Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

Appeal to ignorance

Assuming that an argument is valid just because there is no evidence to the other side of the issue

Bandwagon

Implying that something is right because “everyone” does it

Begging the question/Circular Reasoning

Assumes that a statement is true when it actually requires proof, or offering proof by using another version of the original claim itself

Card-stacking

Ignoring evidence on the other side of an issue to make your argument appear more convincing

Either-or fallacy

Offering only two (usually extreme) alternatives when others exist

Equivocation

Changing the meaning of a key term or expression in the middle of an argument

False analogy

Using a comparison in which the differences outweigh the similarities, or the similarities are irrelevant to the claim

False or doubtful authority

Citing the opinion of a person who has no expertise about the subject

Guilt by association

Attacking a person’s ideas because of something or someone also associated with that person or idea

Hasty generalization

Generalizing from inadequate evidence

Misleading statistics

Distorting or misrepresenting the meaning, strength, or applicability of statistical evidence

Non Sequitur

Reaching a conclusion that doesn’t follow logically from the premises

Post Hoc Reasoning (false cause)

Assuming that because two events are related in time, the first caused the second

Red herring

side-tracking the issue by raising a second, unrelated issue

Self-contradiction

Using two premises that cannot both be true, or applying a condition that renders the original premise false

Slippery slope

Claiming a current action will lead to an unwanted, illogical effect in the future

Straw man

Ignoring a person’s actual position and substituting a distorted exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that position

Taking something out of context

distorting an idea or fact by separating it from the material surrounding it

Tu Quoque (You also)

Claiming that an opponets’s argument has no value because the opponent does not follow their advice