A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of

an argument.[2][3] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some
fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed
unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in
which the arguments are made.[4]
Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a
standard system of logic, such as propositional logic,[2] while an informal fallacy originates in an error in
reasoning other than an improper logical form.[5] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be
formally valid, but still fallacious.[6]
A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle
and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes,
usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in
common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that
makes them sound as though they are proven facts".[7] Informal fallacies in particular are found frequently in
mass media such as television and newspapers.[8] It is important to understand what fallacies are so that one can
recognize them in either one's own or others' writing. Avoiding fallacies will strengthen one's ability to produce
strong arguments.
It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum
of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some
fallacious ones.[9]
"Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments."[11] Recognizing
fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that
obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional,
intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Recognizing fallacies can develop reasoning skills to
expose the weaker links between premises and conclusions to better discern between what appears to be true
and what is true.
Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In this approach,
an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals that attempts to resolve their
disagreements. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, so violations of these rules are fallacies.
Fallacies are used in place of valid reasoning to communicate a point with the intention to persuade. Examples
in the mass media today include but are not limited to propaganda, advertisements, politics, newspaper
editorials and opinion-based “news” shows.

This lesson focuses on learning to spot logical fallacies in arguments. It will make you wiser, wealthier, happier,
healthier, savvier and safer. Yes, really.

You may have used fallacious reasoning by trying to convince your parents or teachers to allow you to do
something or to buy your excuses: “Why can’t I go to the party? Everyone else is!” or “You should accept this
late essay and not count off any points because I am a nice person.” However, if you get caught doing this too
often, you will lose credibility, and any future efforts at persuasion will be much harder.

All around us people try to manipulate us with invalid or illogical proof, insufficient choices, or conclusions
that don’t follow from the proof. Advertisers and salespeople convince us to buy things we really don’t need.
Politicians and diet books make promises they can’t keep. Photographers publish pictures that tell only part of
the story. Parents make children obey “because we say so.” People use fallacies because they work. Fallacies
are tricks of logic that often appear reasonable when in fact they are nothing more than means of
manipulation—means that work all too often. All of us need to acquire skills to protect ourselves from falling
victim to such tricks of logic. By learning to detect fallacies, you can protect your values, your self-image, and
your buying habits.

The exercises below should give you the resources to defend yourself against the onslaught of persuasive
messages you receive every day. Some people compare the knowledge you will gain to ammunition or martial
arts. It’s like a war out there, so be prepared.

Identify Fallacies in Short Examples

Fallacies prevent the meaningful exchange of ideas by distracting the reader with various appeals instead of by
using sound reasoning. There are several more fallacies than the eleven you will work with here; many overlap
and have more than one name. What is most important is to gain awareness of how to refute arguments that
oppose your position and how to avoid fallacious reasoning in your own arguments.

 Ad hominem: A rhetorical fallacy intended to distract from an argument by attacking the character or
circumstance of the proponent. This personal attack is intended to devalue the claim without regard for
the evidence provided.
o That scientist could not be right about that theory; just look at how she wears her hair!
o Senator Jones was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, so his proposal to limit
spending on the military has no merit.
o Why should we think a candidate for governor who has cheated on his wife will keep his
campaign promises?

 Bandwagon: A persuasive technique, often used in media messages, that appeals to the “everyone is
doing it” mentality.
o Since 85% of consumers purchase PCs rather than Macs, PCs must be better computers.
o Why can’t I pierce my tongue? Everyone else is doing it.
o Nobody drives that kind of car any more.

 Circular logic or circular reasoning: A logical fallacy in which an assumption is made in a definition
or argument that includes the very point that one is trying to prove.
o The candidate won the election because enough people voted for her.
o George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
o Cruel and unusual experimentation on helpless animals is inhumane.

 Either/or: A conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.
o All drugs must be legalized or banned.
o We can stop using oil products or destroy the earth.
o America: Love It or Leave It.
 False analogy: An inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things.
 o Gene-splicing is really no different than creating a new recipe by combining familiar foods in a
novel way.
o Letting prisoners out on early release is like saying they have never committed any crimes.
o If we put humans on the moon, we should be able to find a cure for the common cold.

 Hasty generalization: A conclusion (often the result of bias) drawn from limited or insufficient
evidence, whether intentional or not.
o Fifty percent of the women who took the driving test on Tuesday failed. Women must be lousy
drivers.
o Even though it’s only the first day, I can tell I won’t like this teacher.
o When attendance is down and the team is losing, the football coach should be fired.

 Non-sequitur: A logical fallacy in which an inference is made that does not follow from its premise.
o If those protesters really loved their country, they wouldn’t question the government.
o Because my brother is wealthy, he will make a good husband.
o Paul Smith has my vote for mayor because he has the best campaign organization.

 Post hoc: A faulty conclusion that assumes that, because one thing followed another, it was caused by
the other. The full Latin label for the fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means “after this,
therefore because of this.”
o Mayor Davis raised taxes and then the rate of violent crime went up. Davis is responsible for the
rise in crime.
o She drank three large glasses of water and became ill soon after. Drinking too much water
always leads to illness.
o A year after the release of that violent video game, incidents of school violence tripled—surely
not a coincidence.

