Informal Fallacies: To access questions (alone) with javascript

pop-up answers, click here:

Test Answers INFORMAL FALLACY TEST

Directions: Please indicate two best answers to the fallacies in each of the following passages:

1. Old man Brown claims that he saw a flying saucer in his farm, but he never got beyond the
fourth grade in school and can hardly read or write. He is completely ignorant of what scientists
have written on the subject, so his report cannot possibly be true.
Ad hominem: Brown's education is irrelevant to his what he reports that he observed.
2. My client is an integral part of this community. If he is sent to prison not only will this city suffer
but also he will be most missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any
other verdict than “not guilty.”
Ad misericordiam: The pity being invoked for the client is not relevant to the determination of his guilt or innocence.
3. You ought to try to study harder in school this year, Samuel, because it will spare your parents
the embarrassment of a letter from the instructor telling them you're slipping.
Ad baculum: The reasons for Samuel to study should be independent of the threat to inform his parents.
4. You will back up my story and tell the committee I am reasoning logically; because if you don't I
will do everything in my power to see that you are fired.
Ad baculum: The threat of being fired, presumably, is not logically relevant to the purported story.
5. I believe in the Bible because it is the written word of God through his prophets. Obviously, God
would not lie to his prophets. After all, the Bible says so.
Petitio principii: A premise and final conclusion are paraphrases of each other; hence the argument is the fallacy of the
structure of circulus in probando.
6. Congress shouldn't bother to consult major universities about educational appropriations. As
members of educational establishment, they will naturally want as much money for education as
they think they can get.
Ad hominem: Reasons should be evaluated on their own merits not necessarily on the character of the persons issuing
them. Although the premise is probably true, the educational establishment is probably worth consulting about relevant
educational factors of which the government might be unaware.
7. In recent studies researchers have show that women have more accurate intuition than men do.
The reason cited is that men's intuition is more often mistaken.
Petitio principii: The premise and conclusion are both probably true, but since premise and conclusion are equivalent
propositions, what is to be proved is already assumed in the premise. The structure of the argument is hysteron proteron.
8. I can see that you are in the market for a new car. We're having a sale on the Pinto sedans this
month you cannot not miss. So do you want to pay cash or do you want the installment plan?
Complex question: The phrasing of the question presupposes the conclusion that you want to purchase a Pinto sedan.
9. John has really worked hard on his term project, and he will really be depressed if he does not
make an A. For these reasons, you just have to grant him an A on his project.
Ad misericordiam: Presumably the grade on the project is determined by the quality of the work accomplished — not on
John's feelings. Nevertheless, John should be provided with the reasons for the evaluation of his project.
10. What is right is what is morally obligatory. What is morally obligatory is what you should do.
Of course, you should do something because it is the right thing to do.
Petitio principii: A premise and conclusion in this argument chain are logically the same. The version is circulus in
probando.
11. I can see that you like the efficiency with which the Tornado Home Vacuum System works and
that you are impressed with the marvelous way in which it saves on toil and drudgery in the home.
Therefore, shall I charge it to your account or would you prefer to pay cash?
Complex question: The conclusion that you are buying the vacuum system is being presupposed in the question posed.
12. If we wish to determine which of a person's motives determine his actions, we need only
examine which of the alternative courses of action he chooses to perform. Therefore, a person's
motives are determined by the actions he chooses to perform.
Petitio principii: The conclusion is being presupposed in the premise.
13. A prosecutor states to the jury: “You cannot let this man go free because our society is not safe
with him at large. Who knows who his next victim might be?”
Complex question: The prosecutor is not warranted in presupposing without proof that the defendant is guilty of the crime
charged — he is assuming a verdict which is precisely the finding to be proved.
14. It should be no surprise to you that if a Democrat is elected in the next presidential election, we
will have one of the worst recessions in years. Recessions always seem to be created by Democratic
administrations.
False cause (non causa pro causa): No causal mechanism is shown for the relation between events stated even though
there might be some evidential past correlation. The version of the fallacy here is post hoc ergo propter hoc.
15. As I walked to the library from the Learning Center not one person spoke to me. This university
is not as friendly as I was led to believe.
Converse accident: The generalization that many or most people at the university are unfriendly is reached from one
circumstance; one experience is not enough evidence to form a reliable conclusion.
16. How can we save our country from the bureaucratic dictatorship, the corruption, and the
creeping socialism of the present administration? There's only one way: vote Independent.
Complex question: The presupposition of this question might not be generally granted. Before opposing the present
administration, the presupposed circumstances alluded to need to be shown to be the case.
17. I don't care what your arguments are; you are using Mickey Mouse tactics. The arguments you
give are simply cheap and tacky.
Ad hominem: Character attacks and name calling are irrelevant to the cogency of the arguments proposed. The
descriptions characterizing the arguments do not explain their logical inadequacy.
18. Officer, please excuse my going over the speed limit, but my mother is ill, I'm being audited by
the IRS, and I don't know how I can meet all my bills. You can't believe the pressure I'm under. I
really need this break.
Ad misericordiam: The pity being attempted to be invoked is irrelevant to the question at issue, namely that of whether or
not the person committed a traffic violation. The problems listed are irrelevant to whether or not a traffic violation
occurred.
19. Why haven't you been studying, as you should? You would feel a lot better if you would take
