Logical Fallacy

The word "fallacy" comes from the Latin "fallacia" which means
"deception, deceit, trick, artifice,".

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong

moves" in the construction of an argument.
Fallacy: “Any error or mistake in reasoning is called Fallacy”.

a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that

undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its
recognition as unsound.
Fallacious Arguments. Arguments that are fallacious contain one or
more non-factual errors in their form.  

Just as a woman has the right to get a tattoo, she has the right to get an
abortion. (Weak analogy)

Fallacious Reasoning. When an individual is using erroneous thinking

(including bypassing reason) in evaluating or creating an argument,
claim, proposition, or belief. This is where cognitive biases frequently
play a role.

I was pro-abortion before, but now that this speaker made me cry by
showing me a photo of an aborted fetus, I am against abortion. (Appeal to
emotion)

Fallacious Tactics. Deliberately trying to get your opponent or

audience to use fallacious reasoning in accepting the truth claims of
your argument.
Look at this photo of an aborted fetus. How can you tell me that you still
are pro-choice? (Appeal to emotion)

Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or content,

such as classifying them as formal fallacies or informal fallacies,
respectively.

Formal fallacies[edit]

Main article: Formal fallacy

The pattern of mistakes that appear in deductive argument of a certain specifiable form, it is a mistake
in form of argument it is called Formal Fallacies.

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's

form.[4] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequitur.

Informal fallacie

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than
structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the
argument's content.[16]

Formal fallacies are breakdowns in how you say something, the ideas
are ordered wrong somehow. Their form is wrong.

Informal fallacies, like the ones below, have to do with what you are
saying (the “content” of an argument). The ideas might be arranged
right, but something you said isn’t quite right. The content is wrong.
Here’s a list of the 15 informal fallacies you are most likely to encounter
in discussion and debate.
Top 10 Logical Fallacies

1. Ad Hominem
2. Straw Man
3. Appeal to Ignorance
4. False Dilemma
5. Slippery Slope
6. Circular Argument
7. Hasty Generalization
8. Red Herring
9. Tu Quoque
10. Causal Fallacy

⁂
1. Ad Hominem Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, personal attacks are called ad hominems.

Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good

sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with
attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.
An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it
were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion.

2. Straw Man

The Strawman fallacy is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless,

scarecrow. In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the
opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual
argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle
of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended
upon defending anyway.
3. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t

know something.
Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory
conclusions at once.

Consider the following two claims:

“No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials
exist, so they must not be real.”

“No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials
do not exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can
support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument
strategy.

4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or

fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of
reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact
more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one
thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each
other). Sometimes there are a whole range of options, three, four, five,
or a hundred and forty-five.

This common fallacy misleads by presenting complex issues in terms of two inherently opposed
sides. Instead of acknowledging that most (if not all) issues can be thought of on a spectrum of
possibilities and stances, the false dilemma fallacy asserts that there are only two mutually
exclusive outcomes.

This fallacy is particularly problematic because it can lend false credence to extreme stances,
ignoring opportunities for compromise or chances to re-frame the issue in a new way.

Example:

We can either agree with Barbara's plan, or just let the project fail. There is no other option.
Dilemma-based arguments are only fallacious when, in fact, there are
more than the stated options.

The false dilemma fallacy is often a manipulative tool designed to

polarize the audience, heroicizing one side and demonizing the other.

5. Slippery Slope

This fallacy is not just a long series of causes. Some causal chains are
perfectly reasonable. There could be a complicated series of causes
which are all related, and we have good reason for expecting the first
cause to generate the last outcome. The slippery slope fallacy, however,
suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely when there’s
just not enough evidence to think so.
You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: “But, you
have to let me go to the party! If I don’t go to the party, I’ll be a loser
with no friends. Next thing you know I’ll end up alone and jobless living
in your basement when I’m 30!” The slippery slope fallacy works by
moving from a seemingly benign premise or starting point and working
through a number of small steps to an improbable extreme.

The slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that unlikely or ridiculous

outcomes are likely when there’s just not enough evidence to think so.
Certain ad campaigns from Dodge, Taco Bell, and notably a recent one
for Direct TV,

6. Circular Argument (petitio principii)

When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed

beforehand, it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a
circular argument or circular reasoning. If someone says, “the Bible is
true because the Bible says it’s true"—that’s a circular argument. One is
assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to
truthfully report that it speaks the truth. Another example of circular
reasoning is, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable.” Well, yes, of
course we would think our brains are in fact reliable if our brains are
the one’s telling us that our brains are reliable.

Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii meaning “Assuming

the initial [thing]“ (commonly mistranslated as "begging the question").
This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only appears
to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way
that looks like an argument. You can recognize a circular argument
when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the
argument.

Your Turn:

Another way to explain circular arguments is that they start where

they finish, and finish where they started. See if you can identify
which of these is a circular argument.

Example 1: “Abstract art isn’t even art. Those pictures and sculptures
don’t represent anything, and that’s how you know its not even art.”

Example 2: “We should be tolerant even of people who believe

intolerant ideas. Their ideas matter too, and we can still learn
different things from them even if their particular intolerant idea is
wrong.”

7. Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalizations are general statements without sufficient
evidence to support them. They are general claims too hastily made,
hence they commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping,
unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration.

Normally we generalize without any problem. We make general

statements all the time: “I like going to the park,” "Democrats disagree
with Republicans,” "It’s faster to drive to work than to walk," or
"Everyone mourned the loss of Harambe, the Gorilla.”

Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because

there’s no single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence.
Indeed, the above phrase “all the time” is a generalization — we aren’t
all the time making these statements. We take breaks to do other things
like eat, sleep, and inhale. These general statements aren’t addressing
every case every time. They are speaking generally, and, generally
speaking, they are true. Sometimes you don’t enjoy going to the park.
Sometimes Democrats and Republicans agree. Sometimes driving to
work can be slower than walking if the roads are all shut down for a
Harambe procession.

Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because

there’s no single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence. Is one
example enough to prove the claim that "Apple computers are the
most expensive computer brand?" What about 12 examples? What
about if 37 out of 50 apple computers were more expensive than
comparable models from other brands?

There’s no set rule for what constitutes “enough” evidence. In this case,
it might be possible to find reasonable comparison and prove that
claim is true or false. But in other cases, there’s no clear way to support
the claim without resorting to guesswork. The means of measuring
evidence can change according to the kind of claim you are making,
whether it’s in philosophy, or in the sciences, or in a political debate, or
in discussing house rules for using the kitchen. A much safer claim is
that "Apple computers are more expensive than many other computer
brands.”

Meanwhile, we do well to avoid treating general statements like they

are anything more than generalizations. Even if it were generally true
that women are bad drivers — and I’m not saying they are — there are
still plenty of women who are good drivers. And those “cases” just
aren’t covered with that general statement even if it were true. In my
case, my wife is a better driver than I am. So I do well not to generalize
too widely.

A simple way to avoid hasty generalizations is to add qualifiers like

“sometimes,” "maybe," "often," or "it seems to be the case that . . . ".
When we don’t guard against hasty generalization, we risk stereotyping,
sexism, racism, or simple incorrectness. But with the right qualifiers, we
can often make a hasty generalization into a responsible and credible
claim.

Your Turn:

Which of the following is a hasty generalization?

Example 1: “Some people vote without seriously weighing the merits

of the candidate.”

Example 2: “People nowadays only vote with their emotions instead

of their brains.”
8. Red Herring (ignoratio elenchi)

A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some

sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically,
the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This tactic is
common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to
detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to
address. Red herrings are typically related to the issue in question but
aren’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and
focusing they confuse and distract.

Red herrings can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear
how different topics relate.
The phrase “red herring” refers to a kippered herring (salted herring-
fish) which was reddish brown in color and quite pungent. According to
legend, this aroma was so strong and delectable to dogs that it served
as a good training device for testing how well a hunting dog could track
a scent without getting distracted. Dogs aren’t generally used for
hunting fish so a red herring is a distraction from what he is supposed
to be hunting.

Red herrings can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear
how different topics relate. A “side” topic may be used in a relevant way,
or in an irrelevant way. In the big meaty disagreements of our day,
there are usually a lot of layers involved, with different subtopics
weaving into them. We can guard against the red herring fallacy by
clarifying how our part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic.

