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns
compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be
true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the
relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly:
<and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The
following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is
not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives,
and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true
conclusions.
Types of propositional fallacies :
Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct
of a logical disjunction must be false because the
other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an
indicative conditional is claimed to be true because
the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an
indicative conditional is claimed to be false because
the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore
not B.
 INFORMAL FALLACIES
• Fallacies that occur for reasons other than
form and structure in an argument
Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined
so that one alternative is made impossible.

EXAMPLE:
Rick: I need to know if we should stop for lunch or
not. You are either hungry or not hungry, which is it?
Tina: If being hungry is being able to eat, I am always
hungry. (consider – little bit hungry)

Kent: My new car is really fast.

Cal: I doubt that it is as fast as a jet fighter so,
therefore, it is not fast.
Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) –
arguing that, because something is so incredible or
amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine,
alien or paranormal agency.
Logical form
Person 1 makes a claim.
Person 2 cannot believe the claim.
Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or
she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim
is false or improbable.
Example #1:
Marty: Doc, I'm from the future. I came here in a time
machine that you invented. Now, I need your help to get
back to the year 1985.
Doc: I got enough practical jokes for one evening. Good
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a
word to deal with an objection raised against the
original wording.
Logical Form:
A has definition X.
X is harmful to my argument.
Therefore, A has definition Y.
Example #1:
Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s
define creationism as, “The acceptance of a set of
beliefs even more ridiculous than those of flat-
earthers.”
Example #2:
Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s
define evolution as, “Faith in a crackpot theory that is
impossible to prove with certainty.”
Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that
arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by
placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a
written passage, it's left unclear which word the
emphasis was supposed to fall on.
Example #1: In the movie, My Cousin Vinny, Ralph
Maccio's character, Bill, was interrogated for suspected
murder. When the police officer asks him, "when did you
shoot the clerk?" Bill replies in shock, "I shot the clerk? I
shot the clerk?" Later in the film, the police officer reads
Bill's statement as a confession in court, "Then he said, 'I
shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.'"
Etymological fallacy – reasoning that the original or
historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily
similar to its actual present-day usage.

Logical Form:
X is defined as Y.
X used to be defined as Z.
Therefore, X means Z.
Example #1:
Elba: I can’t believe the art critic said my artwork is
awful!
Rowena: He must have meant it in the old sense of the
word -- that your artwork inspired awe!
Elba: Yes! That makes sense now!
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something
true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Logical Form:
A is part of B.
A has property X.
Therefore, B has property X.
Example #1:
Each brick in that building weighs less than a
pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a
pound.
Example #2:
Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore,
water (H2O) is not wet.
Example #3:
Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have
consciousness. Therefore, your brain cannot be the
source of consciousness.
FALSE EQUIVALENCE- describing a
situation of logical equivalence when there is none

Gang bangers cover

there heads with
hoodies.
Nuns cover their heads
with habitsTherefore
Nuns are no bettern
gang bangers.
Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge
disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing,
and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to
question.
Logical Form:
Authority A disagrees with authority B on issue X.
Therefore, we can say nothing meaningful about issue X.
Example #1:
My mom says that I should study for at least 2 hours each night,
and my dad says just a half hour should be fine. Neither one of
them knows what they are talking about, so I should just skip
studying altogether.
Example #2:
Scientists cannot agree on the age of the universe. Some say it is
13.7 billion years old, some say it is only about 13 billion years
old. That’s a difference of almost a billion years! It should be
clear that because there is so much disagreement, then the 6000-
year-old universe should be carefully considered, as well.
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of
an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally
sensitive.

If by [noun], you mean [negative descriptors of noun], then

of course [statement of lack of support/belief]. If, however,
by [noun], you mean [positive descriptors of noun], then
[statement of support/belief].

"If by terrorists, you mean freedom-fighting rebels who

aren't afraid to protest their
overly authoritarian governments, then yes, I support
terrorists. But if by terrorists, you mean extremists,
disrespecters of authority, suicide bombers, and the like,
then of course I don't support terrorism."
Incomplete comparison – insufficient information is
provided to make a complete comparison.