you school work more seriously.
Complex question: The complainant is assuming without proof that you have not been studying. The presupposition of the
question requires evidence before posing.
20. Those who say that extra-sensory perception is not reliable are mistaken. The police,
Hollywood stars, and politicians have all relied on psychic abilities.
Ad populum Simply because many persons believe something does not thereby make the belief true. One might argue
here, as well, the fallacy of ad verecundiam occurs since the persons cited are not known to be authorities in the field of
psychic phenomena.
21. But Doctor, surely your advice that I should not drink coffee is not sound advice since you
yourself often drink coffee.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): Mention of the doctor's habits are irrelevant to the recommendation made. The reasons for
medical advice usually differ according to the various distinct health conditions of the patient.
22. The late Ellie Culbertson, one of the world's outstanding bridge players, once declared that the
United Nations as presently constituted has serious defects. She must be right because I don't think
the opinion of woman of that caliber should be taken lightly.
Ad verecundiam: The bridge authority is being quoted outside of her field of expertise. If she were an authority on the UN,
that expertise, rather than her bridge abilities, would ordinarily be acknowledged.
23. The General Assembly of the United Nations keeps voting for radical issues. We cannot allow
this to continue. Therefore, the U.S. will soon be forced to reduce its financial contribution to the
U.N. unless there is a demonstrated change in the coming days.
Ad baculum: The arguments themselves need to be evaluated rather than side-stepping the issues raised by irrelevantly
threatening to withdraw previously committed or promised support for the international peace organization. (Presumably,
the “radical” issues being discussed are not outside of the articles of U.N. Charter.)
24. During the Gulf wars many Americans made, and continue to make, immense profits. That is an
indisputable fact. Therefore, there can be no doubt that American business interests played an
active role instigating and continuing these wars.
False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc and cum hoc ergo propter hoc): Simply because two events occur together, one
cannot assume that one caused the other without further evidence being adduced.
25. No mathematician has ever been able to demonstrate the truth of the famous Goldberg
conjecture for the four-dimensional total space of an almost Hermitian submersion, so it
undoubtedly must be false.
Ad ignorantiam: From the fact that there is no proof of the conjecture, no conclusion as to its truth or falsity can be drawn.
26. Everyone says that a logic course is easier than a math course, so if you want to keep up your
grade-point average, don't enroll in the math course.
Ad populum appeal: Common belief could be mistaken. Even so, it is arguable that previous student opinion provides
evidence for the degree of difficulty of specific courses. So even though the advice is an ad populum appeal, it is not
fallacious since it is a credible inductive argument providing some evidence for the truth of its conclusion.
27. Unless you back up my story and tell the committee I am reasoning logically, I'll do everything
in my power to see that you are fired.
Ad baculum: The threat of force in this example is irrelevant to the question of the credibility of the story.
28. The best students make the best grades. Therefore, getting high grades will undoubtedly lead to
your being a better student.
False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc): Even assuming the truth of the premise the the best students make the best
grades, it does not follow that receiving undeservedly high grades will cause someone to be a better student. The awarding
of undeserved high grades could quite possibly encourage someone to study less. (Notice why this fallacy is not petitio
principii: it is an invalid conversion of an A statement. “All S is P” is not in general equivalent to ”All P is S.”)
29. Everyone believes that men write the best novels; therefore, there is little doubt that they do so.
Ad populum appeal: Even if one were to assume the truth of the premise, popular opinion does not prove the quality of a
novel. Writing quality is effected by such measures as striking imagery, variety of sentence types, specific and precise
wording, and a convincing point of view. Admittedly indicators such as these have some effect on reader appeal. Since no
evidence is provided for the questionable premise (that men write the best novels), some logicians in centuries past have
described an initial unsupported questionable or false general premise as a hasty generalization. However, in our course a
fallacy is defined as a logical mistake in argument — not a false or questionable assumption.
30. Since the Bible says, “Thou shall not kill,” it would be ethically mistaken to exterminate the
rodents in City Hall.
Accident: The reasoning in this example proceeds from a general principle (or commandment) to an atypical specific
application of the rule not meant to be subsumed under that rule.
31. But Mom I don't see why I have to wear socks; Einstein never did wear socks.
Ad verecundiam: Einstein's field of expertise does not extend to the wearing of socks. He's being quoted outside of his
area of authority. (Note: This is not an example of false cause — there is no suggestion here that the non-wearing of socks
will cause someone to be an “Einstein.”)
32. I once knew a philosophy student who went crazy and another one who did not seem that well-
balanced. It's pretty obvious to me what the study of philosophy did to them.
False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc): No causal mechanism is being proposed for the causal link between
philosophical study and psychological health.
33. A great many charges of graft and corruption have been brought against Senator Anderson over
the past several years, and he has had numerous opportunities to refute them, but he has never done
so. Therefore, I conclude the evidence indicates he is not to be trusted.
Ad ignorantiam: From the fact that there is no proof or evidence provided, no conclusion can be drawn. This is not to say,
however, that there is no reason for suspicion of the Senator's conduct.
34. The present U.S. administration has not yet developed a consistent energy policy. Nonetheless,
almost every other developed nation in the world has an energy policy, except us. Therefore, the
United States should seek to develop a consistent and unified future policy.