Your Turn:

Which of the following examples is a red herring fallacy?

 Example 1: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I
asked her what she wants to do with our patio furniture? Now she’s
shopping for new patio furniture and not bothering me about the
garage.”

Example 2: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I
asked her what she wants to do with the patio furniture? It’s just
sitting in the garage taking up space.”

9. Tu Quoque Fallacy

The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to
hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out
hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or
prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing
on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the
tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one’s self by accusing
the other person of the same problem or something comparable. If Jack
says, “Maybe I committed a little adultery, but so did you Jason!” Jack is
trying to diminish his responsibility or defend his actions by distributing
blame to other people. But no one else’s guilt excuses his own guilt. No
matter who else is guilty, Jack is still an adulterer.

The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame, but it really only

distracts from the initial problem. To be clear, however, it isn’t a fallacy
to simply point out hypocrisy where it occurs. For example, Jack may
say, “yes, I committed adultery. Jill committed adultery. Lots of us did,
but I’m still responsible for my mistakes.” In this example, Jack isn’t
defending himself or excusing his behavior. He’s admitting his part
within a larger problem. The hypocrisy claim becomes a fallacy only
when the arguer uses some (apparent) hypocrisy to neutralize criticism
and distract from the issue.
Your Turn:

Which of the following is a tu quoque fallacy?

Example 1: “But, Dad, I know you smoked when you were my age, so
how can you tell me not to do it?”

Example 2: “Son, yes, I smoked when I was your age, it was dumb
then. And it’s dumb now. That’s why I forbid you to smoke, chew, or
vape, or use nicotine gum, or whatever you kids do with tobacco
these days.”

10. Causal Fallacy

The Causal Fallacy is any logical breakdown when identifying a cause.

You can think of the Causal Fallacy as a parent category for several
different fallacies about unproven causes.

One causal fallacy is the False Cause or non causa pro causa ("not the-
cause for a cause") fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause
without enough evidence to do so. Consider, for example, “Since your
parents named you ‘Harvest,’ they must be farmers.” It’s possible that
the parents are farmers, but that name alone is not enough evidence to
draw that conclusion. That name doesn’t tell us much of anything about
the parents. This claim commits the False Cause Fallacy.

Another causal fallacy is the Post Hoc fallacy. Post hoc is short for post
hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). This fallacy
happens when you mistake something for the cause just because it
came first. The key words here are “Post” and “propter” meaning “after"
and "because of." Just because this came before that doesn’t mean this
caused that. Post doesn’t prove propter. A lot of superstitions are
susceptible to this fallacy. For example:
“Yesterday, I walked under a ladder with an open umbrella indoors
while spilling salt in front of a black cat. And I forgot to knock on wood
with my lucky dice. That must be why I’m having such a bad day today.
It’s bad luck.”

Now, it’s theoretically possible that those things cause bad luck. But since
those superstitions have no known or demonstrated causal power, and
“luck” isn’t exactly the most scientifically reliable category, it’s more
reasonable to assume that those events, by themselves, didn’t cause
bad luck. Perhaps that person’s "bad luck" is just his own interpretation
because he was expecting to have bad luck. He might be having a
genuinely bad day, but we cannot assume some non-natural relation
between those events caused today to go bad. That’s a Post Hoc fallacy.
Now, if you fell off a ladder onto an angry black cat and got tangled in
an umbrella, that will guarantee you one bad day.

Another kind of causal fallacy is the correlational fallacy also known as

cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Lat., “with this therefore because of this").
This fallacy happens when you mistakenly interpret two things found
together as being causally related. Two things may correlate without a
causal relation, or they may have some third factor causing both of
them to occur. Or perhaps both things just, coincidentally, happened
together. Correlation doesn’t prove causation.

Consider for example, “Every time Joe goes swimming he is wearing his
Speedos. Something about wearing that Speedo must make him want
to go swimming.” That statement is a correlational fallacy. Sure it’s
theoretically possible that he spontaneously sports his euro-style swim
trunks, with no thought of where that may lead, and surprisingly he’s
now motivated to dive and swim in cold, wet nature. That’s possible.
But it makes more sense that he put on his trunks because he already
planned to go swimming.

