Logical Fallacies

Question 1

Strawman

Answer 1

Strawman

Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defencless by cutting military spending.

Question 2

Slippery Slope

Answer 2

Slippery Slope

Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen, too, therefore A should not happen.

Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars, and even monkeys.

Question 3

Special Pleading

Answer 3

Special Pleading

Moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false.

Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his ‘abilities’ were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

Question 4

The Gambler’s Fallacy

Answer 4

The Gambler’s Fallacy

Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.

Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be up next. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.

Question 5

Black-or-White OR Either / Or

Answer 5

Black-or-White OR Either / Or

Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or on the side of the enemy.

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

Question 6

False Cause

Answer 6

False Cause

Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the number of pirates have been decreasing, thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.

Question 7

Ad Hominem

Answer 7

Ad Hominem

Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Question 8

Loaded Question

Answer 8

Loaded Question

Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.

Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a fungal infection.

Question 9

Bandwagon

Answer 9

Bandwagon

Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they’re only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.

Question 10

Begging the Question

Answer 10

Begging the Question

A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

Question 11

Appeal to Authority

Answer 11

Appeal to Authority

Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument.

Not able to defend his position that evolution ‘isn’t true’ Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn’t a primate).

Question 12

Appeal to Nature

Answer 12

Appeal to Nature

Making the argument that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.

The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of ‘artificial’ medicines such as antibiotics.

Question 13

Composition / Division

Answer 13

Composition / Division

Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible, too. Unfortunately, despite his thinking skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

Question 14

Anecdotal

Answer 14

Anecdotal

Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.

Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don’t believe everything you read about meta analyses of sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

Question 15

Appeal to Emotion

Answer 15

Appeal to Emotion

Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Luke didn’t want to eat chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all.

Question 16

Tu Quoque

Answer 16

Tu Quoque

Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism.

The blue candidate accused the red candidate of committing the tu quoque fallacy. The red candidate responded by accusing the blue candidate of the same, after which ensued an hour of back and forth criticism with not much progress.

Question 17

Burden of Proof

Answer 17

Burden of Proof

Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore a valid one.

Question 18

No True Scotsman

Answer 18

No True Scotsman

Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.

Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

Question 19

The Texas Sharpshooter

Answer 19

The Texas Sharpshooter

Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.

The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks points to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.

Question 20

The Fallacy Fallacy

Answer 20

The Fallacy Fallacy

Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.

Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

Question 21

Personal Incredulity

Answer 21

Personal Incredulity

Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.

Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

Question 22

Ambiguity

Answer 22

Ambiguity

Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to pay them because the sign said ‘Fine for parking here’ and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

Question 23

Genetic

Answer 23

Genetic

Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.

Accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of these things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler’s army.

Question 24

Middle Ground

Answer 24

Middle Ground

Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth.

Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations cause some autism.

Question 25

Hasty Generalization

Answer 25

Hasty Generalization

This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all of the relevant facts.

Even though it’s only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

Question 26

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Answer 26

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

This is a conclusion that assumed that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A’.

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

Question 27

Circular Argument

Answer 27

Circular Argument

This restated the argument rather than actually proving it.

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

Question 28

Ad Populum

Answer 28

Ad Populum

This is an emotional appeal that speak to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand.

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

Question 29

Red Herring

Answer 29

Red Herring

This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe but what will fishers do to support their families?

Question 30

Moral Equivalence

Answer 30

Moral Equivalence

This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

Question 31

A Priori Argument

Answer 31

A Priori Argument

Also, “Rationalization.” Starting with a given, pre-set dogma, doctrine, “fact” or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument in order to rationalize, defend or justify it. Certain religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary method of “reasoning” and do not hesitate to say so.

Question 32

Ad Hominem Argument

Answer 32

Ad Hominem Argument

Also, “Personal attack,” “Poisoning the well.” The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos.

E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also “Guilt by Association.” Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about, because of the lack of power or status of the person making the argument.

Question 33

Appeal to Closure

Answer 33

Appeal to Closure

The contemporary fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled, which is unthinkable, and those affected will be denied “closure.” This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever.

E.g., “Society would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentence you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.”

See also “Argument from Ignorance,” “Argument from Consequences.”

Question 34

Appeal to Heaven

Answer 34

Appeal to Heaven

(also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or History, or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one’s own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible.

E.g., “God ordered me to kill my children,” or “We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.”

A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.