 Red herring: An argument that uses misleading or unrelated evidence to support a conclusion.
o I shouldn’t have to pay a fine for running a red light. Many other people who are thieves and
murderers are out there driving, and the police should be after them, not a decent citizen like me.
o The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishermen do to make a living?
o I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But nothing I do pleases you.

 Slippery slope: A conclusion based on the premise that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with
disastrous results.
o If I get a B in high school, I won’t get into the college of my choice and will never have a
meaningful career.
o If we ban SUVs because they are bad for the environment, eventually the government will ban all
cars. So we should not ban SUVs.
 o We’ve got to stop the electric rate increase. Before we know it, they’ll charge us $100 per
minute!

 Stereotyping: A fallacy in which one classifies a person or group according to a common aspect that is
oversimplified, rigidly applied, and often uncomplimentary.
o All librarians are shy and wear horned-rimmed glasses.
o People who live in cities are unfriendly.
o All blondes are dumb.

Linguistic fallacies, or fallacies in the language, are due to the ambiguity of or lack of preciseness in the words
or phrases used to express ideas. It is this ambiguity that leads one into making wrong conclusions or
inferences.

There are six linguistic

fallacies: equivocation, amphiboly or amphibology, accent, composition, division, and figure of
speech or parallel-word construction. Composition and division are sometimes treated as one fallacy; we have
found a very good discussion on the difference of the two.

1. Equivocation

Definition: [a fallacy that] results from using a word or phrase in more than one sense, playing with a double
meaning, or changing the connotation or meaning of a word in the course of the argument, all the while
implying the a [sic] the word means exactly the same thing all the way through the argument. [1]

Examples:

 Only a man can reason. Since Mary is not a man, she cannot reason. [1]
 A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool.
[2]

2. Amphibology / Amphiboly

Definition: [a fallacy which] is committed by using a statement which allows two interpretations either because
of the physical grammatical structure (syntax) of the sentence, or because a word or phrase can have two
possible meanings, causing the entire statement to be understood in two different ways. [1]

Examples:

 That book cannot be understood by a single person. [1]

 Save soap and waste paper. [3]

3. Accent

Definition: [a fallacy that occurs when] emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the actual content
of the proposition. [4]

Examples:
  My spouse must be cheating on me -- he told me "I don't really love you now." [5]
 "They think it will work." vs. "They think it will work." [1]

4. Composition

Definition: [a fallacy characterized by] arguing (a) that what is true of each part of a whole is also (necessarily)
true of the whole itself, or (b) what is true of some parts is also (necessary) true of the whole itself. [6]

Examples:

 The human body is made up of atoms, which are invisible. Therefore, the human body is invisible. [9]
 A car made from the highest quality part from every other car in the world would be a really great
automobile. [1]

5. Division

Definition: [a fallacy characterized by] arguing that what is true of a whole is (a) also (necessarily) true of its
parts and/or (b) also true of some of its parts. [6]

Examples:

 The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is (must
be) extremely wealthy. [6]
 People are made out of atoms. People are visible. Therefore, atoms are visible. [10]

6. Figure of Speech or Parallel-Word Construction

Definition: [a fallacy characterized by] ambiguities due to the fact that different words in Greek (and in Latin)
may have different cases or genders even though the case endings or gender endings are the same. Since this is
not widespread in other languages or since it coincides with other fallacies (e.g. equivocation, see above)
writers tend to interpret it very broadly. [11]

Examples:

 "Activists have been labeled as idealists, sadists, anarchists, communists, and just about any name that
can come to mind ending in -ist, like samok-ist, saba-ist, bad-ist, and of course, who could forget devil-
ist?" [12] (The writer has the unsaid argument that any name ending in -ist is viewed as "trouble-
makers" by our society.)
 An introductory book on philosophy has an appendix entitle "List of Isms" the proceeds to list the
schools of thought in philosophy. [13] (Not all words that end in -ism is a school of thought: take for
example, syllogism.)

Composition vs. Division

These two fallacies could be sometimes difficult to differentiate from each other. We have found a very good
discussion on how to separate one from the other.

The form of the fallacy of composition is the following:

All of the parts of the object O have the property P.
Therefore, O has the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.) [9]

While the form of the fallacy of division is the following:

The object O has the property P.

Therefore, all of the parts of O have the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from a whole to its parts.) [10]

Therefore, to distinguish composition from division, you need only note the direction of the conclusion. If the
arguments proceed from the members of a whole, concluding that the whole is such-and-such because the parts
it is made up is such-and-such, the fallacy is of composition.

On the other hand, when we conclude that a thing is such-and-such because it is a member of a group which is
such-and-such, we are committing a fallacy of division.

Always take note however that the property must not be expansive (parts --> whole) for composition or
dissective (whole --> parts) for division. If these are not satisfied then we do not have a fallacy.