Ad Hominem
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Explanation
Criticizing the person instead of their argument.
Example
You're not a chef, so your opinion on cooking doesn't matter.
Enjoying FallaEasies? You can support the project and help fund new features.
Buy me a coffeeMaster the art of critical thinking. Learn to identify common logical pitfalls and sharpen your reasoning skills with our age-appropriate guide.
Explanations currently optimized for 15 years
Fallacy
[fal-uh-see]NounPlural fal-la-cies.
Explanation
“A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that can make an argument seem convincing even when it isn't. The conclusion doesn't properly follow from the evidence.”
Example
For example: "Everyone has a phone, so phones must be free." That doesn't follow—popularity doesn't mean something is free.
40 fallacies
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Criticizing the person instead of their argument.
You're not a chef, so your opinion on cooking doesn't matter.
Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Creating a false version of someone's argument to easily defeat it.
Person A: We should have more environmental protections. Person B: Person A wants to shut down all industries, which will cause unemployment.
Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.
Assuming a claim is true (or false) because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
There's no evidence that ghosts don't exist, so they must be real.
Presenting two options as the only possibilities when more exist.
Limiting options to two when there are other possibilities.
We can either cut education funding or endure higher taxes. There's no other way.
Arguing that a small first step will lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
Claiming a minor action will cause a domino effect of negative outcomes.
If we allow students to use calculators on tests, soon they won't be able to do even simple math without them.
The reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with; the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
Using what you're trying to prove as proof.
We know God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is inspired by God.
Making a broad generalization based on a small or unrepresentative sample.
Drawing a big conclusion from a small amount of evidence.
Three of my friends got sick after eating at that restaurant; it must be bad.
Diverting attention from the real issue by focusing on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.
Bringing up a different topic to distract from the original argument.
When asked about pollution, the politician talks about how important it is to support the troops.
Believing something is true because an authority figure says it is, without examining the evidence.
Trusting what someone says just because they are an expert or authority, without questioning it.
The commercial claims this medicine works because a famous doctor says so.
Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Using feelings like fear or happiness to convince people instead of facts.
Advertisements showing sad animals to get you to donate to a charity.
Assuming something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it.
Believing a claim is true just because it's popular.
Everyone I know is buying the latest smartphone model, so it must be the best available.
Assuming that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it.
Believing that just because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.
There was a crime increase after the new mayor took office, so the new mayor caused the crime rate to rise.
Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
Playing on the double meaning of a word to mislead or confuse.
Giving to charity is the right thing to do, so it's right to avoid taxes by giving to charity.
Arguing that something is right because it has always been done that way.
Justifying actions because they are traditional or have been done for a long time.
We've always had a meat dish at our family gatherings; we can't have a vegetarian option now.
Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
Rejecting counterexamples to a generalization by changing the criteria to exclude the counterexample.
No true vegan would ever eat anything that casts a shadow. Someone who eats mushrooms, therefore, must not be a true vegan.
Selectively presenting evidence that supports one's argument while ignoring or dismissing relevant evidence that contradicts it.
Choosing only favorable evidence for your argument and ignoring the rest.
A politician highlighting only the positive outcomes of their policy, while ignoring the negative impacts.
Drawing an equivalence between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
Comparing two things as if they are similar, when they are actually different in important ways.
Comparing the accidental deaths caused by cars to intentional murders committed with guns as a reason against gun control.
Asserting that the truth value of a claim rests upon one party without proper evidence, and shifting the burden of proof to the other party.
Demanding the other side proves your claim is wrong instead of providing evidence that your claim is right.
Claiming that aliens have visited Earth and saying it's up to skeptics to prove they haven't.
Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Making an argument confusing by using words that have unclear or double meanings.
The sign says 'fine for parking here', so it must be okay to park in this spot.
Believing that past events affect the probability of something happening in the future, in situations where the events are independent.
The belief that if something occurs more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or vice versa.
After flipping heads ten times in a row, believing that tails is now due to come up.
Using multiple arguments hoping that one will be correct, without regard for contradictions.
Presenting many arguments at once to overwhelm opposition, regardless of their consistency.
In a debate, using several unrelated points to defend a policy, hoping one will resonate, despite their inconsistencies.
Applying standards, principles, rules, etc., to other people or circumstances while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.
Claiming exceptions to rules or standards for oneself without proper justification.
Arguing that you shouldn't be fined for speeding because you're a good driver.
Assuming that cases that receive the most attention are the most representative of a larger group.
Believing that the most publicized examples are typical of the broader category.
Assuming most crimes are violent based on news reports, despite statistics showing most crimes are non-violent.
Ignoring differences while focusing on similarities, thus drawing a target around a hit.
Choosing data that support your argument while ignoring data that do not.
Highlighting data that suggest a correlation between two unrelated events, ignoring the lack of causation.
Dismissing someone's argument because they themselves don't follow it.
Rejecting criticism because the critic is guilty of the same issue.
Dismissing advice on healthy eating from someone who doesn't always eat healthily themselves.
Changing the criteria of a proposition or argument in order to avoid being wrong.
Altering the standards of evidence after they have been met to dismiss an argument.
After a product passes initial tests, claiming those tests aren't enough and more are needed.
Concluding about how things ought to be based on how things are or were in nature.
The mistake of claiming something is right or good solely because it's natural.
Claiming a diet is healthy because it's what our ancestors supposedly ate.
Comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
Dismissing a realistic solution because it doesn't solve all problems perfectly.
Refusing to support a new environmental law because it doesn't eliminate pollution entirely.
Making a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the premises.
Drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by the previous statements or evidence.
He's wearing red shoes today, so he must be feeling aggressive.
Treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete thing.
Giving physical qualities to abstract concepts.
Saying that 'justice' has arrived in a community after a new law is passed.
Continuing on a detrimental path because you've already invested in it.
The mistake of continuing a project or decision based on previously invested resources rather than current benefits.
Continuing to invest in a failing business because of the amount already invested.
Judging something good or bad based on where it comes from, or from whom it comes.
Evaluating the value or truth of something based on its origins.
Dismissing a good idea because it was suggested by a rival company.
Discrediting an argument because of the origin or association of its proponent.
Rejecting someone's argument because of their associations rather than the argument's merit.
Claiming a political idea is wrong just because extremists support it.
Assuming that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.
Believing historical decisions were made with an awareness of their future outcomes.
Criticizing historical figures for not foreseeing the long-term consequences of their actions.
Assuming that what is morally good or right must also be factually true.
Believing that principles of morality or fairness necessarily align with factual truth.
Believing that justice always prevails over injustice because it should.
Assuming that someone's silence on a matter proves their ignorance or agreement.
Believing someone's lack of response to a claim means they agree with it or don't know about it.
Because the author did not mention any drawbacks to the proposed solution in their article, it must mean there are none.
Assuming that what's true for the part is true for the whole.
Believing that characteristics of some parts of something must apply to the whole thing.
If a car has high performance parts, the car is assumed to be high performance overall.
Assuming what's true for the whole must be true for its parts.
Believing that the whole's characteristics must apply to all its parts.
The team is the best in the league, so each player must be the best in their position.
Making assumptions about individual members of a group based on the characteristics of the group as a whole.
Assuming that characteristics of a group apply to all individuals within that group.
Since the average income in the city is high, everyone there must be wealthy.
Ignoring important evidence that contradicts your argument.
Leaving out evidence that doesn't support your point.
A study on diet effectiveness that excludes participants who gained weight.