Question 35

Appeal to Pity

Answer 35

Appeal to Pity

(also “Argumentum ad Miserecordiam”). The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand

E.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”

A corrupt argument from pathos. See also Playing to Emotions.

Question 36

Appeal to Tradition

Answer 36

Appeal to Tradition

(also “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has “always” been that way, because people have “always” thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations).

E.g., “In America, women have always been paid less, so let’s not mess with long-standing tradition.”

The counterpart of this is “The Appeal to Novelty,” e.g., “It’s NEW, and [therefore it must be] improved!”

Question 37

Argument from Consequences

Answer 37

Argument from Consequences

The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable.

E.g., “Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry,” or “Doctor, that’s wrong! I can’t have terminal cancer, because if I did that’d mean that I won’t live to see my kids get married!”

Question 38

Sources

Answer 38

ttps: //www.google.com/search?q=Logical+Fallacies&tbm=isch&imgil=R0HWCb_jNY8aJM%253A%253B5UilFtBiWRbIKM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fmeta.discourse.org%25252Ft%25252Fcan-we-filter-out-logical-fallacies-and-give-the-community-the-ability-to-promote-logically-sound-discourse%25252F3892&source=iu&pf=m&fir=R0HWCb_jNY8aJM%253A%252C5UilFtBiWRbIKM%252C_&biw=1214&bih=831&dpr=2&usg=__t94Jw3211HvAT5m01OYNhSYAGy8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjl0LSW3u3KAhXotIMKHeMdAnUQyjcIOA&ei=UHW7VuXoBOjpjgTju4ioBw#imgrc=R0HWCb_jNY8aJM%3A&usg=__t94Jw3211HvAT5m01OYNhSYAGy8%3D
http: //utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
https: //owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

Question 39

Argument from Ignorance

Answer 39

Argument from Ignorance

The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. “Your evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I’m right!” This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:”

E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.

See also “A Priori Argument” and “Argumentum ex Silentio.”

Question 40

Argument from Inertia

Answer 40

Argument from Inertia

(also “Stay the Course”). The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one’s decision (or one’s leader, or one’s faith) was wrong, and all one’s effort, expense and sacrifice was for nothing, and that’s unthinkable.

A variety of the Argument from Consequences or the Appeal to Tradition.

Question 41

Argument from Motives

Answer 41

Argument from Motives

(also Questioning Motives). The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim.

E.g., “Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!” Even evil people with corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest motives are often wrong or mistaken).

A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator’s purity of motives or lack of malice. E.g., “He’s a good Christian man; how could you accuse him of doing something like that?”

Question 42

Argumentum ad Baculam

Answer 42

Argumentum ad Baculam

(also “Argument from the Club”). The fallacy of “persuasion” by force, violence, or threats.

E.g., “Gimmee your money, or I’ll knock your head off!” or “We have the perfect right to take your land, since we have the guns and you don’t.” Also applies to indirect forms of threat. E.g., “Join our religion if you don’t want to burn in hell forever and ever!”

Question 43

Argumentum ex Silentio

Answer 43

Argumentum ex Silentio

(Argument from Silence. See also, Argument from Ignorance). The fallacy that if sources remain silent or can say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter.

E.g., “Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God doesn’t exist.” Or “Science admits it can tell us nothing about God, so you can’t deny that God exists!” Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment, remaining silent or “taking the Fifth” is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., “Mr. Hixel has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler’s Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!”

In today’s America, choosing to remain silent in the face of a police officer’s questions can make one guilty enough to be arrested or even shot.

Question 44

Bandwagon

Answer 44

Bandwagon

(also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because “everyone” supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., “Everyone knows that undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!”

Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Smith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”

Question 45

Begging the Question

Answer 45

Begging the Question

(also Circular Reasoning): Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words.

E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent spiritual crisis in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also “Big Lie technique.”

Question 46

Big Lie Technique

Answer 46

Big Lie Technique

(also “Staying on Message”): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence..

E.g., “What about the Jewish Question?” Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no “Jewish Question,” only a “Nazi Question,” but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that.

Question 47

Blind Loyalty

Answer 47

Blind Loyalty

(also Blind Obedience, the “Team Player” appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one’s own “side,” team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one’s own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining “That’s what I was told to do,” or “I was just following orders.” See also, “The Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy.”

Question 48

Blood is Thicker than Water

Answer 48

Blood is Thicker than Water

(also Favoritism, Compadrismo, “For my friends, anything.”). The reverse of the “Ad Hominem” fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a statement, argument or action is automatically regarded as true, correct and above challenge because one is related to, or knows and likes, or is on the same team as the individual involved.

