All 5 Informal Fallacies

What are the Fallacies of Relavance

A fallacy of relevance occurs when a conclusion is supported by information that is not logically relate to the truth or Falcity of the claim. These fallacies distract from valid reasoning by inserting emotional, social, personal, or unrelated elements

What are Faulty appeals?

Attempts to prove a conclusion based on external influences like emotions, popularity, authority, or tradition

Appeal to emotion

This fallacy uses emotional reaction as justification for a conclusion. It treats how someone feels about a claim as if it proves the claim itself. Emotions are used to bypass rational evaluation

Appeal to fear

Attempts to justify a conclusion by invoking potential danger or harm.

Appeal to pity

Attempts to gain acceptance by highlighting suffering or misfortune. Treats sympathy as a reason to agree

Appeal to spite

Relies on bitterness, resentment, or personal dislike to reject a conclusion.

Appeal to popularity

Treats widespread belief or approval as if it proves something true. Assumes the majority opinion equals correctness

Bandwagon fallacy

Argues that something should be accepted or done because others are doing it.

Snob appeal

Argues that a claim should be accepted because it's favored by the elite or exclusive group. Ties merit to social status

Appeal to tradition

Justifies a belief or practice solely based on it's historical use. Assumes longevity equals validity

Appeal to novelty

Argues something is better or more true because it is new. Innovation is treated as a guarantee for correctness

Ad hominem fallacy

Attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument it self. Goes after personal traits, background, or character

Circumstantial ad hominem

Tries to invalidate a argument based on a person's motives. Casts suspicion on a bias. Equates bias to falsehood

Tu Quoque ad hominem

Rejects a argument by accusing it of hypocrisy. Assumes that a claim is false or invalid because the person doesn't follow it themselves.

Genetic fallacy

Judges a claim solely based on it's source or origin

Red Herring fallacy

Introduces unrelated material to divert attention from the issue. Appears relevant but it's logically disconnected

Straw men fallacy

Misrepresents or distorts the argument to make it easier to attack. The distorted argument is refuted instead of the real one.

what are fallacies of assumption

occurs when an argument appears to offer proof but actually depends on unstated, unproven, or unjustified assumptions.

Begging the Question

assumes the conclusion within the premises instead of proving it. The argument’s starting point already depends on accepting what it sets out to prove. No independent support is offered.

Circular Reasoning

repeats the conclusion as support for itself using different words. It creates a logical circle where no new information is added. The proof and the claim are the same idea in different phrasing. It fails to demonstrate anything beyond what it presumes. The structure loops without external justification.

Complex Question (loaded question)

embeds one or more assumptions into a single question, forcing agreement with the assumptions if the question is answered directly. It presumes something that has not been established. The format of the question hides the presumption. It traps the respondent by offering no neutral answer

False Dilemma

presents two options as if they are the only possibilities when others exist. It falsely limits the range of choices. The assumption is that no middle ground or alternative exists. It pressures the audience to accept one extreme or the other

Slippery Slope

assumes that accepting one event will lead to a chain of events ending in disaster, without showing how each step necessarily follows. It treats a sequence of outcomes as inevitable without evidence.

Accident (Misapplied General Rule)

wrongly applies a general rule to a specific case where it doesn't fit. It assumes the rule has no exceptions. The argument ignores relevant details that would qualify or limit the rule

Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)

forms a broad general rule based on a special or exceptional case. It assumes what is true in one instance must be true in all. The argument draws a sweeping conclusion from insufficient data. It treats the unusual as typical.

No True Scotsman

redefines a category to exclude counterexamples in order to protect a generalization. It assumes only those who meet a shifting definition count. The claim is insulated from disproof by altering the criteria.

Question-Begging Epithet (loaded label)

uses emotionally loaded or biased language that assumes the conclusion is already true. The description contains the judgment. The argument does not prove the claim—it just labels it.

what are (Fallacies of Ambiguity)

The argument manipulates meaning, grammar, or emphasis to hide a flaw in reasoning

Equivocation

occurs when a single word is used in two or more distinct senses within the same argument, as if its meaning remained the same. The conclusion depends on a shift in definition

Amphiboly

arises from ambiguous grammar, phrasing, or sentence structure that causes multiple possible interpretations. The argument takes advantage of this confusion to draw a misleading or invalid conclusion

Accent

manipulates meaning by changing vocal stress, written emphasis, or selective quotation to shift interpretation. The same words may suggest different conclusions depending on what is emphasized

Composition

assumes that what is true of individual parts must also be true of the whole they form. The shift in reasoning moves from the part to the whole without justification.

