allacies: alphabetic list (full list) 

Fallacies are statements that are logically false, but which often appear to be true. Here are most of the known fallacies, in
alphabetic order (see also the unique list of fallacies, which is shortened by removing the alternative names):
 Absurd Extrapolation: see Slippery Slope
Description
The slippery slope  is a series of statements that have a superficial connection with one another, and which lead into what is
often a rather far-fetched conclusion.
Use it when you are in relatively unsophisticated company where such obvious lack of logic will go unchallenged. In more
thoughtful company, you will need a more subtle approach.
Example
If we ban smoking, then people will start taking soft drugs and then move onto hard drugs, and the crime rate will
go up and up. We should therefore  prevent crime by allowing smoking.
Discussion
The slippery slope is particularly obvious in its lack of real reason, yet it appears surprisingly often. It is often used in
emotional situations where careful thought is replaced by an irrational need for illogical proof and justification.
This fallacy is often used by politicians. This is possibly because they tend to be risk-averse, and the slippery slope seems like a
good way of pointing out dangers ('It'll all end in tears!').
Classification
Assumptive, Causal
 Abusive Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
Description
Attack the person in some way. For example:
 Attack their expertise, questioning their qualifications or experience
 Criticize their physical appearance or dress
 Comment on their inability to make a good argument
 Point out their junior status
 Attack their values as being contrary to social norms
 Interpret a minor error as major
 Attach them to discredited others
Example
You are not qualified to make such a statement.
You would say that, wouldn't you.
And who do you think is going to believe  you.
Of course you will defend your own department.
You mean you have not considered Wikkin's work? That is a serious omission.
Discussion
Attacking the Person is a form of distraction, forcing them into defending themself and away  from their argument. Most
people, when personally attacked, respond with a fight-or-flight reaction and so either jump to their own defense or
cognitively flee (and in doing so, drop any argument they are making).
Attacking people in public frames you as an aggressive person who attacks those who oppose you. Other people there will
consequently be less likely to attack you or use strong arguments against you, for fear of being attacked by you, hence
strengthening your power position.
A sub-division: Abusive Ad Hominem is where the person is attacked and discredited. Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs
where an excuse is made for the person which negates their argument due to some special circumstances, such as the role
they have.
Classification
Attack, Distraction, Relevance
Also known as
Ad Hominem (against the person), Abusive Ad Hominem, Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
See also
Reductio ad Absurdum, Character assassination, Distraction principle, Fight-or-Flight reaction, Attack

 Accent: Emphasis that changes the meaning of the sentence.

Description
The accent (or emphasis) used within the statement in question gives a different meaning from that of the words alone.
The key principle is that emphasis put on a word or phrase directs attention to those words, signifying importance.
Emphasis in speech may be accidental or due to dialect, but often reflects the deeper meaning of what the person really
intends.
Example
I wonder if you really  want to do this.  (Accent implies 'you want to do this')
What do you think people  need  about Charmix?  (Accent says 'you need Charmix')
Discussion
The emphasis put on words in a sentence changes the meaning, often radically, which is one reason why the spoken word can
communicate so much more than the written word (although limited emphasis may be used here).
Emphasis draws attention to words, indicating priority, although this often happens at a subconscious level (which is one
reason it is often used in subtle sales and advertising pitches).
Because of the subconscious element, it is possible to understand what a person really means, and what they are actually
feeling, from the emphasis they use.
We also interpret the emphasis subconsciously, which is an opportunity for the persuader to turn simple words into a
powerful way of subtle communication.
Accent is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Ambiguity, Linguistic
Also known as
Emphasis
See also
Emphasis, Attention principle
 Accident: A general rule used to explain a specific case not covered by it.
Description
X is explained by rule Y. But X does not fall under Y.
A general rule is used to explain a specific case that does not fall under its rule.
Example
Rich people like to receive good service. You therefore must like good service.
You can't go there, Mr. President. Nobody is allowed in.
It is wrong to hurt people. You should not have hit that person who was attacking you.
Discussion
What often happens here is that the general rule being used is either assumed to have a wider scope (being more general)
than is reasonable, or that it is simply mismatched with the case that it is being used to cover.
Accident often appears to be using deductive reasoning and hence seems to carry reasonable logic.
We have a deep need to explain things that happen, which leads to many people accepting a general rule as explanation for a
specific case, even when that rule clearly does not apply. A convenient Accident may thus be used deliberately when there is
no general rule available.
Accident is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Ambiguity, Assumptive, Deductive
Also known as
Dicto Simpliciter (spoken simply), Destroying the Exception, Sweeping Generalization
See also
Need to explain, Deductive reasoning, Logic principle
 Ad Antiquitatem: see Appeal to Tradition
Description
X has always been done. Therefore X is right.
Claim something to be well-established and proven. Say that it is traditional, and that to change it would be sacrilegious or
very wrong in some way.
Example
My father and his father before him polished wood this way. Don't tell me how to polish wood.
We've been doing this for thirty years, and we've never had problems with it.
The tradition in this town is to buy from local traders.
Discussion
Tradition, once established, becomes a cultural thing, where people do it without thinking and defend it simply because it
now is a part of the woodwork. Familiarity breeds both ignorance of the true value of something and a reluctance to give up
the 'tried and true'.
Classification
Appeal
Also known as
Ad antiquitatem
See also
Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Common Practice
 Ad Baculum: see Appeal to Fear
Description
X is presented. It causes fear. Therefore Y (which has some relationship to X) is true.
Mostly, this is done by some form of threat, which may be to the person or may be to something about which they care. The
threat may be physical, emotional or spiritual.
Example
I know where you live, and I have friends who like a good fire...
Those who do not rejoice will burn in hell.
If Mike heard you saying that, he would not be very happy.
Discussion
Fear is a basic motivator that is used surprisingly often. The danger of using this is that it can also lead to other irrational
emotions that can rebound upon the persuader, such as dislike and hate. Fear also results in people running away, but not
always in the direction intended.
Fear appeals seldom gain more than compliance. Emotional and intellectual agreement will lag far behind and may never be
gained (in fact opposing ideas may be strengthened).
Classification
Appeal, Relevance, Threat
Also known as
Ad Baculum, Ad Metum, Appeal to Force, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
See also
Fear, Fight-or-Flight Reaction
 Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
 Ad Hominem Abusive: see Attack the person
  Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: See Personal Inconsistency
Description
Person A makes a claim. Person B asserts that person A's previous claims or actions are inconsistent with person A's claim.
Therefore person A's claim is false.
Thus the present is rubbished by dragging up the past.
Example
You say you are against the war, yet you voted for it.
He wants to re-join the club, yet he left it of his own free will last year.
Discussion
Just because what is said now does not align with the past, it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong (it could be that the
past was wrong, or that circumstances have changed). There are many times in the past that the person could have produced
contradictions to the single point being made -- we are not fully rational beings and do contradict ourselves on many
occasions.
Personal inconsistency sends mixed messages and will normally decrease trust. When a person claims that another person is
sending mixed messages, they are very close to calling a person a liar. If the accusation stands, then everyone who hears is
likely to reduce their trust in the accused person.
Personal inconsistency is quite different from logical inconsistency, which is about inconsistency within an the logic of an
argument.
Classification
Attack
Also known as
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque ('tu quoque' means 'you too'), You Too Fallacy
 
See also
Attack the person, Logical Inconsistency, Consistency principle
 Ad Ignorantium: see Argument from Ignorance
Description
Nothing is known about A. Yet a conclusion is drawn about A.
Facts may be given all around a particular subject, yet nothing specific is said about the subject. Based on this circumstantial
evidence, it is assumed that something may be known about A.
A variant occurs where a lack of evidence is assumed to be proof, for example when a murder suspect does not have an alibi.
Example
You live on Sunny Street. You have a gun. Nobody else on Sunny Street has a gun. There was a murder on Sunny
Street last night. You were involved.
You live on Sunny Street. You have a gun. The person was knifed. You were not involved.
Discussion
Circumstantial evidence is well known in the courtroom as being very weak evidence, if evidence at all. Yet in daily life it is
used with impunity. Yet the notion of a person being innocent until proven guilty also makes conclusions without proof.
Similarly, scientists largely assume something does not exist until it is proven (see Positivism).
A significant question with this is where the burden of proof lies. Is it with the prosecutor or the defendant? Usually it is with
the person making a claim that something exists or has happened.
Classification
Assertive, Appeal, Relevance
Also known as
Appeal to Ignorance, Burden of Proof, From Ignorance, Ad Ignorantium
See also
Assertiveness
 
 Ad Metum: see Appeal to Fear
 Ad Misericordiam: see Appeal to Pity
Description
Please feel so sorry for me or my cause that you agree with me.
Gain agreement by sympathy or empathy. Show how you have a deserving cause. Get the other person to put themselves in
your shoes and see your sorry plight. Use pictures, testimonies, and other evidence, all turned to your purpose.
Example
I have hurt my leg. Can you drive, please?
Just look at these pictures of the children. Can you donate something to help them?
I haven't completed my work as my dog just died.
Discussion
Appeal to Pity often uses values as emotional levers to gain compliance. This can be particularly powerful, as it is a strong
social force. It is about 'being good' and can easily lead to further commitment.
Classification
Appeal, Relevance
Also known as
Ad Misericordiam, Appeal to Sympathy
See also
Emotions, Values
 Ad Nauseum: see Repetition
Description
The more X is repeated, the more true it becomes.
Repeating something, over and over and over (yes, I know, I know), makes it right, true and more certain.
Example
That is bad, bad, bad. Oh, that's so bad.
Dad, I'm thirsty. I want a drink. I really need a drink. Can I have a drink, please.
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times...
Listen, everyone, I want to tell you how I have been enlightened!
Discussion
When I am uncertain about something myself, I will seek ratification of my decision through confirmation by other people.
This is one reason why people smitten by an ideology will preach it to others -- not so much as wanting to see them saved, but
to prove by the conversion of other people the validity of their own conversion.
Repeating the same thing makes it more available to other people, which they then may confuse with statistics to assume
that this makes it more probable. It also makes the speaker more confident. If I say something repeatedly, it must be because
it is true.
Nagging is also a way of wearing people down. Eventually they will agree with you just to get you off their backs. There is also
danger in this, as it can drive people away or result in them snapping back at you. They may reduce their commitment as they
feel you are trying to control them.
However, it still remains that repeating something does not make it true.
Classification
Distraction, Statistical
Also known as
Ad Nauseum, Nagging
See also
Confirmation Bias, Repetition principle, Using repetition
 Ad Novitam: see Appeal to Novelty
Description
X is new. Therefore it is better than that which it seeks to replace.
Newer is better. X is always better in all ways than X-1.
Example
This new YPod is much better than the old XPod.
This year's model has twenty new features.
Discussion
This is an assumption of the modern (or maybe not so modern) notion of progress, that just because something is new it is
good and superior and can replace what has gone before.
Novelty is one of the forces of fashion (although social approval is the real founding force).
We live in an age of hope, where we believe that technology and progress will save us from the problems we are creating.
Global warming, overcrowding, disease and more afflict us, yet we continue like lemmings, in the blind belief that science will
find the way, as it has done so for the past century or so. Anything new is hence greeted with interest and sometimes a hint of
desperation...
Against novelty, some people become weary of the new, having long experience of new things being badly designed and full
of defects. It also disturbs the comfort of the tried and true and requires cognitive effort to learn new ways.
Classification
Appeal, Assumptive
Also known as
Ad Novitam
See also
Hope, The need for novelty
 Ad Numeram: see Appeal to Common Practice
Description
Many people do X. Therefore X is right.
If other people do something, then it is a reasonable thing to do.
Example
They were doing it, so I thought it would be ok to do it as well.
Oh come on, it's common practice!
Well then, are you going to join in, or what?
Discussion
This is often used as an excuse. When we are uncertain about something, we turn to other people and assume they know
what they are doing.
This is also a method of influence in social groups, where pressure is put on people to conform.
Adoption of common practice happens when people are uncertain what to do. When the right thing is unclear, it is generally
safer to copy others.
Classification
Appeal, Deductive
See also
Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Common Belief, Theories about conforming, Social Proof principle
 Ad Populum: see Appeal to Common Belief or Bandwagon
Description
If something is believed to be true by a lot of people then it must be true.
A variant is where the probability of truth is assessed by the number of people making the assertion (especially when you can
see who is voting for and who is voting against the idea).
Example
Oh come on, everyone is saying that this is the right thing to do.
 Your family all like the car...
In a survey, 8 out of 10 doctors agreed that this drug is dangerous.
Discussion
When we are uncertain about something, we turn to other people and assume they know what they are doing. We do the
same with beliefs. The more other people believe something, the more likely we will be to accept that it is true (especially if
we tend towards black and white thinking).
Classification
Appeal, Assumptive, Deductive,  Relevance
Also known as
Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Majority, Ad Populum
See also
Appeal to Common Practice, Availability Heuristic, Beliefs, Normative Social Influence
Description Social conformance
If you do not agree, then you will be rejected and ostracized by your friends.
Use peer pressure instead of rational argument to get agreement.
Example
If you want to lose all your friends, just keep on saying that.
I don't know if Paul and Peter want to associate with anyone who wanted to go their own way like that.
You know, that's not the sort of thing we do here.
Discussion
Social acceptance is hugely important to most people, especially with those they consider to be friends and peers. The threat
of rejection is thus taken very seriously and people will change their position and even their beliefs to sustain their social
position.
This fallacy is very common in everyday conversation, either explicitly or implied. It is even read into arguments when it is not
actually there.
Classification
Attack, Threat
Also known as
 
See also
Theories about conforming, Appeal to Common Belief
 Ad Ridiculum: see Appeal to Ridicule
Description
X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.
Mock the other person's claim and argument. Make fun of it. Get people to laugh at it.
Alternatively, mock the alternatives that they might choose, giving them only one option that you have not mocked.
Example
Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!
Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here.
Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey.
Discussion
Ridiculing something is to place it at a lower social position. If a person is associated with that thing, then they, too, are
moved to that lower position. When others see a person in a lower social position, they will not associate themselves with
that person, for fear of being dragged down to that position. The original person knows this, and will seek to avoid loss of
social status.
The ridiculed thing is thus poisoned and made undesirable, and people will distance themselves from it.
Classification
Attack, Distraction, Threat
Also known as
Reductio ad absurdum, Ad Absurdum, Reductio ad ridiculum
See also
Poisoning the Well
 Ad Verecundiam: see Appeal to Authority
Description
An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true.
The expert, of course, may not be expert, but they are a touchstone that people use to avoid having their own expertise
challenged.
You can also assert your own expertise. If the other person cannot challenge your credentials, then they cannot challenge
your argument.
Example
Mike said that this train will be late.
Well, you know what they say...
In a survey, 80% of doctors agreed that this drug can be very effective.
I've been doing this for twenty years, you know.
Discussion
The dilemma with this appeal is not so much in the assertion of truth but in the true expertise of the so-called expert, who
may be guessing or even joking. It is also known that if you bring together a group of experts then you are likely to get less
than full agreement about any given question.
The expert may not be named (and is hence an anonymous authority)  or may be absent and unable to answer probing
questions. In this case, it is not known whether the person quoting the expert is quoting them accurately or even making the
whole thing up.
Appeal to authority is a common method used in confidence tricks, where the confidence trickster sets themself up as an
authority and so both dissuades the target from asking questions and encourages them to trust their 'expert' judgement.
Classification
Appeal, Assertive, Distraction, Relevance
Also known as
Ad Verecundiam
See also
Authority principle, Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
 Affirming the Consequent: If A then B. B is true, so A is true.
Description
If A is true then B is true. B is true. Therefore A is true.
If B follows A, then you can assume you can go back the other way also.
Example
I am in London, England. I am in England, therefore I am in London.
If you are cheating on me, you will be out of the house a lot. You are out of the house a lot, so you must be cheating
on me.
Discussion
This assumes that an if...then... statement is commutative, that given 'If A then B', you can also reverse it to 'If B then A'. The
B, or 'then' part of the statement is called the 'consequent' (the A is the antecedent).
Affirming the Consequent is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Non-sequitur, Syllogistic
See also
Denying the Antecedent
  Alleged Certainty: see Assertion
Description
I say that X is true. Therefore X is true.
The mere fact of asserting a truth makes it true.
Example
You are stupid.
This shirt is the best that money can buy.
Vote for Jimmy. He will save this country!
Discussion
Being assertive is an adult way of behaving, stepping off the passive-aggressive continuum and stating a truth with conviction.
This can be a very persuasive position, as it removes aggressive threat without capitulation, demonstrating maturity and
apparent wisdom.
Assertion is often a veiled appeal to authority in that it makes the assumption that the person making the assertion is an
expert or has a position of unassailable formal authority.
Classification
Assertive, Falsehood
Also known as
Alleged Certainty
See also
Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, Assertiveness, Authority principle
 Anger: Using anger as a weapon.
Description
If you are not believed or your argument is not accepted, then just get angry.
Adopt position that displays aggressive body language. Stare. Raise your voice. You can get angry at the other person or just
angry in general.
Example
I SAID THE SHIP IS ENGLISH!
WHAT! HOW DARE YOU!! Now think again -- would you like to go out tonight?
Discussion
When I am not believed, I feel belittled and distrusted. I react against this by becoming angry. This makes me feel powerful.
When I am powerful I can state something as true and others will not dare disagree with me.
Of course anger does not make truth, yet it is a remarkably common 'technique' used in arguments. This is for two reasons.
First, it is because it is a natural, if not pleasant, human tendency. Secondly, it often works. This is why parents, partners and
children argue in non-logical but highly emotional ways.
Note: Anger is not strictly speaking a fallacy in the traditional sense but it is included here in the spirit that it is consciously
used as a way of persuading that lacks logical reason.
Classification
Attack, Assertive, Assumptive
See also
Attack the Person, Anger (emotion), Extremist Argument
 Amphibology: see Amphiboly
Description
The structure of a sentence has more than one possible meaning.
Example
Young men and women.  (are the women young?)
Who is the doctor. (it's Doctor Who!)
Discussion
As with other forms of ambiguity, amphiboly can cause confusion and hence puts the other person into a state where they
are open to different ideas.
Amphiboly may be deliberate or accidental. Where it is deliberate, it may be used to confuse or make subconscious
suggestions. This is particularly effective where the second meaning of the sentence may take a few moments to sink in. Thus
the obvious meaning is stated with the intent that the secondary meaning is interpreted only at the subconscious level.
A common form of amphiboly is where an adjective is used with two nouns (e.g. 'Good boys and girls'), making it unclear
whether the adjective applies to the second noun.
Amphiboly is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Ambiguity
Also known as
Amphibology
See also
Confusion principle, Amphibology
 Amphiboly: A sentence has two different meanings.
 Appeal to Authority: Referencing an 'expert'.
 Appeal to Belief: see Appeal to Common Belief.
 Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.
 Appeal to Common Practice: If others do it, it must be ok to do it too.
 Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: see Wishful thinking
Description
1. I want something to be true and factual.
2. Therefore it is true and factual.
To think wishfully, just act as if what you want is true and either has happened or is about to happen.
Example
The book I have written is loved by everyone who reads it.
I need a break!
Discussion
Despite the obvious falsehood of this fallacy, it is surprising how often it appears. It is often also surprising how often people
do not realize that they are doing it, as subconscious desires appear through assumptions of truth.
People who use wishful thinking often supplement it with emotional states such as aggression or pleading, seeking either to
batter others into accepting their assertion or otherwise adopt a child position.
Wishing can actually lead to something becoming true, where the person acts to reduce the dissonance of conflicting reality
and wishes.
When faced with the truth, they are very likely to use denial or use some other form of defense.
Classification
Assumptive, Falsehood
Also known as
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Belief
See also
Cognitive Dissonance, Defense Mechanisms
 Appeal to Emotion: If it feels good, it must be true.
Description
X makes me feel good. Therefore X is true.
When something is associated with good feelings, then it is desirable and must be true. The converse is also true: when
something is associated with negative feelings, then it must be wrong and bad.
Example
Our new cutlery set will make you feel so good when you see it laid out on your dining table. 'Style and Grace' is the
right thing for you.
The Maki people of the South are known to be invading our towns! They are corrupting our children and taking our
jobs!! Vote for me and I will eradicate this menace!
Discussion
The arousal of emotion is known to smother rationality, hence if it is introduced into an argument, then it is more likely that
logical reasoning will be ignored. Many arguments thus deliberately seek to evoke emotions of the listeners.
The word 'good' is built into the language to support this. We talk about 'good feelings' and 'bad feelings' when good and bad
are really about values. This association makes it easier still to bring emotion and value-based decisions together.
Classification
Appeal, Distraction, Relevance
See also
Emotions
 Appeal to Fear: Gaining compliance through threat.
 Appeal to Flattery: Make them feel good.
Description
You are a nice, good person. Nice people accept my arguments. Therefore you will accept my arguments.
Compliment the other person. Make them feel good about themselves. Show that you approve of them and their actions. Tell
them that they look good.
Then ask them to agree with you.
Example
Hey, you're looking great today. You know I read your paper and it was amazing. Now doesn't it make sense for us
to go out tonight?
You're the kind of person who understands this. Could you endorse me?
That's a really good idea. So let's go and show it to Bill. We can also ask him about next year at the same time.
Discussion
Flattery is always nice to receive as it strokes a person's sense of identity. In doing so, it leads them to like you
in exchange and want to repay you for your kindness. Agreeing to your request is an immediate way of doing this.
Flattery can include compliments on such as:
 Their looks
 Their actions
 Their beliefs or values
 Their intelligence, ideas and thinking
 Their creativity and aesthetic sense
 Their ability to argue
 The things they have produced
Some people are more susceptible to flattery than others, particularly those with a weaker self-image and who may be
generally less confident.
Flattery is a particular kind of Appeal to Emotion.
Classification
Appeal
Also known as
Apple Polishing, Wheel Greasing, Soft Soaping, Flannelling.
See also
Narcissistic Personality, Exchange principle
 Appeal to Force: see Appeal to Fear
  Appeal to Ignorance: see Argument from Ignorance.
 Appeal to Majority: see Common Belief
 Argument from Ignorance: Accepting circumstantial evidence.
 Appeal to Novelty: Newer is better.
 Appeal to Pity: Going for the sympathy vote.
 Appeal to Popularity: see Appeal to Common Belief
 Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking the other person's claim.
 Appeal to Spite: Play on their negative feelings for others.
Description
The other person has spiteful feelings towards certain people. So frame your argument to support this, legitimizing the
spitefulness, framing it as 'right'.
Even if they do not have specific people in mind, there are generic groups which can be invoked, such as politicians and those
who are rich and advantaged.
Demonize these 'bad' people, making them universally bad and deserving of retribution. Frame the other person as good and
just, with right on their side. Show them how the actions you are suggesting will serve righteous justice on those who deserve
it.
Example
If you buy this dress you'll be the belle of the ball. And you'll really show up those poor fools who can't afford such
luxury.
Don't you hate the way the planning committee always helps their 'friends'. This is a great way to get what you
want and really show them up.
Give it to me, not them. They don't deserve it.
Discussion
Spitefulness is a negative emotions can be based in the needs for control and status. Sometimes it is unfounded, based in
bullying. At other times it comes from a need for justice and revenge.
To act in negative ways towards other, people tell themselves stories that justify their actions, typically saying 'they deserve
it'. An appeal to spite supports this story and so creates a bond with the other person which leads them to accept the
fallacious argument.
There is a universal delight in the discomfort of others. Germans have a word for this: schadenfreude. There is hence humor in
seeing others slip on a banana skin. There is additional delight in seeing those who put themselves above you taking a fall.
Appeal to Spite is a special case of Appeal to Emotion.
Classification
Appeal
Also known as
Argumentum ad Odium
See also
Appeal to Emotion
 Appeal to Sympathy: see Appeal to Pity
 Appeal to Tradition: It has always been done this way, so this way is right.
 Appeal to Trust: Trust me, I'm a doctor.
Description
I am trustworthy, therefore everything I say must be true.
To use this, show you are trustworthy in some ways (such as being helpful or friendly) and then extend it to an assumption
that because you can be trusted for some things you can therefore be trusted for all things.
You can also show credibility through things like your profession. 'Trust me, I'm a doctor' is a classic line that assumes doctors
always tell the truth.
Example
Glad to help a person who's so like me ... Could I ask you for something now? You're so kind.
I always make sure I deliver, as you know. And I need you to help me out. Could you?
Discussion
Two of the key dimensions of trust are reliability and honesty. A person who is reliable can be trusted to keep promises and to
stay trustworthy. A person who is honest tells the truth. If they are reliably honest, they always tell the truth.
A third dimension is care. We trust people who care about us and act in friendly ways. There are social rules that say you
should trust people with who you have a social relationship, accepting what they say with little challenge. This is often used in
arguing with friends and colleagues.
Trust is emotional. When I trust you, I do not question the logic of what you say -- I just trust that you are right. Consequently
a person who has gained the trust of another can make a completely fallacious argument that will still be accepted.
The way we place trust in people is seldom by testing their ability to create logical arguments. Often it is because they
are similarto us in some way, or are nice and friendly. We then bond with them and so trust them as we would trust
ourselves.
There are other fallacies, such as Appeal to Authority, which have an underlying principle that the person should be trusted
and not questioned.
Classification
Falsehood
See also
Trust, Similarity principle
 Argument from Ignorance: Accepting circumstantial evidence.
 Assertion: What I say is true.
 Attack the Person: Distracting them from their argument.
 Bandwagon: see Appeal to Common Belief
 Begging the Question: Circular reasoning to prove assumed premise.
Description
The truth of A is assumed within the original premise about A. Hence A is not really proven by the argument.
This may occur through a simple statement or via a more complex set of statements that go around in a circle and eventually
'prove' the original statement to be true.
Another variant is: If A is not wrong, then it is right.
Example
God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God.
I am not a liar.
This restaurant serves the best food in the town, because it has the best chef. It has attracted the best chef because
it has the best reputation. It has the best reputation because the chef cooks the best food.
You are not bad, therefore you must be good.
Discussion
Begging the Question does not really answer it outside of its own assumptions. This happens when people accidentally or
deliberately start from an unproven position and try to use this to prove the position. Like a house built on sand, the
argument does not stand up to a light push.
Begging the Question is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Assumptive, Deductive, Causal
Also known as
Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Chicken and Egg argument, Petitio Principii
See also
Assumption principle
  Biased Sample: see Unrepresentative Sample
Description
Sample X is taken from Population Y. Conclusion Z is drawn from sample X. It is assumed that Z is also true about Y.
Take a biased or otherwise statistically invalid sample. Analyze the data. Draw conclusions and declare the results significant.
Example
We surveyed homes during the day and found that 66% of the population enjoy soaps.
I asked four people in the street and three liked red. 75% of people like red.
Nine out of ten of cat owners we asked agreed that their cats like KitaKit.
Discussion
Most people believe they are pretty good at making statistical assessments. In fact we are generally pretty poor at it, and
there are many traps into which we fall. Taking an unrepresentative sample is one of the most basic of these.
Where a sample is deliberately biased by leaving out data, this is the Fallacy of Exclusion.
Classification
Assumptive, Inductive, Statistical
Also known as
Biased Sample
See also
Theories about forecasting
 Bifurcation: see False Dilemma
Description
Either A or B is true. If A is true, B is therefore false. C is not an option.
The other person is offered a choice where rejecting one item acts as a selection of the other.
Example
Either you are with me or against me.
We have to spend less on hospitals, otherwise we won't be able to afford education improvements.
Discussion
This is based on the assumption that the choices offered are the only choices. By focusing on the choice, the decision to be
made, the other person is distracted from the fact that there may be other alternatives.
This is usually presented as two choices, although more may sometimes be used.
Classification
Assumptive, Distraction, Falsehood
Also known as
Bifurcation, False Dichotomy
See also
Excluded Middle, Assumptive Close, Disjunctive syllogism
 Black and White Thinking: see Excluded Middle
Description
Only extreme views are valid.
Moderation is weak and uncertain. To be valid, an argument must have a clear opposite.
Ignore any central position. Polarize any issues and then select one end of the spectrum. Criticise any middle position as
floppy and compromising, which by definition is only half of what could be had.
Example
Women who use Citro perfume will attract men.  [Those who do not, will not.]
If we do not save the whales, the world is doomed.
I have an absolute right to carry a gun. Those who oppose that right deserve what they get.
Discussion
Where people have a high need for certainty  and control, extreme views provide what may seem to be a defensible position,
as you only need to look in one direction for the 'enemy'. Dividing the world into good and bad, right and wrong also plays to
certainty needs, as your friends and enemies can now be clearly identified.
Classification
Assumptive
Also known as
False Dichotomy, Polarization, Black and White Thinking
See also
False Dilemma, False Compromise
 Burden of proof: see Argument from Ignorance
 Butterfly Logic: How people often argue.
Description
A makes me think of B, so B causes A. Or vice versa.
What seems to be connected is connected. Connection implies causality, with the earlier event being the sole cause.
Thought is truth. Because I thought it and it seems reasonable to me, then it must be true.
There may also be a significant degree of broad generalization or diving into detail as the person chunks up and down at will.
Example
A person suggests that early pregnancy is caused by smoking, both of which can be problems in teenage years.
In an argument about climate change, a person goes off on a muse about global things and comes around to saying
that it is all because of China.
Discussion
Of course this is not real logic, but it is the logic that many people use when making arguments.
The real reason that people use butterfly logic is that the brain is made up of connected neurons and the mind is, by
consequence, made of connected thoughts. When we think of one thing, we are quickly reminded of a number of other
things and it can be a small step to assume they are connected, even to the point where one causes another.
Things associate in various ways, the most common of which are similarity and time. Similar things get linked because it helps
to understand things through other things, so we can say A is like B or A is a B (eg. that box is like a chair, or a stool is a sort of
chair). This helps also with categorizing things when we first encounter them. As our memory also has a strong time element,
when we think of something we may also think of a time when we encountered that thing, and hence also recall the other
items around at the time.
Associative memory and thinking also does quick hops from A to B to C to D and so on, for example when I think of houses I
also think of fires, police, hospital, my visits there, people I was with and so on. This 'butterfly thinking' has a particular effect
in the way we can link seemly distant things. While this is useful creatively, it falls down when we try to use it in hard
reasoning.
When challenged, butterfly logicians have no real reasoning behind their thoughts and so respond with messages that
effectively say 'please do not argue because I have no answer'. Responses include:
 Anger and ad hominem personal attacks.
 Empty statements, such as 'It stands to reason'.
 Various appeals that are not based on reason.
 Ignoring the challenge.
See also
Association principle, Cause-and-Effect Reasoning, Slippery Slope, Generalization
 Canceling Hypotheses: see Conspiracy Theory
Description
A is true. B is why the truth cannot be proven. So A is true.
 Make a statement. Then explain why it cannot be proven. Accuse anyone who challenges the second statement of trying to
cover up the truth. Use this attempt as proof that the original statement is true.
Example
Flying saucers have landed. The government is covering it up, which is why there is no evidence about it. Of course
they deny it!
The senior managers in this company are bleeding it dry. But then they control the accounts, which is why finances
seems to be healthy.
Discussion
This fallacy works by making it impossible to challenge the proving statement without proving it. The focus of attention is thus
moved to the person trying to disprove the 'proof', and reframes their refutation as further proof.
Classification
Distraction
Also known as
Canceling Hypotheses
See also
Complex Question, Reframing
 Chicken and Egg argument: see Begging the Question
 Circular Definition: see Begging the Question
 Circular Reasoning: see Begging the Question
 Circulus in Demonstrando: see Begging the Question
 Circumstantial Ad Hominem: see Attack the person
 Complex Question: two questions, one answer allowed.
Description
X and Y are unrelated questions. They are combined into question Z, which requires a single answer.
Example
Have you stopped smoking? ['yes' or 'no' both admits being a smoker]
Will you help me and carry this?
Discussion
The Complex Question often is arranged such that whichever way you answer the question, the questioner gains the
advantage (i.e. a double bind).
Classification
Assumptive, Distraction
Also known as
Loaded Question, False Questions, Double Bind
See also
Conspiracy Theory, Double Bind
 Composition: Generalizing from a few to the whole set.
Description
If A is X and B is X then the group to which A and B belong are all X.
Given a number of unrelated items, they are taken as being members of a distinct group, about which general attributes may
be identified.
These attributes may well be taken from a limited number of items or parts and generalized up to the whole.
Example
All people in this town are idiots.
These two tools are blunt. The whole box of tools must be blunt.
Oxygen and hydrogen are gases at room temperature. Therefore water (H 20) is a gas at room temperature.
Discussion
This seeks to use inductive reasoning, but does so falsely, generalizing when there is no sound rationale for doing so. This is
the basis of stereotyping, which is a Composition fallacy.
The generalization that is taking place may be due to sloppy thinking or may be a deliberate way of seeking a general rule
(which may then be applied deductively elsewhere).
Composition is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Ambiguity, Analogy, Inductive, Linguistic
Also known as
Generalization, Faulty Induction
See also
Division, Inductive reasoning, Stereotypes
 Concretism: see Reification
Description
The reification fallacy occurs where an abstract idea, concept or model is treated as if it were concrete and real.
Example
A computer is like a brain. It can make intuitive leaps as well.
The Boston Matrix tells us that our product range got a cash cow, two question marks and a dog. We hence should
remove one question mark and the dog.
Alan is a god amongst men. He will know you better than you know yourself. He will be able to heal you with a
single touch.
Discussion
One of the skills of the human species is the ability to think in abstract terms, juggling ideas that help us understand and work
with the real world. This is in some ways essential as the world is too complex for us to understand in infinite detail.
We naturally build inner mental models as a way of coping with this outer complexity. We then view the world through the
models, treating the model as if it is the world, not just a representation. In this sense, it could be said that everything is a
reification. 
Where the reification fallacy occurs in an important sense is where the assumption of idea as reality is too far from a better
truth. In business, for example, many models are used to understand and describe business situations. When the models are
taken too literally, people can end up depending on them and making blind decisions rather than using the models to give one
viewpoint that may be considered alongside other evidence.
Reification may be deliberately used in the use of metaphor and other figures of speech. It becomes a fallacy when we forget
that the representation is just that: a representation, and not reality. Extended metaphors can easily fail in this way.
Classification
Ambiguity
Also known as
Hypostatisation, Concretism, or Misplaced Concreteness
See also
Metaphor, Figures of speech
 Consequences: see Appeal to Fear
 Conspiracy Theory: Reframe refutation as further proof.
 Converse Accident: see Hasty Generalization
Description
X is true of A, B and C. Therefore X is true of everything.
Find a commonality in a few things and then generalize to assume that it is also true for all things in the same class.
Example
I met some children from Garton yesterday, who were very polite. I think all children from that area must be well-
behaved.
I've met three race drivers today and they all were rather aggressive. Clearly, race drivers are all aggressive.
I've tried two Albanian cheeses and they were both rather bitter. Albanian cheese is not really to my taste.
Discussion
We all seek to classify things we experience in order to help make decisions about similar items we meet in the future. This
generalization is a form of simplification and always results in some distortion.
If we generalize too soon, we may classify things incorrectly. This is partly due to a lack of real understanding of statistics,
where a representative sample needs to be taken before realistic rules can be inferred.
Hasty generalization typically happens when we are in a discussion and are trying to make a point. We do not have the data
available to prove something so we jump to conclusions and use what little information we have to 'prove' the point that we
want to make.
Classification
Assumptive, Inductive
Also known as
Converse Accident, Inductive Generalization, Statistical Generalization, Insufficient Statistics, Insufficient Sample, Lonely Fact,
Leaping to Conclusion, Hasty Induction
See also
Composition
 Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: see False Cause
Description
A causes B (without real proof that this causal relationship actually exists).
This causal relationship is often claimed when there is correlation between A and B (that they vary together) or a relatively
distant causal connection.
Example
It is dark now, which makes it very dangerous.  [It is not the dark that causes danger].
Drinking fresh water will keep you well. [It may contribute, but it is not the only or sufficient cause].
Money makes people arrogant. [Not all people, and not always just money]
Discussion
Cause-and-effect reasoning is a valid form of rational logic, but only if the causal relationship is established. It is very easy to
find that two things vary together and assume cause-and-effect, but this only proves correlation. It may be, for example, that
both are effects of a prior common cause.
Causal arguments are often wishful thinking, where the speaker is seeking to prove their case, and hopes (as with other
fallacies) that their causal assertion is not challenged.
Classification
Assumptive, Causal, Falsehood
Also known as
Questionable Cause, Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (with this, therefore because of this).
See also
Cause-and-effect reasoning
 Denying the Antecedent: If A then B. A is false, so B is false.
Description
If A is true then B is true. A is not true, therefore B is not true.
To disprove something, show how it can be caused by something else. Then show that the cause does not happen (then
assume that this proves the antecedent is also false).
Example
If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has no gun, then he will not kill anyone.
If you work hard, you will get a good job. If you do not work hard you will not get a good job.
I am in London, England. I am not in London, therefore I am not in England.
Discussion
In an 'If A then B' statement, A is the antecedent and B is the consequent.