Logical Form:
X is said to be superior, but to nothing specifically.

Example :
Our widgets cost less and last longer!
Inconsistent comparison – different methods of
comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the
whole comparison.

Example #2:
Religion may have been wrong about a few
things, but science has been wrong about many
more things!
Intentional fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate
meaning of an expression must be consistent with the
intention of the person from whom the communication
originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely
received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be
regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)
Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent
arguments to defend a position.
Logical Form:
Statement 1 is made.
Statement 2 is made and contradicts statement 1.
Statement 3 is made and contradicts statement 1 or 2
... etc.
Example #1:
In an example used by Sigmund Freud in The
Interpretation of Dreams, a man accused by his
neighbor of having returned a kettle in a damaged
condition offered three arguments:
That he had returned the kettle undamaged;
That it was already damaged when he borrowed it;
That he had never borrowed it in the first place.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-
regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by
a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown
unknowns in determining the probability of events
taking place. Also gambler’s fallacy

Example:
Lolita: Since about half the people in the world are
female, the chances of the next person to walk out that
door being female is about 50/50.
Celina: Do you realize that is the door to Dr. Vulvastein,
the gynecologist?
Explanation: Lolita is focusing on pure statistics while
ignoring actual reason.
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions
from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact-
value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought
is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy
is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.

When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based

only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what
is not.
 Naturalistic Fallacy
• Logical Forms:
X is.Therefore, X ought to be.
X is not.
Therefore, X ought not to be.
• Example #1:
Homosexuality is / ought to be morally wrong (moral
property) because it is not normal (natural property).
or
Homosexuality is not normal (natural property); therefore, it
is / ought to be morally wrong (moral property).
 Moralistic Fallacy
• Logical Forms:
X ought to be.
Therefore, X is.
X ought not to be.
Therefore, X is not.
• Example #1:
Adultery, as well as philandering, is wrong.
Therefore, we have no biological tendency for multiple sex
partners.
Onus probandi – from the Latin onus probandi
incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat the burden of
proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the
person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a
particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam
fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person
defending against the assertion. Also known as "shifting
the burden of proof‘.
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly
restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes
confused with argument from repetition (argumentum
ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the
objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a
behavioral event.
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete
evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data
that seem to confirm a particular position, while
ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data
that may contradict that position.
Wrong direction (reverse causation) – cause and
effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect
and vice versa. The consequence of the phenomenon
is claimed to be its root cause.
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that
separate, independent events can affect the likelihood
of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads
10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the
number of times it had previously landed on tails" is
incorrect.
Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis,
argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is
claimed to be superior or better solely because it is
new or modern.
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) –
supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor
(or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite
of appeal to wealth.)
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a
conclusion supported solely because it has long been held
to be true.
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) –
supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy
(or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes
taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general
appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick,
appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument
made through coercion or threats of force to support
position.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread
belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the
majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is
claimed to be true or good solely because a majority
or many people believe it to be so.
Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is
assumed that if one wrong is committed, another
wrong will rectify it.
Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but
meaningless, in the form of claiming that no A in B
has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming
that no mobile phones in the room are on when there
are no mobile phones in the room at all.
1. FAULTY CAUSE : (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
mistakes correlation or association for causation, by
assuming that because one thing follows another it
was caused by the other.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION :
(dictosimpliciter) assumes that what is true of the
whole will also be true of the part, or that what is
true in most instances will be true in all instances.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION : bases an inference
on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative
sample. Often, a single example or instance is used
as the basis for a broader generalization.
4. FAULTY ANALOGY : (can be literal or figurative)
assumes that because two things, events, or situations
are alike in some known respects, that they are alike
in other unknown respects.
5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE : (argumentum ad
ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability
to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the
conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must
be right.”
6. BIFURCATION : (either-or, black or white, all or
nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are
mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is,
something is either a member of one or the other,
but not both or some third category.
7. FALSE DILEMMA : (a form of bifurcation)
implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and
both have negative consequences.
8. FAULTY SIGN : (also includes argument from
circumstance) wrongly assumes that one event or
phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of
another event or phenomenon.
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE : (ad hominem,
sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to
refute an argument by indicting the source of the
argument, rather than the substance of the argument
itself.
10. TU QUOQUE : (look who's talking or two wrongs
make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or error
committed by another.
Ad hominem
11. EQUIVOCATION : allows a key word or term in
an argument to shift its meaning during the course
of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of
the argument is not concerned with the same thing
as the premise(s).
 Equivocation continued
• Religion teaches us that having faith is
necessary when we pray for whatever it is
that we want. Faith is defined as an
irrational belief in the absence of
concrete evidence. Therefore, religion
promotes irrationality.
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION : (petitioprincipii)
entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is
based on an unstated or unproven assumption.
Logical Form:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Example :
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can
only be described as paranormal activity.

Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new

gadget on the market!

God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is from God.

Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong.

Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly.

13. TAUTOLOGY : (a sub-category of circular
argument) defining terms or qualifying an
argument in such a way that it would be impossible
to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for
the argument is merely a restatement of the
conclusion in different words.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
With all of the jobs I am bringing back into the U.S. (even before taking
office), with all of the new auto plants coming back into our.....

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
country and with the massive cost reductions I have negotiated on military
purchases and more, I believe the people are seeing "big stuff."
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY : (ipse dixit also
called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to
justify an argument by citing a highly admired or
well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure
who supports the conclusion being offered.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone
knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!
5:37 PM - Feb 6, 2017
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION : (don't rock the boat
or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of
"letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to
do things as they have been done in the past. We
shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or
traditions.
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD : (ad populum or
playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or
majority sentiment in order to provide support for a
claim. Often the "common man" or "common
sense" provides the basis for the claim.
17. STRAW MAN : stating an opponent's argument in an
extreme or exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker,
irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.
Logical Form:
Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.
1. Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the
defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that
Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.
2. Zebedee: What is your view on the Christian God?
Mike: I don’t believe in any gods, including the Christian one.
Zebedee: So you think that we are here by accident, and all this
design in nature is pure chance, and the universe just created
itself?
Mike: You got all that from me stating that I just don’t believe
in any gods?
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Thr coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost
gas been so false and angry that the times actually apologized to
its.....

...dwindling subscribers and readers.They

got me wrong right from the beginning and
still have not changed course, and never will.
DISHONEST
Strawman
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE : (sometimes called a
snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that
if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead
to similar steps or actions, the end results of which
are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always
assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events
which result in some eventual dire outcome.

If we allow gay marriage, the next thing we know, people

will want to marry their dogs, or their cats, or what about
their pigs?
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES : A fallacy very
similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an
argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even
though the arguer does not advocate the extreme
interpretation. The difference between the two
fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not
necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.
20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT : This
fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim
about what might have happened in the past or future
if circumstances or conditions were other than they
actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating
hypothetical situations as if they were fact.
Logical Form:
If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened
(based only on speculation).
Example #1:
If you took that course on CD player repair right out of
high school, you would be doing well and gainfully
employed right now.
Example #2:
John, if you would have taken a shower more often, you
would still be dating Tina.
21. NON SEQUITAR : (literally means "does not
follow") in a general sense any argument which fails
to establish a connection between the premises and
the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In
practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be
reserved for arguments in which irrelevant
reasons are offered to support a claim.
22. …………………… : A red herring fallacy is thus
a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or
fog the issue being debated. The name of the
fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when
a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in
order to throw the dogs off the scent.
Red herring
23. INCONSISTENCY : advancing an argument that
is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually
inconsistent premises.

Example #1:
"I never said most of the things I said." - Yogi Berra

Example #2:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi
Berra