Division

assumes that what is true of a whole must also be true of each of its parts. It moves from the group to the individual without proving that the properties apply at both levels

Hypostatization (a.k.a. Reification)

treats an abstract concept as if it were a concrete, physical, or personal thing. It falsely gives real-world attributes (like agency, actions, or decisions) to something that is not an actual entity

False Precision

uses exact numbers or measurements to give the appearance of accuracy where none exists. It creates a false sense of certainty or authority. The precision is unjustified by the data or context

Quoting Out of Context

removes a statement from its surrounding material in order to change its meaning. It relies on selective presentation that alters the intended point. The quote becomes misleading without its original frame

Fallacies of Weak Evidence

when an argument presents evidence that is too weak, distorted, or misused to logically support the conclusion

Hasty Generalization

draws a broad conclusion based on too small or unrepresentative a sample. It assumes the whole reflects the part without sufficient evidence

Weak (or False) Analogy

treats two things as logically similar when the comparison is flawed or superficial. It assumes relevant similarity where the actual connection is weak or irrelevant.

False Cause (Causal Fallacy)

assumes a causal relationship without sufficient proof that one thing actually caused the other. The events may be correlated or sequential, but causation is taken for granted.

False Cause - Post Hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”)

subtype assumes that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. It mistakes sequence for consequence

False Cause - Non Causa Pro Causa (“Not the cause for the cause”)

subtype names the wrong cause for an observed effect. It identifies something unrelated or coincidental as the explanation.

False Cause - Oversimplified Cause

subtype identifies a single cause for an outcome that is actually the result of multiple factors. It reduces complex situations to one variable.

Gambler’s Fallacy

This fallacy assumes that independent events in a random sequence are linked in probability. It falsely believes that past outcomes influence future ones when they do not

Appeal to Ignorance (when used as weak support)

argues that a claim is true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true. It treats lack of evidence as positive evidence.

Appeal to Unqualified Authority

supports a conclusion by citing someone who lacks expertise in the relevant field. It assumes the person’s status makes their claim reliable. The source lacks the proper qualifications.

Misleading Statistics

presents numerical data in a way that misrepresents or distorts the truth. It may omit context, cherry-pick results, or use improper measurements. The numbers appear precise but give a false impression.

Base Rate Fallacy

ignores general statistical information (base rates) in favor of irrelevant specific details. It substitutes anecdotal or circumstantial data for reliable background probabilities. The argument downplays known likelihoods.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

occurs when someone highlights patterns in data after the fact and treats them as significant. It selects only the points that fit a chosen conclusion and ignores the rest

Anthropic Fallacy

explains the existence of something by saying it must be that way because we are here to observe it. It treats observation as explanation. The fact that something exists is used to justify why it must exist

Fallacies of Context (Manipulated or Missing Information)

do not attack logic directly. Instead, they manipulate what information is included, omitted, emphasized, or framed in the argument. The truth is distorted by controlling the context

Suppressed Evidence (Cherry-Picking)

presents only the evidence that supports a conclusion while ignoring or hiding relevant opposing information. The argument appears strong only because contradicting facts are excluded

Argument from Silence

draws a conclusion based on someone’s failure to say something, assuming that silence equals agreement, denial, or confirmation. It treats the absence of a statement as meaningful

Burden of Proof Reversal

improperly shifts the obligation to prove a claim from the one asserting it to the one challenging it. It assumes a claim is true unless disproven. The arguer demands disproof instead of offering support

Moving the Goalposts

changes the standard of proof or success after the original criteria have been met. The opponent redefines what counts as acceptable support. It prevents a claim from ever being satisfied.

Special Pleading

creates an unjustified exception to a rule or standard without relevant reason. It demands that one case be treated differently while refusing to apply the same logic

Suppressed Evidence (Stacking the Deck)

presents only favorable information while deliberately excluding anything that contradicts or complicates the claim. It builds a one-sided case to manipulate judgment. The evidence is distorted by omission.

Double Standard

applies a rule or judgment unevenly to different people or cases without a valid reason. The same situation is evaluated differently depending on preference or bias. The inconsistency is not logically justified

Relative Privation (“Not as Bad as...”)

dismisses a problem or argument by comparing it to a worse situation, suggesting it is unimportant by contrast. It shifts focus from the actual issue to something more extreme.

False Balance

treats two opposing views as equally valid, even when one is significantly weaker, unsupported, or discredited. It assumes fairness requires presenting both sides as equivalent.

Continuum Fallacy (Fallacy of the Beard)

rejects a claim by arguing that because there is no clear boundary between two states, no distinction can be made at all. It assumes that gradual change makes difference impossible. The reasoning denies categories due to lack of precise cutoff

Suppressed evidence (Lying by Omission)

misleads by deliberately omitting crucial information while presenting the rest as if it were complete. The partial truth creates a false impression. The audience is left uninformed by design.