Your Turn:

Which kind of causal fallacy is at work in these examples?

Example 1: “Jimmy isn’t at school today. He must be on a family trip.”

Example 2: “Jimmy has a fever, sinus congestion, a cough, and can’t

come to school, so he probably has a test later today.”

Example 3: “Someone really should move this ’Deer Crossing' sign.

This is a dangerous stretch of highway and the deer really should be
crossing somewhere else.”

11. Fallacy of Sunk Costs

Sometimes we invest ourselves so thoroughly in a project that we’re

reluctant to ever abandon it, even when it turns out to be fruitless and
futile. It’s natural, and usually not a fallacy to want to carry on with
something we find important, not least because of all the resources
we’ve put into it. However, this kind of thinking becomes a fallacy when
we start to think that we should continue with a task or project because
of all that we’ve put into it, without considering the future costs we’re
likely to incur by doing so. There may be a sense of accomplishment
when finishing, and the project might have other values, but it’s not
enough to justify the cost invested in it.

We are susceptible to this errant behavior when we crave that sense of

completion or a sense of accomplishment
“Sunk cost” is an economic term for any past expenses that can no
longer be recovered. For example, after watching the first six episodes
of Battlestar Galactica, you decide the show isn’t for you. Those six
episodes are your “sunk cost.” But, because you’ve already invested
roughly six hours of your life into it, you rationalize that you might as
well finish it. All apologies to Edward James Olmos, but this isn’t "good
economics" so to speak. It’s more cost than benefit.

Psychologically, we are susceptible to this errant behavior when we

crave that sense of completion or a sense of accomplishment, or we are
too comfortable or too familiar with this unwieldy project. Sometimes,
we become too emotionally committed to an ‘investment,' burning
money, wasting time, and mismanaging resources to do it.

Your Turn:

Consider the following examples. Which of these is a sunk cost fallacy

and which is not?

Example 1: “I know this relationship isn’t working anymore and that

we’re both miserable. No marriage. No kids. No steady job. But I’ve
been with him for seven years, so I better stay with him.”

Example 2: “I’m halfway done with college. This is so tough, and It’s
not nearly as fun as I thought it would be, but I don’t know. I guess I’ll
finish it and get my degree.”

12. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of

authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only
authorities — steering conveniently away from other testable and
concrete evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite
irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities.
Like many of the other fallacies in this list, the argumentum ad
verecundiam (“argument from respect”) can be hard to spot. It’s tough to
see, sometimes, because its normally a good responsible move to cite
relevant authorities supporting your claim. It can’t hurt. But if all you
have are authorities, and everyone just has to “take their word for it”
without any other evidence to show that those authorities are correct,
well then you have a problem.

Often this fallacy refers to irrelevant authorities — like citing a foot

doctor when trying to prove something about Psychiatry; his or her
expertise is in an irrelevant field. When citing authorities to make your
case, you need to cite relevant authorities, but you also need to
represent them correctly, and make sure their authority is legitimate.

Suppose someone says, “I buy Fruit of the Loom™ underwear because

Michael Jordan says it’s the best.” But Michael Jordan isn’t a relevant
authority when it comes to underwear. This is a fallacy of irrelevant
authority.

Now consider this logical leap: “4 out of five dentists agree that
brushing your teeth makes your life meaningful.” Dentists generally
have expert knowledge about dental hygiene, but they aren’t qualified
to draw far-reaching conclusions about its meaningfulness. This is a
fallacy of misused authority. For all we know, their beliefs about the
"meaning of life" are just opinions, not expert advice.

Or take the assumption that “I’m the most handsome man in the world
because my Mommy says so.” Now, while I might be stunningly
handsome, my Mom’s opinion doesn’t prove it. She’s biased. She’s
practically required to tell me I’m handsome because it’s her job as a
mother to see the best in me and to encourage me to be the best I can
be. She’s also liable to see me through “rose-colored glasses." And, in
this case, she’s not an expert in fashion, modeling, or anything dealing
in refined judgments of human beauty. She’s in no position to judge
whether I’m the most handsome man in the world. Her authority there
is illusory. (Sorry Mom.)

