100 Logical Fallacies Explained (With Examples)

A fallacy is a bug in your brain’s software

Arguments are prevalent in all of our daily interactions, whether they are private, public, or conducted online. Some are persuasive because they are sound, while others seem appealing but conceal flawed reasoning. To think clearly and communicate honestly, one must be able to identify these hidden traps, which are known as logical fallacies.

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others._[1]

Why they matter ?

Even when the subject seems simple, we run the risk of being mislead when we accept a false argument. We improve our capacity to challenge assertions, interact with concepts, and protect ourselves (and others) against careless reasoning or manipulation by becoming familiar with the typical patterns of fallacies.

Common Fallacies & How to Spot Them

Here are a few of the most recurring fallacies:

I. Fallacies of Relevance (Attacks & Appeals)

Arguments that distract from the main point using emotion or irrelevant information.

Ad Hominem – (Attack the Person) Attacking the character or personal traits of the opponent rather than engaging with their argument.
“You’re wrong because you’re ugly.”
Straw Man – Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute.
“You hate cars? So you want us all to ride horses?” (No, I just want better trains).
Slippery Slope – Asserting that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (and negative) events.
“If we allow sad movies, everyone will get depressed and society will collapse.”
Appeal to Authority – (Ad Verecundiam) Asserting that something is true simply because an authority figure (often irrelevant to the subject) said it.
“My dentist says the economy is crashing, so I’m selling my stocks.”
Appeal to the People – (Ad Populum) Claiming that something is true or good because the majority of people believe it or do it.
“Everyone is buying this crypto coin, so it must be legit.”
Appeal to Emotion – Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
“If you don’t hire me, my cat will starve.”
Appeal to Pity – (Ad Misericordiam) Attempting to induce pity or guilt to sway opponents.
“I shouldn’t get a ticket, officer; I’ve had a really rough week.”
Appeal to Fear – (Ad Metum) Using deception and propaganda to increase fear and prejudice toward a competitor.
“If you don’t forward this email, you’ll have bad luck for 10 years.”
Appeal to Flattery – Using excessive or insincere praise to obtain compliance with a request.
“A smart person like you surely sees why my plan is the best.”
Appeal to Novelty – (Ad Novitatem) Claiming that a proposal or idea is superior solely because it is new or modern.
“This app was released today, so it must be better than the old one.”
Appeal to Tradition – (Ad Antiquitatem) Asserting that a premise is true or right because “it has always been done that way.”
“We’ve always used paper files, so we don’t need computers.”
Appeal to Ignorance – (Ad Ignorantiam) Arguing that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
“You can’t prove aliens didn’t build the pyramids, so they did.”
Red Herring – Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.
“You asked about the budget, but look at how hard our team is working!”
Genetic Fallacy – Judging something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
“You can’t trust that study; it came from a university in a rival country.”
Poisoning the Well – Pre-emptively presenting adverse information about a target to discredit everything they say afterward.
“Don’t listen to him; he’s a known liar.”
Guilt by Association – Attacking an argument by linking the proponent to a demonized group or person.
“You like highway infrastructure? You know who else liked highways? Hitler.”
Appeal to Force – (Ad Baculum) When force, coercion, or the threat of force is used as justification for a conclusion.
“Agree with me, or you’re fired.”
Bulverism – Dismissing an argument by pointing out the “psychological reason” why the opponent made it, rather than addressing the argument itself.
“You only say that because you’re a man.”
Chronological Snobbery – Thinking that the art or thought of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present.
“That philosopher is from the 1800s; he knows nothing about modern life.”
Ipse Dixit – (“He said it”) An arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid based solely on the speaker’s authority.
“The boss said it’s the best way, so end of discussion.”

II. Fallacies of Weak Induction (Bad Evidence)

Arguments where the premises are too weak to support the conclusion.