E.g., “My brother-in-law says he saw you goofing off on the job. You’re a hard worker but who am I going to believe, you or him? You’re fired!”

Question 49

Bribery

Answer 49

Bribery

(also Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of “persuasion” by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculam. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely “stays persuaded” unless the bribes keep on coming in and increasing with time.

Question 50

The Complex Question

Answer 50

The Complex Question

The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself.

E.g., “Just answer me ‘yes’ or ‘no’: Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?” Or, “Why did you rob that bank?” Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos.

Question 51

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 51

Diminished Responsibility

The common contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept (that criminal punishment should be less if one’s judgment was impaired) to reality in general.

E.g., “You can’t count me absent on Monday–I was hung over and couldn’t come to class so it’s not my fault.” Or, “Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway and killed a guy, but I was buzzed out of my mind and didn’t know what I was doing so it didn’t matter that much.” In reality the death does matter very much to the victim, to his family and friends and to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the material results are the same.

Question 52

Either-Or Reasoning

Answer 52

Either-Or Reasoning

(also False Dilemma, Black/White Fallacy). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range of possible alternatives are always really available.

E.g., “Either you are 100% straight or you are queer as a $3 bill–it’s as simple as that and there’s no middle ground!” Or, “Either you’re with us all the way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed! What’s it gonna be?”

Question 53

“E” for Effort

Answer 53

“E” for Effort

(Also Noble Effort) The contemporary fallacy that something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of respect and honor simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it.

See also Appeal to Pity, Argument from Inertia, or Sob Story.

Question 54

Equivocation

Answer 54

Equivocation

The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one’s terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.

E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with “that woman,” meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as “I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.” This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.

Question 55

Essentializing

Answer 55

Essentializing

A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be the way it is right now

E.g., “All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100” or “‘The poor you will always have with you,’ so any effort to eliminate poverty is pointless.”

Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way “by nature,” an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute.

E.g., “Americans are cold and greedy by nature,” or “Women are better cooks than men.”

See also “No Discussion” and “A priori argument.”

Question 56

Excluded Middle

Answer 56

Excluded Middle

A corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since a little of something is good, more must be better (or that if less of something is good, none at all is even better).

E.g., “If eating an apple a day is good for you, eating an all-apple diet is even better!” or “If a low salt diet prolongs your life, a zero-salt diet should make you live forever!”

Question 57

False Analogy

Answer 57

False Analogy

The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion.

E.g., “Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal adult can’t be tied down to one single lover.”

Question 58

Finish the Job

Answer 58

Finish the Job

The dangerous contemporary fallacy that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of the action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is “a job to be done,” falsely assuming all “jobs” are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize (“buy into”) the “job” and make the task a part of their own ethos.

E.g., “Ours is not to reason why / Ours is but to do or die.”

Related to this is the “Just a Job” fallacy. E.g., “How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror? But, I guess it’s OK because for them it’s just a job.”

See also “Blind Loyalty,” “The Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy” and “Argument from Inertia.”

Question 59

Guilt by Association

Answer 59

Guilt by Association

The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone’s standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or of a group, religion or race to which he or she belongs. A form of Ad Hominem Argument.

E.g., “Don’t listen to her. She’s a Republican so you can’t trust anything she says.”

See also “They’re Not Like Us.”

Question 60

The Half Truth

Answer 60

The Half Truth

(also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately minimizing or omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion

E.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez, Mexico is one of the world’s fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juárez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”

Question 61

Heroes All

Answer 61

Heroes All

(also Everyone’s a Winner). A contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, who served honorably is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner’s shirt. This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by American comedian Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everyone wins nobody wins, and if everyone’s a hero nobody’s a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as author Alice Childress writes, “a hero ain’t nothing but a sandwich.” See also the “Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy.”

The counterpart of this is the postmodern fallacy of “Hero-Busting,” under which, since nobody in this world is perfect, there are not and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was a racist, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for women, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), the Pope is wrong on women’s ordination, Mother Teresa was wrong on just about everything, etc., etc.

Question 62

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand

Answer 62

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand

The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation.. E.g., “What can we do about high gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, but I don’t” [shrug] .

Or, “No, you can’t quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don’t, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing.” The parent, of course, ignores the possibility that the child may not want or need to learn piano.