Ad populum: The popularity of a practice or a belief internationally is not, by itself, sufficient to establish its necessity for
the U.S. An adequate energy policy rationale for the U.S. could presumably provide such a reason.
35. The welfare program is totally unnecessary. Why, I know a guy who runs a very lucrative
illegal gambling operation and drives his new Cadillac down every week to collect his welfare
check.
Converse accident: One instance is insufficient to establish the truth of a generalization. One person taking advantage of a
welfare program is insufficient evidence to show that the welfare program is unnecessary.
36. The accident was his fault, Officer. You can tell by the kind of car I'm driving and by the kind
of clothes I'm wearing that I'm a good citizen and would not lie. Look at the rattletrap he is driving,
and look at how he is dressed. You can't believe anything that a dirty, long-haired hippie like that
might tell you. Search his car; he probably has drugs in it.
Ad hominem: The attack on a person's character is not relevant to the question of which party might be the cause of the
accident. The cause of the accident is determined by grounds other than a person's appearance.
37. General Jed M. Lamgetter believes that it is absolutely essential to our future security that we
immediately upgrade our computing systems to the Red Hat Linux distribution from our current
Microsoft boxes. But his arguments are hardly deserving of careful consideration, for in a couple of
weeks General Lamgetter will retire from the Army, become CEO, and be given large stock options
in the Red Hat Corporation, one of the main providers of business enterprise open-source products.
Ad hominem: General Lamgetter's circumstances in this instance not are not logically relevant to the truth or falsity of his
assertions. His are suspicious circumstances, but the decision for upgrading the computing systems should be based on
factors such as the quality, support, training, and reliability of a computing system.
38. The real reason you favor armed services conscription is that you're too old to be drafted.
Ad hominem: The personal attack, even if true, is not relevant to the rationale for selective service system conscription.
The arguments for Congressional authorization of the draft should be based on other factors.
39. Why don't you answer me? I've already asked you twice. I know — you're either covering
something up or you're afraid to reply.
Ad ignorantiam: No conclusion can be drawn from the lack of information. There are many possible reasons for not
responding.
40. Stanford University produces the best graduates in the United States. Therefore, any Ph.D. from
Stanford is better than any other Ph.D. in the country.
Fallacy of Division: The quality of the whole does not necessarily extend to the individual elements.
41. Water extinguishes fire. Oxygen is part of water. Therefore, oxygen will extinguish fire.
Fallacy of Division: The parts of a compound do not necessarily have the same qualities of the compound itself.
42. Priests take a vow of poverty. The Church is a corporate body composed of priests. Therefore,
the Church should not own property.
Fallacy of Composition: The parts of something do not necessarily have the same characteristics as the whole of that
something.
43. Since the average life-span of an individual in developing countries is thirty years, the leaders
in those countries grow old before they have time to learn the rudiments of good government.
Fallacy of Division: The average life-span does not apply distributively to the individuals cited in a particular country.
High infant mortality in many developing countries skews the normal distribution of life-span. Once an individual lives
beyond the early years in developing countries, the average life-span is much longer than the overall average life-span for
that country.
44. As the convener of the ninth annual Women's Freedom Movement, let me remind you once
again that women have been discriminated against for centuries, and they have suffered as second-
rate people for centuries. I, for one, have had enough, and I refuse to submit to this discrimination
and second-rate treatment any longer.
Fallacy of Division: The speaker cannot have lived for centuries and cannot have suffered for centuries. The quality of
“suffering for centuries” can apply to the group as a whole, but does not apply to any particular individual.
45. I ought always to do what is right. I have a right to say what I think. Therefore, I ought always
to say what I think.
Fallacy of Equivocation: The word “right” is being used in two different senses. The first sentence uses the word “right”
to mean “morally good” or “morally acceptable.” The second sentence uses the word to mean “legally entitled.”
46. As a result of a poll of 28 adults interviewed on Main Street on last Friday night, we can safely
conclude that most people in this town prefer going downtown to watching Netflix on Friday
nights.
Converse accident: The samples collected are atypical of the population as a whole since the data were collected
exclusively at only one of the two situations mentioned in the poll.
47. According to the law, a man is innocent until proved guilty. So Mr. Ratskeller must be legally
innocent of the charge of bribery, since he has not yet been proved guilty. Therefore, your Honor,
since Mr. Ratskeller is innocent, I don't see what this trial is all about.
Fallacy of Equivocation: Two different senses of the word “innocent” are being used in the argument: legal and actual
innocence.
48. Although you have said you will give me no more of your time, I'll not ask for any more of
your time; I'm only asking for the same amount you've already given and no more.
Fallacy of Amphiboly: The loose combination of words leads to two different interpretations for the phrase “more of your
time”: “no more time whatsoever” and “no more additional time than that given before.”
49. In response to your inquiry as to my opinion of the candidate, I can tell you as his two-year
supervisor that most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever.”
Fallacy of Amphiboly: The loose and awkward construction of the sentence leaves open the question as to whether or not
the candidate is qualified. Does the candidate have no qualifications whatsoever or does my recommendation have no
qualifications whatsoever?
50. A poor grade on this test is better than nothing, and nothing is better that a high grade. So I
logically conclude a poor grade on this test is better than a high grade.
Fallacy of Equivocation--Two different senses of “nothing” are being used in the argument. The first use is “no grade at
all” and the second use is “no grade exists higher than a high grade.”