Hasty Generalization – Making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or having a large enough sample size.
“I met one rude French person, so all French people are rude.”
False Cause (Post Hoc) – Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
“I washed my car, and then it rained. My car washing causes rain.”
Common Cause Fallacy – Believing that two events are causally related when they are actually both the result of a third, unseen event.
“Ice cream sales and shark attacks both went up. Ice cream causes shark attacks.” (Summer heat causes both).
Causal Oversimplification – Identifying a single cause for an event when multiple causes are actually responsible.
“The only reason for the war was oil.”
Gambler’s Fallacy – Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as coin flips.
“I flipped heads 10 times; the next one must be tails.”
Weak Analogy – Comparing two things that are not truly comparable in the relevant aspects.
“Employees are like nails; you have to hit them to make them work.”
Argument from Silence – Drawing a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents or records.
“The records don’t mention he had a wife, so he must have been single.”
Appeal to Probability – Taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
“It’s possible the plane will crash, so I’m never flying again.”
False Precision – Using fake or meaningless numbers to create the illusion of strict accuracy.
“This strategy is exactly 47.9% more effective.”
Argument from Anecdote – Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
“My grandpa smoked and lived to 90, so smoking isn’t bad.”
Spotlight Fallacy – Assuming that the members of a group who receive the most attention (news coverage) are representative of the group as a whole.
“The news is full of plane crashes, so flying is the most dangerous travel method.”

III. Fallacies of Presumption (Bad Assumptions)

Arguments based on hidden, unproven, or false assumptions.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning) – An argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
“This book is true because it says it’s true.”
Complex Question (Loaded Question) – Asking a question that has a presumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.
“Have you stopped stealing office supplies?”
False Dichotomy (False Dilemma) – Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
“You’re either a vegan or you hate animals.”
Burden of Proof – Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
“I say Bigfoot exists. You prove he doesn’t!”
Question-Begging Epithet – Using biased or emotional language to support a conclusion that is logically unproven.
“This criminal tax bill must be stopped.” (Calling it ‘criminal’ assumes the conclusion).
Fallacy of Accent – Changing the meaning of a sentence by shifting the emphasis (accent) to different words.
“I never said she stole the money.” (Implies someone else did).
Nirvana Fallacy (Unobtainable Perfection) – Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing the realistic solution because it isn’t perfect.
“Seatbelts don’t save everyone, so why wear them?”
Continuum Fallacy (Sorites) – Rejecting a claim because it is not precise, or arguing that two states are not distinct because there is a grey area between them.
“You can’t define exactly when ‘poor’ becomes ‘rich’, so wealth doesn’t exist.”
Trivial Objection – Attacking a weak or irrelevant point of an opponent’s argument while ignoring the main point.
“Your report on climate change has a typo, so the science is wrong.”
Wishful Thinking – Forming conclusions and making decisions based on what might be pleasing to imagine instead of on evidence/reality.
“I just know I’m going to get the job.”

IV. Formal Fallacies (Broken Logic)

Errors in the structural logic of the argument itself.

Affirming the Consequent – An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result
.”If it rains, the street is wet. The street is wet. Therefore it rained.” (Maybe a hydrant broke).
Denying the Antecedent – An error in formal logic where if the antecedent is said to be not true, then the consequent is said to be not true, as a result.
“If I run, I sweat. I didn’t run. Therefore I didn’t sweat.” (Maybe it’s hot out).
Undistributed Middle – A formal fallacy in a syllogism where the middle term is not distributed in at least one premise.
“All whales are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore all whales are dogs.”
Quantifier Shift – An error in logic where the scope of the quantifiers (e.g., “all”, “some”) is switched.
“Everyone has a mother. Therefore, there is one woman who is the mother of everyone.”
Illicit Major – A formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
“All Catholics are Christians. No Protestants are Catholics. Therefore no Protestants are Christians.”
Non Sequitur – A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
“He drives a BMW, so he must be a great cook.”

