Skip to main content
Humanities LibreTexts

3.2: Fallacies

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    257566

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    Fallacies

    Section Learning Objectives

    1. Identify and describe various types of logical fallacies, including ad hominem, straw man, and false dilemma, and understand how they undermine the validity of arguments.
    2. Analyze and evaluate real-life examples of arguments to distinguish between valid reasoning and fallacious logic in written and spoken discourse.
    3. Apply critical thinking skills to construct and defend arguments effectively, avoiding common fallacies, in academic writing and everyday communication.

    Person walking on a road with several different paths to take abstract decorative image of people thinking

    In our fast-paced world, it's natural to want to complete tasks quickly and efficiently. This desire for speed and success often extends to our arguments and discussions, where the aim is to win over our audience or opponent. However, this combination of speed and the desire to win can lead to the use of fallacies—errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument.

    Fallacies, simply put, are instances of inaccurate logic. They can be used either consciously or unconsciously to manipulate the listener or reader in order to win an argument or persuade them of a particular viewpoint. As aspiring arguers, it's crucial to avoid committing fallacies because if the opposition detects one, it can lead to losing the argument. More importantly, as critical thinkers, understanding and identifying fallacies helps us avoid being manipulated by others.

    Perhaps you have heard these arguments before:

    Mom, she hit me first!

    If you loved me, you’d buy me that candy.

    You need to work in the fields because our whole family has worked in the fields.

    The only thing these kids do is spend time on their phones.

    How often do you cheat on assignments?

    These are just a few of the kinds of fallacies that exist. In fact, there are over 100 kinds. Some fallacies have multiple names, some in both English and Latin. Some arguments are so flawed that the argument contains more than one kind of fallacy! Imagine someone says to you, “9 out of 10 dentists agree that you should use CavityPaste”. This argument, although it is just one sentence, is using multiple kinds of fallacies (appeal to false statistics, appeal to authority, and Bandwagon).

    Here are several examples of fallacies.

    Example of Fallacies in Action: Water in the Central Valley CA \(\PageIndex{1}\)

    Examples of Logical Fallacies

    Ad Hominem (Personal Attack): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

    In a debate about water rights, Jessica criticizes the character of her opponent, Juan, by saying, "Juan is just a city boy who doesn't understand our rural way of life. Why should we listen to him?" Here, Jessica attacks Juan's background rather than addressing his argument about water rights.

    Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

    Laura argues that farmers need more water allocation for their crops. Javier responds by saying, "Laura just wants to waste water and doesn't care about the environment at all." Javier misrepresents Laura's position, making it easier to attack, even though Laura never suggested wasting water.

    Appeal to Authority: Assuming that because an authority figure believes something, it must therefore be true.

    James asserts, "Our local mayor said that using this pesticide is completely safe for our crops, so it must be true." James assumes that the mayor's authority makes the statement true, without considering other expert opinions or scientific evidence.

    Slippery Slope: Arguing that a relatively minor first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

    Thuy argues, "If we allow this urban development project, soon all our farmland will be turned into housing complexes, and our agricultural community will disappear." Thuy assumes that a single decision will lead to a drastic and inevitable chain of events without providing evidence for such a progression.

    False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy): Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

    Malcolm tells his classmates, "We either support the new agricultural technology or watch our farms fail. There is no other option." Malcolm presents only two extreme choices, ignoring other possible solutions or compromises.

    Circular Reasoning (or Begging the Question): Assuming in the premise what the argument seeks to prove in the conclusion.

    Elena states, "We need to save water because wasting water is harmful." Her premise that wasting water is harmful assumes the conclusion, offering no new evidence.

    Bandwagon: Claiming something is right because everyone else is doing it.

    Looking at his monthly water bill, Raman thinks to himself, "Look at how low our water consumption is compared to everyone else! We should be using more." He sees that other people are using more water and concludes he should, too.

    Appeal to Fear: Using fear to manipulate.

    Levy says, "If we don't start conserving water immediately, our entire community will run dry, and we'll have to leave our homes." Levy uses fear to manipulate his audience into supporting water conservation without providing solid evidence for such extreme outcomes.

    Appeal to Pity: Using pity to manipulate.

    Jane argues, "We should increase subsidies for small farms because many farmers are struggling and barely able to feed their families." Jane appeals to the audience's emotions rather than providing logical reasons for the subsidies.

    Poisoning the Well: Creating distrust in a person or group, so that whatever they do or say, they will be distrusted.

    Before Pedro speaks about water conservation, Rosa says, "Pedro works for a company that benefits from water shortages, so you can't trust anything he says." Rosa attempts to create distrust in Pedro, regardless of the validity of his arguments.

    Red Herring: Distracting from the original argument with a different argument.

    In a discussion about pesticide use, Quan says, "But what about the urban areas using far more harmful chemicals?" Quan distracts from the original argument about pesticide use on farms by bringing up a different issue.

    Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Distracting from one wrong by claiming a similar wrong went unnoticed or unpunished.

    When confronted about overusing water resources, Buddy responds, "Well, the city is wasting even more water than we are, so why should we change?" Buddy justifies his actions by pointing to someone else's wrongdoing.

    Hasty Generalization: Coming to a conclusion with insufficient evidence. Uses words like: All, always, everyone, never, etc.

    After visiting one struggling farm, Emily concludes, "All farms in the Central Valley are failing." Emily makes a broad generalization based on limited evidence.

    Either/Or: False dilemmas don’t leave room for alternatives.

    Alex argues, "We either invest in advanced irrigation systems or let our farms fail." Alex presents a false dilemma, ignoring other potential solutions such as water conservation techniques or alternative crops.

    False Statistic: Citing faulty, misleading, or invented statistics

    During a town meeting, Narek claims, "90% of all farm workers are unemployed due to water restrictions," without providing credible sources or context for the statistic. Narek uses misleading statistics to support his argument.

    False Cause: Claiming a casual connection between events without sufficient evidence to support the claim

    Carmen asserts, "Ever since we started using this new fertilizer, the weather has been worse. The fertilizer must be causing climate change." Carmen falsely links two events without sufficient evidence to support the causal connection.

    Loaded Question: Any way you answer it, you admit guilt.

    In a community meeting, Eva asks, "When did you stop ignoring the water needs of small farmers?" Any answer implies that the person previously ignored these needs, assuming guilt.

    Past Practice: Continuing to do things because this is how they have always been done.

    When discussing modern farming techniques, Ray says, "We've always used these methods, so why change now?" Ray relies on tradition rather than considering whether current practices are effective or efficient.

    Weak Analogy: Comparing two things with some similarities but too many major differences to be ignored.

    Anahit argues, "Using this new irrigation system is like using a straw to drink from a lake. It's inefficient and impractical." Anahit's analogy compares two things with superficial similarities but significant differences, weakening her argument.

    Most of these examples are fallacies of informal logic. Informal logic is what we're used to hearing most often, where specific evidence is offered and a conclusion is drawn. So an argument with informal fallacies is faulty primarily due to its content, because of what it says. Its evidence does not support its conclusion. Some fallacies, like our loaded question example, state a conclusion but only imply evidence. As written, our loaded question example offers no evidence at all. Others, like appealing to fear, past practice, and poisoning the well, draw conclusions that go beyond what the evidence can support. Does someone's job mean they must hold a specific belief? If that were true, how would you explain whistleblowers? Still others, like false statistics and false causes, rely on evidence that is so bad, it shouldn't be thought of as evidence at all.

    Others are fallacies of formal logic. When you want to make a strong argument, it matters how you put the parts of the argument together. This arrangement is the argument's form. Formal logic is comprised of sets of rules that determine whether an argument is valid. It focuses on the relationships between statements, and what we can learn from those. Formal fallacies are when the parts of the argument are put together are wrong, when they don't have the right relationships. In our list, circular reasoning is the clearest example. Let X stand for any statement. A circular argument says, assuming X is true, we conclude X is true. The error is that the conclusion is the same as the assumption or premise. We'll talk more about argument forms when we discuss inductive and deductive reasoning.

    Fallacies and Critical Thinking in Argumentative Reading and Writing

    Reviewing fallacies and their impact on arguments equips you with the tools to identify and avoid errors in reasoning. Flawed logic is often used—intentionally or unintentionally—to manipulate and persuade audiences. So recognizing these is a crucial skill for anyone aspiring to be a critical thinker and effective communicator, particularly in the context of argumentative reading and writing. Critical thinkers are more difficult to manipulate, while effective communicators can show audiences why both their position is more reliable and their opponents' is less.

    We have identified various types of fallacies, including ad hominem, straw man, and false dilemma. Understanding these fallacies helps to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments, which is fundamental as a good reader and a good writer. So when you read a comment that attacks the writer making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself, you know that the commenter has used an ad hominem fallacy and has not disproven the writer's points. When a politician misrepresents their opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, that politician has raised a straw man. A server who says you must choose between cake and death has presented a false dilemma. In all of these examples, the speaker has invalidated their own arguments by relying on faulty logic or misleading connections.

    Analyzing real-life examples of arguments allows us to see how these fallacies manifest in everyday discourse and academic settings. Some may say that the curated images on social media lead to eating disorders—an example of the false cause fallacy where one incorrectly assumes that viewed images directly cause disordered eating. A current event example is the debate around climate change policies, where fallacies like false dilemma (presenting only two extreme solutions) and appeal to fear (using fear to manipulate public opinion) are frequently used. Understanding these examples helps students critically evaluate the media they consume and the arguments they encounter in academic texts.

    By applying critical thinking skills, we can construct and defend arguments effectively, avoiding common fallacies. Especially with the rise of social media and AI, we must question the underlying evidence in media messages and engage in face-to-face conversations to critically analyze the information we consume. This knowledge not only enhances our ability to evaluate the strength of arguments but also strengthens our own reasoning skills, enabling us to engage more effectively in discussions and debates. By integrating these skills into your argumentative reading and writing, you will be better equipped to navigate complex issues, construct coherent arguments, and communicate your ideas persuasively in a college setting and beyond.

    decorative image two people thinking

    Now that we've reviewed written examples of fallacies, here are some media examples for you to explore:

    1. Video Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies

    4.43: Video- Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies

    Broken Logic

    Cartoon of man juggling 3 balls in video game

    A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208

    The Man Who Was Made of Straw

    • Video game characters on a chest board

    A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208

    Getting Personal

    A blue face smiling

    A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208

    The Gambler’s Fallacy

    a slot machine showing the player lost

    A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/braw/?p=208

    Rhetorical Fallacies

    Andrew Gurevich

    Mt Hood Community College via MHCC Library Press

    View the outside link: 15 Logical Fallacies You Should Avoid https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

    Attributions

    The content above was assisted by ChatGPT in outlining and organizing information. The final material was curated, edited, authored, and arranged through human creativity, originality, and subject expertise of the Coalinga College English Department and the Coalinga College Library Learning Resource Center and is therefore under the CC BY NC SA license when applicable. To see resources on AI and copyright please see the United States Copyright Office 2023 Statement and the following case study on using AI assistance but curating and creating with human originality and creativity.

    Images without specific attribution were generated with the assistance of ChatGPT 2024 and are not subject to any copyright restrictions, in accordance with the United States Copyright Office 2023 Statement.

    All original source content remix above came from the following open educational resources:

    Introductory Text: Critical Thinking and Logical Fallacies. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution

    CC licensed content, Shared previously

    3.2: Fallacies is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by LibreTexts.

    1. Back to top
    • Was this article helpful?

    Recommended articles

    1. Article type
      Section or Page
      License
      CC BY-NC-SA
      License Version
      4.0
    2. Tags
      This page has no tags.