See also, TINA and The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Question 63

Just in Case

Answer 63

Just in Case

A fallacy by which one’s reasoning is based on a far-fetched or completely imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. This plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason.

E.g., “What if armed terrorists were to attack your county grain elevator tomorrow morning at dawn? Are you ready to fight back? Better stock up on assault rifles and ammunition today, just in case!”

Question 64

Law of Unintended Consequences

Answer 64

Law of Unintended Consequences

In this very dangerous, archly pessimistic postmodern fallacy the bogus “Law of Unintended Consequences,” once a semi-humorous satirical corollary of “Murphy’s Law,” is elevated to to the status of an iron law of history. This fallacy arbitrarily declares a priori that since we can never know everything or foresee anything, sooner or later in today’s “complex world” unforeseeable adverse consequences and negative side effects (“unknown unknowns”) will always end up blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all “do-gooder” human efforts to improve our world. So, instead of dreaming about a better future we must always expect defeat and be ready to roll with the punches by developing “grit” or “resilience” as a primary survival skill. This nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the possibility of any argument from logos.

See also, TINA.

Question 65

Lying with Statistics

Answer 65

Lying with Statistics

Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “College tuition costs have actually never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, the cost of getting a college education is actually far lower today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos.

(See also Half-truth, Snow Job, and Red Herring.)

Question 66

MYOB

Answer 66

MYOB

(Mind Your Own Business; You’re Not the Boss of Me; The Appeal to Privacy), The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily terminating any discussion of one’s own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one’s actions. A corrupted argument from ethos (your own).

E.g., “Sure, I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street–what’s it to you? You’re not a cop, you’re not my nanny. It’s my business to speed, and your business to get the hell out of the way. Mind your own business!” Or, “Yeah, I killed my baby. So what? Butt out! It’s none of your business!”

See also, “Taboo.”

Rational discussion is cut off because “it is none of your business!”

Question 67

Name-Calling

Answer 67

Name-Calling

A variety of the “Ad Hominem” argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against my standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful.

E.g., “My stand on abortion is the only correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are.” Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid without proving why it is invalid.

See also, “Reductionism.”

Question 68

No Discussion

Answer 68

No Discussion

(also No Negotiation, the Control Voice, Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculam that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional compliance/surrender or death as the only two options for settling even minor differences.

E.g., “Get down on the ground, now!” or “We don’t talk to terrorists.” This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential “hostiles” as monsters devoid of all reason, and far too often contains a very strong element of “machismo” as well. I.e. “In a confrontation a real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, fancy talk or argument. That’s for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying-tactic. A real man stands tall, talks straight, draws fast and shoots to kill.” Actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles.

See also, The Pout.

Question 69

Non Sequitur

Answer 69

Non Sequitur

The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is printing purple five-dollar bills! Purple!”). (See also Red Herring.)

Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God, fate or the Universe is doing certain things. E.g., “This week’s earthquake was obviously meant to punish those people for their great wickedness.”

Question 70

Nothing New Under the Sun

Answer 70

Nothing New Under the Sun

(also, “Seen it all before,” “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”): Fairly rare in contemporary discourse, this deeply cynical fallacy falsely proposes that there is not and has never been any real novelty in this world. Any argument that there are truly “new” ideas or phenomena is judged unworthy of serious discussion a priori and dismissed with a sigh and a wave of the hand as “the same old thing.”

E.g., “[Sigh!] Idiots, don’t you see that the current influx of refugees is nothing new? It’s just another chapter of the same old Muslim invasion of Europe that’s been going on for 1,500 years?” Or, “Libertarianism is nothing but anarchism, which, in turn, is nothing but the ancient Antinomian Heresy dressed up in modern clothes. Like I told you, there’s nothing new under the sun!”

Question 71

Overgeneralization

Answer 71

Overgeneralization

(also Hasty Generalization, the Pars pro Toto Fallacy). The stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases.

E.g. “Some college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all college students are lousy drivers and that we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up, learn to drive or graduate!”

Question 72

The Paralysis of Analysis

Answer 72

The Paralysis of Analysis

(also, Procrastination): A postmodern fallacy that since all data is never in any conclusion is always provisional, no legitimate decision can ever be made, and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos.

(See also “Law of Unintended Consequences.”)

Question 73

Playing on Emotion

Answer 73

Playing on Emotion

(also, the Sob Story, the Pathetic Fallacy): The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone.