V. Fallacies of Ambiguity (Word Play)

Confusion caused by double meanings or grammar.

Equivocation – Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
“The sign said ‘fine for parking’, so I parked because it was fine.” (Fine = Penalty vs. Fine = Okay).
Amphiboly – Ambiguity resulting from grammatical construction (sentence structure) rather than a single word.
“I saw the man with the binoculars.” (Did you have them, or did he?)
Composition – Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
“This tire is rubber, so the whole car is rubber.”
Division – Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.
“The US is a wealthy country, so this homeless man in the US is wealthy.”
Reification – Treating an abstract concept as if it were a real, concrete thing or person.
“The Market decided your fate.”
Proof by Intimidation – Asserting a conclusion in a way that intimidates the listener into accepting it, often by implying stupidity if they disagree.
“Any idiot can see that I’m right.”
Argument from the Negative – Arguing that because a specific rule doesn’t forbid an action, the action is therefore permitted or encouraged.
“The law doesn’t say I can’t eat the decorative fruit.”

VI. Rhetorical & Psychological Tactics

Tricks used to win arguments without using logic.

Motivated Reasoning – Using emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that reflect reality.
“That medical test must be wrong because I feel fine.”
Bandwagon Fallacy – A specific type of Ad Populum focusing on current trends; assuming something is true because others are doing it.
“Everyone is doing the ice bucket challenge, I should too.”
Pious Fraud – A deception or lie used to convince an audience of a religious or moral argument, or for a “good cause.”
“I told the kids the park is closed so they’d do their homework.”
Tu Quoque – (“You Too”) Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser.
“You can’t tell me to exercise; you’re overweight too!”
Ad Hominem (Abusive) – A specific type of Ad Hominem where the goal is simply to insult the opponent.
“You’re a jerk, so your argument is invalid.”
Style Over Substance – Paying more attention to the presentation of the argument (tone, confidence) than the facts.
“He sounded so confident, he must know the truth.”
Ad Odium (Appeal to Spite) – Exploiting existing bitterness or spite to distract from the valid points of the argument.
“I hate that guy, so I’m voting against his bill.”
Ad Lazarum (Appeal to Poverty) – Assuming that because someone is poor, they are more virtuous or truthful.
“The monk is poor, so he must be wise.”
Ad Crumenam (Appeal to Wealth)- Assuming that because someone is rich, they are more intelligent or correct.
“He’s a billionaire, he knows how to fix the schools.”
Moving the Goalposts – Demanding more evidence after the initial burden of proof has been met.
“Okay, you proved he didn’t steal the car, but can you prove he didn’t think about it?”
Subjectivist Fallacy – Claiming something is true for one person but not for others, when it is actually an objective fact.
“That may be true for you, but not for me.” (Gravity is true for everyone).
Special Pleading – Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when a claim is shown to be false.
“Everyone should wait in line, but I’m in a hurry.”
Appeal to Extremes – Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extreme.
“If we allow late homework, kids will never work again.”
Confirmation Bias – The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing theories or beliefs.
“I knew it was a full moon, look at all the crazies!” (Ignoring the quiet full moons).
Incredulity Fallacy – Asserting that because a premise is difficult to understand, it must be false.
“Evolution makes no sense to me, so it’s fake.”
Appeal to Common Sense – Asserting that a conclusion is “common sense” and therefore needs no evidence (often used to mask prejudice).
“It’s just common sense!” (Common sense is often wrong).
Base Rate Neglect – Focusing on specific information and ignoring general statistical information (the base rate).
“I know flying is safe, but I had a bad dream about a crash.”
Middle Ground Fallacy – Asserting that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.
“You say the sky is blue, he says it’s yellow, so it must be green.”
Definist Fallacy – Defining a term in such a way that it makes it easier to defend a position.
“A ‘true patriot’ never questions the President.”
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact – Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances were different.