Directions: Identify the fallacies of relevance in each of the following passages. Choose from the fallacies of complex question, false
cause, petitio principii, accident and converse accident.

1. Studying too much for a test can often be confusing, for the reason that when you study too
much, most of the important points no longer are clear.

_____________________________
Petitio principii: The conclusion is a restatement of the premiss.

2. Whenever I wear green socks my logic grade goes up. That is why I save my green socks to wear
only on the days of the test.

_____________________________
Non Causa Pro Causa: This false cause results from no proposed causal mechanism.

3. How can we balance the budget, help our farmers, improve infrastructure, rebuild our military,
and return to full employment? Only one way is clear: vote Republican.

______________________________
Complex Question: The argument presupposes that these conflicting economic factors can be solved at the same time.

4. Nixon cheated on his income tax, Agnew cheated on his income tax, and, I've heard, so did
Bush. I conclude that all politicians cheat on their income tax.

______________________________
Converse Accident: The generalization is based on too few representative instances.

5. Children and mentally ill persons cannot vote. This state of affairs proves that in America not all
are free and few have the inalienable right of liberty.

______________________________
Converse Accident: From non-typical cases, the author is over-generalizing.

Here are some examples of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy:

1. "You can't criticize my driving skills for being reckless; you were speeding just last week!"
o This dismisses the criticism of the driving skills by pointing out that the critic has done
something similar.
2. "How can you tell me to save money when you’re always buying expensive gadgets?"
o This deflects the advice on saving money by attacking the advisor's own financial habits.
3. "You say smoking is bad for health, but you used to smoke yourself!"
 oThis counters an argument about the harms of smoking by pointing out that the person making
the argument used to smoke.
4. "Why should I listen to your advice on time management when you’re always late yourself?"
o This dismisses the advice on time management by highlighting the advisor’s own issues with
punctuality.
5. "You criticize my eating habits, but you’re always eating junk food."
o This responds to criticism about eating habits by focusing on the critic’s own food choices.

These examples all involve deflecting criticism or arguments by pointing out that the person making the
criticism has acted in a similar way.

Here are a few examples of the Appeal to Authority fallacy:

1. "Dr. Smith, a well-known physicist, says that this new diet will improve your health, so it must be
effective."
o This argument relies on Dr. Smith’s authority in a field unrelated to nutrition to validate the
diet’s effectiveness.
2. "According to the CEO of a major tech company, this new phone is the best on the market.
Therefore, it must be true."
o This relies on the CEO’s position in the tech industry to validate the phone’s quality, even
though their expertise might not be in consumer reviews or technology specifics.
3. "My favorite actor endorses this brand of skincare, so it must be the best choice for clear skin."
o This argument uses the actor's endorsement as evidence of the skincare product’s effectiveness,
despite the actor not being an expert in skincare.

Here are a few examples of the Appeal to Belief fallacy:

1. "Most people believe that this ancient practice is beneficial for health, so it must be effective."
o This argument relies on the widespread belief in the practice as evidence of its effectiveness,
rather than providing scientific or empirical support.
2. "Everyone in my family thinks this new financial strategy is the best way to invest, so it must be
the right choice."
o This uses the family’s belief in the strategy as evidence of its validity, rather than examining the
strategy's merits through objective analysis.
3. "Many people believe that this historical event happened the way it’s described in the popular
book, so it must be accurate."
o This relies on the belief held by many people about the event’s accuracy as evidence, instead of
verifying the event through reliable historical sources.

Here are a few examples of the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy:

1. "It's normal for companies to use customer data for targeted advertising, so it's acceptable to do
it."
o This argument suggests that because it's a common practice in the industry, it is justified or
acceptable, without considering ethical implications.
2. "Everyone in my office takes long lunch breaks, so it's okay for me to do the same."
o This uses the fact that long lunch breaks are a common practice among colleagues as justification
for doing it, rather than considering company policies or personal productivity.
3. "Since many people use social media to share their personal information, it’s not a big deal if I do
it too."
o This argues that sharing personal information on social media is acceptable because it is a
common practice, without addressing potential privacy concerns or individual choice.