E.g., “If you don’t agree that witchcraft is a major problem just shut up for a moment and feel for all those poor moms crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny children whose cozy little beds and happy tricycles lie all cold and abandoned, just because of those wicked old witches! Let’s string’em all up!”

Question 74

Political Correctness

Answer 74

Political Correctness

(“PC”): A postmodern fallacy that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name.

E.g., “Today we strike a blow against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’” or “Never, ever play the ‘victim’ card, because it’s so manipulative and sounds so negative, helpless and despairing. Instead, we are ‘survivors.’” (Of course, when “victims” disappear then perpetrators conveniently vanish as well!)

Question 75

The Pout

Answer 75

The Pout

(also The Silent Treatment, Noncooperation, Non-recognition). An Argumentum ad Baculam that rejects dialogue. The most benign nonviolent form of this fallacy is found in passive-aggressive tactics such as slowdowns, boycotts, and strikes. The United States recently ended a half-century long political Pout with Cuba.

See also “No Discussion.”

Question 76

Post Hoc Argument

Answer 76

Post Hoc Argument

(also, “post hoc propter hoc,” or the “too much of a coincidence” argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else the first thing is caused by the second.

E.g., “AIDS first emerged as a problem back in the very same era when Disco music was becoming popular–that’s too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco caused AIDS!”

Question 77

Red Herring

Answer 77

Red Herring

An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated but usually emotionally loaded issue.

E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Terrorism! Vote for me! I’ll fight terrorists wherever they may be!”

Question 78

Reductionism

Answer 78

Reductionism

(also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or bumper-sticker slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences.

E.g., “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit.” Or, “Vote for Smith. He’s tough on crime!”

Question 79

Reifying

Answer 79

Reifying

The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material “things.”

E.g., “The War against Terror is a fight to the death between Fanaticism and Freedom.”

Sometimes also referred to as “Essentializing” or “Hypostatization.”

Question 80

Scare Tactic

Answer 80

Scare Tactic

(Also Paranoia): A variety of Playing on Emotions, a raw appeal to fear. A corrupted argument from pathos.

E.g., “If you don’t shut up and do what I say we’re all gonna die! In this moment of great crisis we can’t afford the luxury of criticizing or trying to second-guess my decisions. Our very lives and freedom are in peril! We need to be united as one!”

See also, “We Have to do Something!”

Question 81

Sending the Wrong Message

Answer 81

Sending the Wrong Message

A dangerous fallacy that attacks a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will “send the wrong message.” In effect, those who use this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies.

E.g., “Actually, we’re losing the war against drugs hands down, but if we publicly admit it we’ll be sending the wrong message.”

Question 82

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Answer 82

Shifting the Burden of Proof

(see also Argument from Ignorance) A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument.

E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! That means what I say has to be true.”

Question 83

Slippery Slope

Answer 83

Slippery Slope

(also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that “one thing inevitably leads to another.”

E.g., “If you two go and drink coffee together one thing will lead to another and soon enough you’ll be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects,” or “If we close Gitmo, pretty soon armed terrorists will be on our very doorstep!”

Question 84

Snow Job

Answer 84

Snow Job

The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand or evaluate. This is a corrupted argument from logos.

See also, “Lying with Statistics.”

Question 85

Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy

Answer 85

Soldiers’ Honor Fallacy

The ancient fallacy that all who wore a uniform, fought hard and followed orders are worthy of some special honor or glory or are even “heroes,” whether they fought for freedom or fought to defend slavery, marched under Grant or Lee, Hitler, Stalin or McArthur, fought to defend their homes, fought for oil or fought to spread empire, or even fought against and killed U.S. soldiers!. A corrupt argument from ethos (that of a soldier), closely related to the “Finish the Job” fallacy (“Sure, he died for a lie, but he deserves honor because he followed orders and did his job to the end!”).

See also “Heroes All.” This fallacy was recognized and decisively refuted at the Nuremburg Trials after World War II but remains powerful to this day nonetheless. Related to this is the State Actor fallacy, that those who fight and die for a country (America, Russia, Iran, the Third Reich, etc.) are worthy of honor or at least pardonable while those who fight for a non-state actor (abolitionists, guerrillas, freedom-fighters, jihadis) are not and remain “terrorists” no matter how noble or vile their cause, until or unless they are adopted by a state after the fact.