“If Hitler had been an artist, we’d have world peace.”
Historian’s Fallacy – Judging a person’s decision in the past based on information that was only available later.
“They should have known the Titanic would sink.”
Moralistic Fallacy – Assuming that the world is as it should be (the reverse of the Naturalistic Fallacy).
“Cheaters never prosper.” (Unfortunately, they often do)
.
Naturalistic Fallacy – Claiming that because something is natural, it is good or right.
“Cyanide is natural, so it’s good for you.”
Etymological Fallacy – Reasoning that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is similar to its actual present-day usage.
“Decimate means to kill 1 in 10, so you used it wrong.” (Ignoring current usage).
Appeal to Closure – Accepting a conclusion or explanation simply because it provides a sense of finality.
“We don’t know who did it, so it must be ghosts.”
Self-Sealing Argument – A claim that cannot be argued against because it dismisses all criticism as proof of the claim itself.
“The reason you don’t see the invisible unicorn is because it’s invisible.”
Appeal to the Stone – Dismissing an argument as absurd without providing proof of its absurdity.
“That’s just ridiculous.”
Fallacy of the Beard – Rejecting the difference between two things because there is no distinct line between them (similar to Continuum).
“One more drink won’t make me drunk.” (Repeating until drunk).
Misplaced Concreteness – Mistaking an abstract belief, opinion, or concept for a physical, concrete reality.
“The GDP went up, so everyone is happy.”
Appeal to Money – Believing that cost equates to value or quality.
“This wine costs $500, it must be tasty.”
Shifting the Burden – Requiring the skeptic to disprove a claim rather than the claimant proving it.
“I believe in fairies. Prove me wrong.”
Proof by Assertion – Restating a conclusion repeatedly in place of providing evidence.
“I am the best. I am the best. I am the best.”
Appeal to Spite – Attempting to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude.
“I’m not helping him, he was mean to me in 3rd grade.”
Appeal to Nature – Arguing that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, or ideal.
“Chemicals are bad, I only eat natural food.” (Everything is chemicals).
Texas Sharpshooter – Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.
“Look at these clusters of data!” (That you found by chance after the fact).
No True Scotsman – Making an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion by shifting the definition of the term.
“No Scotsman puts sugar on porridge.””My uncle does.” “Well, he’s no true Scotsman.”
Broken Window Fallacy – Arguments that ignore lost opportunity costs (parable of the broken window).
“Breaking that window gave the glazier a job!” (But cost the owner money).
Ludic Fallacy – Mistaking the map for the territory; assuming statistical models perfectly represent complex reality.
“In theory, the stock market works like this casino.”
Regression Fallacy – Ascribing a cause to an event that is actually just a statistical fluctuation returning to the mean.
“I yelled at him and he played better.” (He was likely just having a bad day and regressed to the mean).
Association Fallacy – Asserting that qualities of one group are inherently qualities of another group via an inconsequential association.
“Terrorists drink water. You drink water. You are a terrorist.”
Decision Point Fallacy – Arguing that because a line or distinction cannot be drawn at any specific point, there is no difference.
“I can’t decide exactly when a fetus becomes a person, so it never does.”
Sunk Cost Fallacy – Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise.
“I already spent $100 on this bad movie, I have to watch the rest.”
McNamara Fallacy – Making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (metrics) and ignoring all others.
“Body count is high, so we are winning the war.” (Focusing only on what can be measured).
Mind Projection Fallacy – Assuming that the way you see the world reflects the way the world really is.
“I can imagine a perfect world, so it must be possible.”
Psychologist’s Fallacy – When an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
“I saw him look guilty.” (Assuming your subjective observation is objective truth).
Fallacy of Relative Privation – (“Not as bad as”) Dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world.
“Why complain about your broken leg? People are starving in Africa.”

By learning to recognize logical fallacies, we can think more clearly, argue more effectively, and make better decisions in a world full of misleading claims.

Melvin Varghese