Here are a few examples of the Appeal to Consequences of a Belief fallacy:

1. "If we accept that climate change is real, it would mean we have to make significant changes to
our lifestyles and economies. It’s better to just believe it’s not a major issue."
o This argument dismisses the reality of climate change based on the negative consequences of
accepting it, rather than addressing the evidence for climate change.
2. "Believing that this new policy will solve the problem is important because if we doubt it, we
might face economic downturns. Therefore, the policy must be effective."
 o This argument suggests that the policy must be effective based on the undesirable consequences
of questioning it, rather than examining the policy’s actual effectiveness.
3. "If we acknowledge that this drug has serious side effects, it would mean we have to find
alternatives, which could be difficult. It’s easier to believe it’s safe."
o This dismisses concerns about the drug’s side effects by focusing on the difficulties of finding
alternatives, rather than evaluating the drug’s safety based on evidence.

Here are a few examples of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy:

1. "You should support this charity because if you don’t, think of all the sad children who will
suffer."
o This argument appeals to the emotion of pity or guilt to persuade someone to support the charity,
rather than presenting factual reasons for the support.
2. "Vote for this candidate, or our country will fall into chaos and disaster. Just think of the fear and
insecurity we’ll face!"
o This uses fear to persuade people to vote for the candidate, rather than providing reasons related
to the candidate’s policies or qualifications.
3. "You must agree that this is the best product because it’s made with love and care, and buying it
will make you feel good inside."
o This appeals to emotions like sentimentality or the desire for a positive feeling, rather than
focusing on the product’s actual features or benefits.

Here are some examples of the Appeal to Pity fallacy:

1. "You should give me an extension on this assignment because I’ve been going through a tough
time with family issues."
o This appeals to the listener’s sympathy rather than addressing the actual merits of granting an
extension.
2. "Please don’t fire me; I have a family to support and I’m the sole breadwinner."
o This argument uses the emotional appeal of personal hardship to avoid the consequences of
firing, rather than addressing performance or job-related issues.
3. "I deserve a better grade on this test because I’ve been dealing with a lot of personal problems and
I’ve been under a lot of stress."
o This seeks to elicit sympathy to influence grading decisions, rather than focusing on the quality
of the work or adherence to academic standards.

Here are some examples of the Bandwagon Fallacy (also known as Appeal to Popularity):

1. "Everyone at school is using this new app, so it must be the best one out there."
o This argument suggests that the app’s popularity is evidence of its quality, rather than examining
its features or performance.
2. "You should buy this brand of sneakers because everyone is wearing them."
o This appeals to the idea that the sneakers are desirable simply because they are popular, without
considering their actual qualities or value.
3. "The majority of people support this new policy, so it must be the right choice."
o This argument relies on the popularity of the policy to validate its correctness or effectiveness,
rather than analyzing the policy's merits or potential impacts.

Here are a few examples of the Begging the Question fallacy:

1. "Reading is good for you because it’s beneficial to your health."

o This argument assumes that reading is beneficial without providing evidence, simply restating
the premise in a different way.
2. "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God."
o This argument assumes the truth of the Bible and God’s existence without providing external
evidence, using the premise to support itself.
3. "The new policy is effective because it works well."
o This argument assumes the effectiveness of the policy without providing specific evidence or
details, simply restating the claim in a different form.

Here are some examples of the Biased Sample fallacy:

 1. "The new diet plan is the best because everyone I know who tried it lost weight."
o This argument uses a non-representative sample (people the speaker knows) to generalize about
the effectiveness of the diet plan.
2. "Our customer feedback survey shows that everyone loves our product, so it must be the best on
the market."
o This assumes that the feedback from a specific group of customers (who may be biased or self-
selected) represents the opinion of all potential customers.
3. "I read an article where a few college students said that the new study method is the most
effective, so it must be the best approach for everyone."

• "I interviewed ten people from my neighborhood about their favorite pizza toppings, and most of them
prefer pepperoni. Therefore, pepperoni must be the most popular topping in the city."

• This sample is biased because it only includes people from one neighborhood, which may not represent
the broader city's preferences.

• "A survey of 100 high school students at a single school showed that they prefer online learning over
traditional classrooms. Therefore, online learning must be preferred by all high school students."

• The sample is biased because it’s limited to one school and doesn’t account for the diversity of student
experiences across different schools.

• "Most of the people I talked to in the gym think that weightlifting is the best way to stay fit. So,
weightlifting must be the best fitness method for everyone."

• This sample is biased as it only includes individuals who are already inclined toward weightlifting,
rather than a diverse group with varied fitness preferences.

Here are some examples of the Burden of Proof fallacy:

1. "You can’t prove that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real."
o This shifts the burden of proof onto the other party to disprove the existence of ghosts, rather
than the person making the claim providing evidence for their existence.
2. "If you can’t show that this new dietary supplement is harmful, then it must be safe to use."
o This argument improperly places the burden on others to prove the supplement’s harm, instead
of the person making the claim providing evidence of its safety.
3. "You can’t prove that this conspiracy theory isn’t true, so it must be correct."
o Here, the burden of proof is unfairly shifted to those who would disprove the theory, rather than
the proponent of the theory providing proof of its validity.

Here are some examples of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy:

1. "You can't trust his argument about reducing taxes; he's a politician who would benefit from
lower taxes."
o This attacks the person’s circumstances (being a politician) to undermine their argument, rather
than addressing the argument’s content.
2. "She’s arguing for better working conditions, but she’s a union member, so her opinion is
biased."
o This dismisses her argument based on her affiliation with a union, rather than engaging with the
actual points she is making.
3. "Why should we listen to his opinion on environmental policies? He works for a big oil company."
o This focuses on the person's employment with an oil company to discredit their views on
environmental policies, rather than addressing the merits of their argument.

Here are some examples of the Composition fallacy:

1. "Each player on the basketball team is an excellent athlete, so the team must be the best in the
league."
o This assumes that because each individual is excellent, the whole team must be the best, without
considering how the team performs as a unit.
2. "This car model has great safety features, so the entire brand must be the safest option."
 o This argues that because one model has great features, the entire brand must be the best in terms
of safety, without evaluating the other models in the brand.
3. "The ingredients in this recipe are all healthy, so the final dish must be healthy."
o This assumes that because each ingredient is healthy, the combined dish will be healthy, without
considering how the ingredients interact or are used in the dish.

Here are some examples of the Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy:

1. "Since crime rates went down after the new curfew law was implemented, the law must be
responsible for the decrease in crime."
o This assumes that the curfew law caused the drop in crime rates, without considering other
potential factors that could have contributed to the change.
2. "The increase in sales of ice cream coincides with the rise in temperatures each summer, so eating
ice cream must be causing the warm weather."
o This incorrectly assumes that the rise in ice cream sales causes warm weather, confusing
correlation with causation.
3. "Since people who exercise regularly tend to be healthier, exercising must be the direct cause of
good health."
o This may overlook other factors contributing to health, such as diet or genetics, and assumes that
exercise alone is the cause of health improvements.

Here are some examples of the Division fallacy:

1. "The team won the championship because each player is extremely talented. Therefore, each
player must be a championship-level player on their own."
o This assumes that because the team as a whole is successful, each individual player must also be
individually successful, without considering how the team works together.
2. "The university is highly respected and has a great reputation. Therefore, every individual
student at the university must be exceptionally talented."
o This assumes that because the institution as a whole is reputable, every student must be talented,
ignoring individual differences among students.
3. "This book was a bestseller and praised by critics, so every chapter in the book must be
excellent."
o This assumes that because the book as a whole is praised, every individual chapter must also be
of high quality, without evaluating each chapter separately.

Here are some examples of the False Dilemma fallacy:

1. "We either ban all cars to protect the environment or face irreversible damage. There’s no middle
ground."
o This presents only two extreme options (banning all cars or irreversible damage) without
considering other possible solutions or compromises.
2. "You’re either with us or against us."
o This simplifies a complex situation into just two opposing choices, ignoring the possibility of
neutral or nuanced positions.
3. "If you don’t support this new policy, you must be opposed to progress and innovation."
o This argument presents only two options (supporting the policy or being against progress) and
ignores other possible reasons someone might not support the policy.

Here are some examples of the Gambler's Fallacy:

1. "I’ve lost ten games in a row at roulette, so I’m due for a win soon."
o This assumes that past losses increase the likelihood of a future win, despite each game being
independent and having the same odds.
2. "Since the last three coin flips were heads, the next one is more likely to be tails."
o This mistakenly believes that a previous streak of heads affects the probability of future coin
flips, when each flip is independent.
3. "Because my last few bets have lost, my next bet is more likely to win."
o This assumes that past outcomes affect future results, ignoring that each bet is independent and
the odds remain the same.
Here are some examples of the Genetic Fallacy:

1. "We shouldn’t listen to her argument about climate change because she was educated at a biased
institution."
o This dismisses the argument based on the origin of the person’s education rather than addressing
the argument itself.
2. "This product can’t be good because it comes from a company known for unethical practices."
o This argues against the product’s quality based on the company’s history, rather than evaluating
the product’s actual features or performance.
3. "You shouldn’t believe his opinions on economic policy because he was a former employee of a
rival company."
o This attacks the person’s background rather than engaging with the substance of their opinions
on economic policy.

Here are some examples of the Guilt by Association fallacy:

1. "You can’t trust his arguments about healthy living because he hangs out with people who don’t
take health seriously."
o This dismisses his arguments based on his association with people who have different health
habits, rather than addressing the arguments themselves.
2. "Her views on environmental conservation are invalid because she’s part of a political party that
has been criticized for its environmental policies."
o This undermines her views based on her party affiliation rather than evaluating the merits of her
arguments on environmental conservation.
3. "This product must be bad because it’s endorsed by a celebrity who has been involved in several
controversies."
o This judges the product’s quality based on the celebrity’s reputation, rather than assessing the
product itself.

Here are some examples of the Hasty Generalization fallacy:

1. "I met two people from that city, and they were both rude. Therefore, everyone from that city
must be rude."
o This makes a broad conclusion about an entire city based on a very small sample size.
2. "My neighbor’s dog bit me, so all dogs must be dangerous."
o This generalizes the behavior of all dogs based on the actions of one.
3. "I tried a new restaurant and didn’t like the food, so all restaurants that serve that type of cuisine
must be bad."
o This assumes that all restaurants of a certain type have the same quality based on a single
experience.