Question 86

Straw Man

Answer 86

Straw Man

(also “The Straw Person”): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak or ridiculous parody of an opponent’s argument and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand.

E.g., “Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!” Or, “Pro-choicers hate babies!” Or, “Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!”

Question 87

Taboo

Answer 87

Taboo

The fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions “sacrosanct” or not open to discussion, or arbitrarily taking some standpoints or options “off the table” beforehand.

E.g., “Don’t bring my drinking into this,” or “Before we start, you need to know I won’t allow you to play the race card, or to attack my arguments by claiming ‘That’s just what Hitler would say!’”

Question 88

Testimonial

Answer 88

Testimonial

(also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A corrupt argument from ethos in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid to make the endorsement .

E.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet-shouldn’t you?”

Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (E.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!”)

Question 89

They’re Not Like Us

Answer 89

They’re Not Like Us

A badly corrupted, racist argument from ethos where facts, arguments, experiences or objections are arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without serious consideration because those involved “are not like us,” or “don’t think like us.”

E.g., “It’s OK for Mexicans to earn half a buck an hour in the maquiladoras. If it happened here I’d call it brutal exploitation and daylight robbery but way down south of the border they’re different from us.” Or, “Sure, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but in Asia they’re not like us and they don’t think about life and death the same way we do.”

A variety of the Ad Hominem Fallacy, most often applied to non-white populations.

Question 90

TINA

Answer 90

TINA

(There Is No Alternative. Also “That’s an order,” “Get Over It,” or the “fait accompli”). A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy, quashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant, or announcing that a decision has been made and any further discussion is insubordination, disloyalty, or simply a waste of precious time when there’s a job to be done.

See also, “Taboo;” “Finish the Job.”

Question 91

Transfer

Answer 91

Transfer

A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint.

E.g. putting a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an advertisement for mattresses, using Genghis Khan, a Mongol who hated Chinese, as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or pickups that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Kyoto.

See also “Testimonial.”

Question 92

Tu Quoque

Answer 92

Tu Quoque

(“You Do it Too!”; also Two Wrongs Make a Right): A corrupt argument from ethos. The fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one’s own bad action by pointing out that one’s opponent’s acts or personal character are also open to question, or are perhaps even worse than one’s own.

E.g., “Sure, we may torture and kill but we don’t cut off heads off like they do!” Or, “You can’t stand there and accuse me of corruption! You guys are all into politics and you know what you have to do to get reelected!”

Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.

Question 93

We Have to Do Something

Answer 93

We Have to Do Something

(Also, Security Theater). The dangerous contemporary fallacy that when “People are scared / People are angry” it becomes necessary to do something, anything, at once even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or actually makes the situation worse, rather than “just sitting there doing nothing.”

E.g., “Banning air passengers from carrying ham sandwiches onto the plane and making parents take off their infants’ little pink baby-shoes probably does nothing to deter potential hijackers, but people are scared and we have to do something to respond to this crisis!” This is a badly corrupted argument from pathos.

See also “Scare Tactic.”

Question 94

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire

Answer 94

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire

(also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of drawing a snap conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence.

E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. That’s all the evidence we need that he’s a terrorist! Let’s burn his store down!”

A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.

Question 95

Zero Tolerance

Answer 95

Zero Tolerance

(also, The Disproportionate Response, Even One is Too Many, Judenrein). The contemporary fallacy of promising to devote unlimited resources to solve a limited or even imaginary problem.

E.g., “I just read about an actual case of cannibalism somewhere in this country. That’s disgusting, and even one case is way, way too many! We need a Federal Taskforce against Cannibalism with a million-dollar budget and offices in every state, a national SCAN program in all the grade schools (Stop Cannibalism in America Now!), and an automatic double death penalty for cannibals; in other words, zero tolerance for cannibalism in this country!” This is a corrupt and cynical argument from pathos, almost always politically driven, a particularly sinister variety of the “We Have to do Something” fallacy.

See “Playing on Emotions,” “Red Herring,” and also the “Big Lie Technique.”

Question 96

Logos

Answer 96

Logos (UK /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego “I say”) is an important term in western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. It is a Greek word meaning “a ground”, “a plea”, “an opinion”, “an expectation”, “word”, “speech”, “account”, “to reason”,[1][2] but it became a technical term in philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]

[1]^a b Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon: logos, 1889.
[2]^ Entry λόγος at LSJ online.
[3]^ Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed): Heraclitus, 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos