Logical Fallacy Fun-Who KNEW?!

Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well occurs when negative information that is irrelevant is presented ahead of time to discredit the argument. For example, in a political campaign, candidate 2 presents negative information about candidate 1 (true or false) so that anything that candidate says will be discounted. For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children."

Ad Hominem (Name Calling/Character Assassination)

Ad hominem arguments often expose people's prejudices. Writer attempts to refute (prove to be wrong) the claims of the opposition by bringing the opposition's character into question. Ex-Candidate A claims that Candidate B cannot possibly be an advocate for the working people because he enjoys the opera more than professional wrestling.

Appeal to Majority (Ad Populum)

Appeal to Majority or ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious or faulty argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so". Example: Everyone says that it's okay to lie as long as you don't get caught. OR It might be against the law to drink when you are 18 years old, but everyone does it, so it's okay.

False Authority - Appeal to Authority

Assuming that an authority in one field has knowledge and credibility in another area Example: A popular sports star may know a lot about football, but very little about shaving cream. His expertise on the playing field does not qualify him to intelligently discuss the benefits of aloe. Example: A commercial claims that a specific brand of cereal is the best way to start the day because athlete Michael Jordan says that it is what he eats every day for breakfast.

Circular Logic/Reasoning

Circular reasoning ( also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Example: I deserve to have a later curfew, so you should let me stay out until 10pm! This argument says the person should stay out until 10pm because he/she deserves a later curfew.

Straw Man (Cover Up)

The basic structure of the argument consists of Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version of the claim (the "straw man"), and then Person B attacking this distorted version in order to refute Person A's original assertion. Writer finds it easier to refute (prove to be wrong) an oversimplified opposition or pick only the opposition's weakest or most insignificant point to refute. Example: The debate over drink machines centers around cost and choice. Opponents of the new drink machines bring up their location as an important issue. Example: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.

Non sequitur (Inaccurate/Bogus)

The conclusion doesn't logically follow the explanation. There is obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them. Example: The rain came down so hard that Jennifer actually called me Example: If someone asks what it's like outside and you reply, "It's 2:00," you've just used a non sequitur or made a statement that does not follow what was being discussed.

Begging the Question (Circular Logic)

The writer presents an arguable point as a fact that supports the argument. The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises (previous statements) assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Ex-These movies are popular because they make so much money. They make a lot of money because people like them. People like them because they are so popular.

Correlation not Causation Fallacy (False Cause)

This fallacy ("with this, therefore because of this") is also known as false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. Example: "Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down. Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set." The two events may coincide, but have no causal connection.

Faulty Analogies (Relationship/Likeness)

Writer uses similar situations to explain a relationship but the comparisons/metaphors relate ideas or situations that upon closer inspection aren't really that similar. Example: Forcing students to attend cultural events is like herding cattle to slaughter. The students stampede in to the event where they are systematically 'put to sleep' by the program

Appeal to Emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional. Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with 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.

Black or White

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate. Example: While rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens' rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.

False Cause (False Claim or Charge)

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.