Here are some examples of the Ignoring Common Cause fallacy:

1. "Every time I wear my lucky shirt, my favorite team wins. Therefore, my shirt must be the reason
they win."
o This ignores the common cause of the team's performance, such as their skill or strategy, and
attributes the outcome to the shirt instead.
2. "Crime rates went up after the new shopping mall was built, so the mall must be causing the
increase in crime."
o This ignores other common causes that could explain the rise in crime, such as broader social or
economic factors.
3. "My friend always gets a headache when she eats chocolate, so the chocolate must be causing her
headaches."
o This ignores the possibility that other factors, like stress or lack of sleep, could be the common
cause of her headaches.

Here are some examples of the Middle Ground fallacy:

1. "Person A says we should completely ban all cars to reduce pollution. Person B says we should
have no restrictions at all. Therefore, we should have some moderate restrictions on car usage."
o This assumes that the middle position (moderate restrictions) is correct simply because it’s a
compromise, without evaluating the actual merits of either extreme position.
 2. "One scientist claims that climate change is entirely caused by human activity, while another
claims it’s entirely natural. Therefore, we should conclude that it’s caused by a mix of both."
o This assumes that the middle ground (a mix of human and natural causes) is the correct answer,
without considering the evidence supporting each extreme position.
3. "My friend says we should go to the beach for vacation, and another friend says we should go to
the mountains. Let’s compromise and go to a lake."
o This suggests that the compromise (a lake) is the best choice, without assessing whether the lake
is the most suitable option based on the actual preferences or needs.

Here are some examples of the Misleading Vividness fallacy:

1. "You should be terrified of flying because there was a recent news story about a plane crash that
was very dramatic and detailed."
o This focuses on the vivid, dramatic details of the crash to induce fear, while ignoring the overall
safety statistics of air travel.
2. "Everyone should avoid eating at fast food restaurants because I once saw a very unsettling
documentary about how they prepare their food."
o This relies on the vivid, disturbing images from the documentary to generalize about fast food,
without considering the overall quality or safety of the food.
3. "You should avoid investing in stocks because of the vivid stories of people losing their life savings
in the stock market crash."
o This emphasizes the dramatic stories of financial loss to dissuade investing, while downplaying
the potential benefits or the possibility of successful investments.

Here are some examples of the Questionable Cause fallacy:

1. "Since I started using this new skincare product, I’ve had fewer headaches. Therefore, the
skincare product must be preventing my headaches."
o This assumes a causal relationship between using the skincare product and having fewer
headaches without providing evidence that the product actually affects headache frequency.
2. "Every time I wear my red shirt, it rains. Therefore, wearing the red shirt causes rain."
o This implies a causal connection between wearing the red shirt and the weather, without
considering other factors influencing rainfall.
3. "The number of people who use social media has increased, and so has the number of people who
report feeling lonely. Therefore, social media must be causing loneliness."
o This suggests a causal relationship between social media use and loneliness without accounting
for other potential factors that could contribute to loneliness.

Here are some examples of the Personal Attack fallacy (often referred to as Ad Hominem):

1. "You can’t trust her argument on healthcare reform; she doesn’t even have a medical degree."
o This attacks the person’s credentials rather than addressing the argument or evidence presented.
2. "His proposal for the new project is worthless because he’s been known to make mistakes in his
past work."
o This dismisses the proposal based on the individual’s past errors instead of evaluating the merits
of the current proposal.
3. "Why should we listen to his views on education? He dropped out of college."
o This undermines the person's opinions based on their educational background, rather than
addressing the content of their views on education.

Here are some examples of the Poisoning the Well fallacy:

1. "Before you listen to his arguments about climate change, you should know that he’s funded by a
major oil company."
o This undermines the person's credibility before they have a chance to present their argument,
based on their funding source rather than the content of their argument.
2. "Don’t believe her opinions on political reform; she’s always been known to support controversial
policies."
o This attacks her reputation before addressing her actual opinions or arguments on political
reform.
3. "You should disregard his comments on the new economic policy because he’s known to have
strong biases against government intervention."
 o This preemptively discredits his comments based on his perceived biases, rather than engaging
with the substance of his comments.

Here are some examples of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (often shortened to Post Hoc), which is
Latin for "after this, therefore because of this":

1. "I wore my lucky socks to the game, and we won. Therefore, my socks must have caused the
victory."
o This assumes that the victory was caused by wearing the socks simply because the win followed
their use.
2. "Since the new mayor took office, crime rates have dropped. Therefore, the new mayor’s policies
must be responsible for the decrease in crime."
o This assumes a causal relationship between the mayor taking office and the decrease in crime,
without considering other potential factors.
3. "After the company switched to a new software system, sales increased. The new software must be
the reason for the increase in sales."
o This presumes that the software change caused the sales increase, without considering other
factors that could have contributed to the rise in sales.