There’s another problem with relying too heavily on authorities. Even

the authorities can be wrong sometimes. The science experts in the
16th century thought the earth was the center of the solar system
(Geocentrism). Turns out they were wrong. The leading scientists, in the
19th century, thought the universe as we know it always existed (Steady
State theory). They too were wrong. For these reasons, it’s a good
general rule to treat authorities as helpful guides with suggestive
evidence. But even authorities deserve a fair share of skepticism since
they can make mistakes, overstep their expertise, and otherwise
mislead you.

Your Turn:

Consider the following examples. How do these statements

mishandle authorities?

Example 1: “Because Martin Sheen played the president on

Television, he’d probably make a great president in real life.”

Example 2: “One day robots will enslave us all. It’s true. My computer
science teacher says so.”

Example 3: “This internet news site said that the candidate punches
babies. We know that’s true because it’s on the internet.”

13. Equivocation (ambiguity)

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used
deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying
one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from
the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can
“say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

When it’s poetic or comical, we call it a “play on words.” But when it’s
done in a political speech, an ethics debate, or in an economics report,
for example, and it’s done to make the audience think you’re saying
something you’re not, that’s when it becomes a fallacy. Sometimes, this
is not a "fallacy" per se, but just a miscommunication. The equivocation
fallacy, however, has a tone of deception instead of just a simple
misunderstanding. Often this deception shows up in the form of
euphemisms, replacing unpleasant words with "nicer" terminology. For
example, a euphemism might be replacing "lying" with the phrase
"creative license," or replacing my "criminal background" with my
"youthful indiscretions," or replacing "fired from my job" with "early
retirement." A romantically involved couple might discuss their
relationship to others as "just friends" so they appear like they have no
other romantic relations. When these replacement words are used to
mislead people they become an equivocation fallacy.

Your Turn:

Which of these examples is an equivocation fallacy?

Example 1: “His political party wants to spend your precious tax

dollars on big government. But my political party is planning strategic
federal investment in critical programs.”
 Example 2: “I don’t understand why you’re saying I broke a promise. I
said I’d never speak again to my ex-girlfriend. And I didn’t. I just sent
her some pictures and text messages.”

14. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

Argumentum ad misericordiam is Latin for “argument to compassion".

Like the ad hominem fallacy above, it is a fallacy of relevance. Personal
attacks, and emotional appeals, aren’t strictly relevant to whether
something is true or false. In this case, the fallacy appeals to the
compassion and emotional sensitivity of others when these factors are
not strictly relevant to the argument. Appeals to pity often appear as
emotional manipulation. For example,

“How can you eat that innocent little carrot? He was plucked from his
home in the ground at a young age, and violently skinned, chemically
treated, and packaged, and shipped to your local grocer and now you
are going to eat him into oblivion when he did nothing to you. You
really should reconsider what you put into your body.”

Obviously, this characterization of carrot-eating is plying the emotions

by personifying a baby carrot like it’s a conscious animal. So, by the
time the conclusion appears, it’s not well-supported. If you are to be
logically persuaded to agree that “you should reconsider what you put
into your body,” then it would have been better evidence to hear about
unethical farming practices or unfair trading practices such as slave
labor, toxic runoffs from fields, and so on.

Truth and falsity aren’t emotional categories, they are factual

categories. They deal in what is and is not, regardless of how one feels
about the matter. Another way to say it is that this fallacy happens
when we mistake feelings for facts. Our feelings aren’t disciplined truth-
detectors unless we’ve trained them that way. So, as a general rule, it’s
problematic to treat emotions as if they were (by themselves) infallible
proof that something is true or false. Children may be scared of the
dark for fear there are monsters under their bed, but that’s hardly
proof of monsters.

Truth and falsity aren’t emotional categories, they are

factual categories.
To be fair, emotions can sometimes be relevant. Often, the emotional
aspect is a key insight into whether something is morally repugnant or
praiseworthy, or whether a governmental policy will be winsome or
repulsive. People’s feelings about something can be critically important
data when planning a campaign, advertising a product, or rallying a
group together for a charitable cause. But it becomes a fallacious
appeal to pity when the emotions are used in substitution for facts or
as a distraction from the facts of the matter.

It’s not a fallacy for jewelry and car companies to appeal to your
emotions to persuade you into purchasing their product. That’s an
action, not a claim, so it’s can’t be true or false. It would however be a
fallacy if they used emotional appeals to prove that you need this car, or
that this diamond bracelet will reclaim your youth, beauty, and social
status from the cold clammy clutches of Father Time. The fact of the
matter is, you probably don’t need those things, and they won’t rescue
your fleeting youth.

Your Turn:

Which of these is a fallacious appeal to emotion, and which one is

not?
 Example 1: “The government needs to hear our cry because we are
scared. We are scared that this candidate will not respect us or
protect us. We are scared about our future. There’s no hope for
people like us with these candidates in office.”

Example 2: “These candidates stated that they would close down the
education department and that has many teachers worried about
their jobs in 2017.”

15. Bandwagon Fallacy

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good)

because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be
included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in
practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity") is
when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus
gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is accepted
because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. And the
status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or
good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look
"popular,” "important," or “successful.”

For our purposes, we’ll treat all of these fallacies together as the
Bandwagon Fallacy. According to legend, politicians would parade
through the streets of their district trying to draw a crowd and gain
attention so people would vote for them. And whoever supported that
candidate was invited to literally jump on board the bandwagon. Hence
the nickname “Bandwagon Fallacy.”

This tactic is common among advertisers. “If you want to be like Mike
(Jordan), you’d better eat your Wheaties.” “Drink Gatorade because
that’s what all the professional athletes do to stay hydrated.”
“McDonald’s has served over 99 billion, so you should let them serve
you too.” The form of this argument often looks like this: “Many people
do or think X, so you ought to do or think X too.”

One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance
of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the
acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or
even willfully irrational. And when people act together, sometimes they
become even more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can be quite
gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly change when applied to large
groups.

Your Turn:

Which of these is a bandwagon fallacy?

Example 1: “Almost everyone at my school will be at the party Friday

night. It must be a popular thing to do.”

Example 2: “Almost everyone at my school will be at the party Friday

night. It must be the right thing to do.”

15 Common Logical Fallacies

1) The Straw Man Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e.,
setting up a "straw man") to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of fully addressing your
actual argument, speakers relying on this fallacy present a superficially similar -- but ultimately
not equal -- version of your real stance, helping them create the illusion of easily defeating you.

Example:

John: I think we should hire someone to redesign our website.

Lola: You're saying we should throw our money away on external resources instead of building
up our in-house design team? That's going to hurt our company in the long run.
2) The Bandwagon Fallacy

Just because a significant population of people believe a proposition is true, doesn't automatically
make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it's often used as a
standalone justification of validity. Arguments in this style don't take into account whether or not
the population validating the argument is actually qualified to do so, or if contrary evidence
exists.

While most of us expect to see bandwagon arguments in advertising (e.g., "three out of four
people think X brand toothpaste cleans teeth best"), this fallacy can easily sneak it's way into
everyday meetings and conversations.

Example:

The majority of people believe advertisers should spend more money on billboards, so billboards
are objectively the best form of advertisement.

3) The Appeal to Authority Fallacy

While appeals to authority are by no means always fallacious, they can quickly become
dangerous when you rely too heavily on the opinion of a single person -- especially if that person
is attempting to validate something outside of their expertise.

Getting an authority figure to back your proposition can be a powerful addition to an existing
argument, but it can't be the pillar your entire argument rests on. Just because someone in a
position of power believes something to be true, doesn't make it true.

Example:

Despite the fact that our Q4 numbers are much lower than usual, we should push forward using
the same strategy because our CEO Barbara says this is the best approach.

4) The False Dilemma Fallacy

5) The Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or
insufficient evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a
proposition with some -- but not enough -- evidence to back it up, and overlook potential
counterarguments. 

Example:

Two members of my team have become more engaged employees after taking public speaking
classes. That proves we should have mandatory public speaking classes for the whole company
to improve employee engagement.
6) The Slothful Induction Fallacy

Slothful induction is the exact inverse of the hasty generalization fallacy above. This fallacy
occurs when sufficient logical evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is true, but
someone fails to acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something
unrelated entirely.