Here are some examples of the Red Herring fallacy:

1. "We shouldn't worry about the environmental impact of this new development. After all, there
are so many other important issues like unemployment that we need to address first."
o This diverts attention from the environmental concerns to a different issue (unemployment),
avoiding the original topic.
2. "Instead of discussing whether this policy is effective, let’s talk about how many people support
it."
o This shifts the focus from the effectiveness of the policy to its popularity, which does not address
the core issue.
3. "Why should we consider changing the school’s curriculum? There are so many students who
enjoy the current system."
o This distracts from the discussion about whether the curriculum needs improvement by focusing
on the satisfaction of some students.

Here are some examples of the Relativist's Fallacy (also known as Relativism):

1. "Different cultures have different beliefs about what is right and wrong, so there is no absolute
standard of morality."
o This argues that because moral beliefs vary between cultures, no objective moral standards exist,
rather than examining the validity of different moral standards.
2. "Your opinion on the effectiveness of this educational method is just as valid as mine because we
have different viewpoints."
o This suggests that differing opinions on effectiveness are equally valid without considering
evidence or criteria for assessing the educational method’s effectiveness.
3. "In some societies, it is acceptable to eat insects, while in others it is not. Therefore, there is no
objective standard for what is considered acceptable food."
o This uses cultural differences in food practices to argue against the existence of any objective
standards for food acceptability, rather than evaluating the standards within each culture.

Here are some examples of the Slippery Slope fallacy:

1. "If we allow students to redo their assignments for a higher grade, next they’ll want to retake
entire courses just to improve their GPA."
o This argues that allowing one change (redoing assignments) will inevitably lead to more extreme
outcomes (retaking courses), without showing that such a progression is likely or justified.
2. "If we legalize marijuana, soon people will be demanding that all drugs be legalized, leading to
widespread drug abuse and societal collapse."
o This suggests that legalizing one drug will lead to the extreme consequence of drug abuse and
societal collapse, without demonstrating that this outcome is inevitable.
3. "If we let people vote on this local issue, next they’ll want to vote on every small decision, which
will lead to chaos and an inability to make any decisions efficiently."
 o This presumes that allowing voting on one issue will lead to an unmanageable situation with
endless voting, without providing evidence that this outcome is likely.

Here are some examples of the Spotlight fallacy:

1. "All news reports focus on violent crimes committed by immigrants, so immigrants must be more
likely to commit violent crimes."
o This assumes that because the media highlights certain types of crimes involving immigrants,
such crimes are more common among that group, ignoring the broader context and overall crime
statistics.
2. "Since celebrities are always in the news for their outrageous behavior, it must be typical for all
famous people to behave poorly."
o This generalizes about all famous people based on the often sensational and highlighted
behaviors of a few celebrities in the media.
3. "Because reports of corporate scandals are frequently covered in the news, all businesses must be
corrupt."
o This assumes that the frequent media coverage of scandals means corruption is widespread
among all businesses, overlooking the many ethical and well-managed companies.

Here are some examples of the Strawman fallacy:

1. "Person A argues that we should have stricter regulations on industrial pollution to protect the
environment. Person B responds by saying that Person A wants to shut down all factories, which
would hurt the economy."
o Person B misrepresents Person A’s argument (stricter regulations) as a more extreme position
(shutting down all factories) to make it easier to attack.
2. "Person A suggests that we should have more comprehensive sex education in schools. Person B
argues that Person A wants to force all students to learn explicit content, which is inappropriate
for children."
o Person B distorts Person A’s proposal for comprehensive education into an extreme version to
refute it more easily.
3. "Person A supports increasing the minimum wage to help low-income workers. Person B responds
by saying that Person A wants to give everyone a huge raise without considering the economic
impact."
o Person B exaggerates Person A’s position (a large raise) to make it seem unreasonable and easier
to criticize.

Here are some examples of the Special Pleading fallacy:

1. "My religious beliefs are true because they are based on faith, even though there’s no evidence to
support them. Other beliefs must be backed by evidence, but mine are exempt because they are
special."
o This applies a different standard of evidence to one’s own beliefs while holding others to a
stricter standard.
2. "We should allow this one person to break the rules because they have a special situation that
makes them different from everyone else."
o This argument exempts a specific individual from following rules based on their unique
circumstances, without justifying why those circumstances warrant special treatment.
3. "The new software is effective for everyone except in cases where it’s not working. In those cases,
it’s still effective because it’s just not being used properly."
o This argues that the software is effective in general but makes an exception for cases where it
fails, without addressing why the software might fail.

Here are some examples of the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy:

1. "Yes, I know I cheated on the exam, but other students are also cheating, so it’s not a big deal."
o This justifies one's own wrongdoing (cheating) by pointing out that others are committing the
same wrongdoing, instead of addressing the cheating itself.
2. "Sure, I broke the law by speeding, but the police are often rude to drivers, so it’s okay for me to
speed."
o This excuses the illegal action (speeding) by citing another wrong (rude behavior of police),
rather than addressing the legality of speeding.
3. "You criticize me for not recycling, but you don’t always recycle either. Therefore, my not
recycling is acceptable."
o This deflects criticism by pointing out the other person’s similar fault (not recycling), instead of
acknowledging the need to recycle.