Example:

Even though every project Brad has managed in the last two years has run way behind schedule,
I still think we can chalk it up to unfortunate circumstances, not his project management skills.

7) The Correlation/Causation Fallacy

If two things appear to be correlated, this doesn't necessarily indicate that one of those things
irrefutably caused the other thing. This might seem like an obvious fallacy to spot, but it can be
challenging to catch in practice -- particularly when you really want to find a correlation between
two points of data to prove your point.

Example:

Our blog views were down in April. We also changed the color of our blog header in April. This
means that changing the color of the blog header led to less views in April.

8) The Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy

In place of logical evidence, this fallacy substitutes examples from someone's personal
experience. Arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence tend to overlook the fact that one
(possibly isolated) example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a greater premise.

Example:

One of our clients doubled their conversions after changing all their landing page text to bright
red. Therefore, changing all text to red is a proven way to double conversions.

9) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

This fallacy gets its colorful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn
wall, and then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points
at the bullet-riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.

Speakers who rely on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy tend to cherry-pick data clusters based on a
predetermined conclusion. Instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to a logical
conclusion, they find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that
contradicts them or suggests the clusters weren't actually statistically significant. 
Example:

Lisa sold her first startup to an influential tech company, so she must be a successful
entrepreneur. (She ignores the fact that four of her startups have failed since then.)

10) The Middle Ground Fallacy

This fallacy assumes that a compromise between two extreme conflicting points is always true.
Arguments of this style ignore the possibility that one or both of the extremes could be
completely true or false -- rendering any form of compromise between the two invalid as well.

Example:

Lola thinks the best way to improve conversions is to redesign the entire company website, but
John is firmly against making any changes to the website. Therefore, the best approach is to
redesign some portions of the website.

11) The Burden of Proof Fallacy

If a person claims that X is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that
assertion. It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true.
Similarly, it is also invalid to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false.

In other words, just because there is no evidence presented against something, that doesn't
automatically make that thing true.

Example:

Barbara believes the marketing agency's office is haunted, since no one has ever proven that it
isn't haunted.

12) The Personal Incredulity Fallacy

If you have difficulty understanding how or why something is true, that doesn't automatically
mean the thing in question is false. A personal or collective lack of understanding isn't enough to
render a claim invalid.

Example:

I don't understand how redesigning our website resulted in more conversions, so there must

have been another factor at play. 

13) The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy

Often used to protect assertions that rely on universal generalizations (like "all Marketers love
pie") this fallacy inaccurately deflects counterexamples to a claim by changing the positioning or
conditions of the original claim to exclude the counterexample.

In other words, instead of acknolwedging that a counterexample to their original claim exists, the
speaker ammends the terms of the claim. In the example below, when Barabara presents a valid
counterexample to John's claim, John changes the terms of his claim to exclude Barbara's
counterexample.

Example:

John: No marketer would ever put two call-to-actions on a single landing page.

Barbara: Lola, a marketer, actually found great success putting two call-to-actions on a single
landing page for our last campaign. 

John: Well, no true marketer would put two call-to-actions on a single landing page, so Lola
must not be a true marketer. 

14) The Tu quoque Fallacy

The tu quoque fallacy (Latin for "you also") is an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by
answering criticism with criticism -- but never actually presenting a counterargument to the
original disputed claim. 

In the example below, Lola makes a claim. Instead of presenting evidence against Lola's claim,
John levels a claim against Lola. This attack doesn't actually help John succeed in proving
Lola wrong, since he doesn't address her original claim in any capacity.

Example:

Lola: I don't think John would be a good fit to manage this project, because he doesn't have a
lot of experience with project management.

John: But you don't have a lot of experience in project management either!

15) The Fallacy Fallacy

Here's something vital to keep in mind when sniffing out fallacies: just because someone's
argument relies on a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is inherently untrue.

Making a fallacy-riddled claim doesn't automatically invalidate the premise of the argument -- it

just means the argument doesn't actually validate their premise. In other words, their argument
sucks, but they aren't necessarily wrong. 
Example: 

John's argument in favor of redesigning the company website clearly relied heavily on cherry-
picked statistics in support of his claim, so Lola decided that redesigning the website must not be
a good decision.