When you know that 'If A is true then B is true', this statement is only valid for truth  of A and B. If A is false, then it does not
necessarily follow that B is also false. A place where this is true is in Boolean logic, where A and B are binary variables and
can only be true or false. In life, there are often situations where A and B can have many other states.
Classification
Non sequitur, syllogistic
See also
Affirming the Consequent
 Destroying the Exception: see Accident
 Dicto Simpliciter: see Accident
 Discredit: see Poisoning the Well
Description
Discredit the other person before they speak. Or discredit the topic or argument that they may support.
There are many ways of discrediting the person. Call them names. Talk about their lies. Show them to be unworthy. Tell how
they are unintelligent, crazy or otherwise undesirable, inferior and not worth listening to, let alone believing.
To discredit the topic or argument, indicate how it is patently absurd, proven to be false or that only fools would support it.
Example
Well, Jane will tell you something else, but then she always lived on the other side of the tracks.
Mike doesn't have a degree, but he does speak nicely, doesn't he.
Only an idiot would consider Didactus to have any useful opinion.
Everybody knows that cold fusion is a proven impossibility. Jack: did you have something to say on this.
Discussion
By discrediting the other person, you are also effectively discrediting anything they say by reducing their authority. If the
other person is there, a public attack forces them onto the defensive, socially obliging them to respond first to the attack and
hence distracting them from their main argument. If the other person is not there, then they cannot defend themselves.
Personal attack always has its hazards, and other people, especially rescuers, may well leap to their defense.
Classification
Attack, Distraction
Also known as
Discrediting
See also
Appeal to Ridicule, Attack the Person, The Drama Triangle
 Division: Assuming the parts have the characteristics of the whole.
Description
X has characteristic Y. P is a part of X, so also has characteristic Y.
The general assumption is that the parts of a system all have characteristics of the whole system.
Example
Welsh people speak Welsh. You are Welsh -- so you can speak Welsh.
Cars go fast. A seat is a part of a car. So seats go fast.
Tomatoes are red. So the pips inside are also red.
You are work in Hewlett Packard, which makes computers. So you can make computers.
Discussion
There are two ways for this to fail: First, the assumed characteristic of the group may not be true for all members and,
secondly, the characteristic that is true of the whole is not applicable to the individual parts. This latter case happens when
the individual parts create a whole, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
This fallacy fails when the unspoken assumption about the characteristics of the group are not true for all members of the 
group. This is typically true of groups of people, where the attribution of generalized characteristics form a stereotype, which
is then applied to individual members.
Going from the general to the specific is deductive reasoning. Division seeks to use this rational process, but does it in an
inadequate and invalid way.
Division is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Analogy, Assumptive, Ambiguity, Linguistic
Also known as
Faulty Deduction
See also
Composition, Deductive reasoning
 Double Bind: see Complex Question
 Ecological fallacy: Conclusion about individual from group data.
Description
The ecological fallacy occurs where an analysis of group data is used to draw conclusions about an individual.
Example
A study of people with spectacles showed that they have above-average intelligence. You have spectacles, so you
must be intelligent.
A study of a city is used to draw detailed conclusions about the people who live there.
Discussion
This is an effect which occurs when people use statistical data and apply it incorrectly. It is often used by people who are
seeking factual support for their arguments.
It is sometimes also used by researchers who are a bit too keen on proving something.
This fallacy is an effective reversal of the Exception fallacy.
Classification
Deductive
See also
Exception fallacy, Hasty Generalization, Stereotypes
 Exception fallacy: Conclusions about group from individual data.
Description
The exception fallacy occurs when data about an individual is used to draw conclusions about a group of people.
Example
A first class passenger on a train is arrogant and rude to a person who walks into the first class compartment. The
person concludes that all first class passengers are arrogant.
A person in France is helped by a policeman there. They assume all French police are helpful.
A teacher finds that a few students from a particular part of town are difficult. They conclude that that part of town
is rough.
Discussion
We are always in a hurry to classify people and groups and, when we have limited data about a group, we will often use what
information we have, even if it is not statistically valid -- and even if it is a single data point.
This data may well be the exception rather than the rule - hence the name of the fallacy.
This effect is particularly common when several factors are taken into account:
  A person is encountered who does not fit into current categories, for example where there is a dominant attribute for
which there is no stereotype available.
 Other attributes are available and can be evaluated.
 Other people who have similar dominant attributes are not available to determine whether additional attributes
correlate. Thus the evaluation cannot be disconfirmed.
This fallacy is an effective reversal of the Ecological fallacy.
Classification
Deductive
See also
Hasty Generalization, Stereotypes, Ecological fallacy
 Either/Or: see False Dilemma
 Emphasis: see Accent
 Equivocation: A single word with more than one meaning.
Description
This happens where the same word is used, but has two or more different meanings, leading to easy confusion as at least one
of the meanings is likely to be false.
Example
The weather forecast is for high winds. We're ok as we are in a valley.
The honey is set on the table.
He is a cut above the rest.
Discussion
Equivocation can be accidental, and it can be deliberate. When we communicate, one person attempts to send a message and
the other attempts to interpret the original meaning. When the perceived meaning of individual words is different from that
which is intended, either the whole sentence is given new meaning or it loses all meaning. The latter is generally undesirable,
so we will struggle to create some form of meaning.
Equivocation and other forms of ambiguity lead easily to confusion, which is a mental state where people become open to
suggestion. It can thus be deliberately used as a persuasive device.
Equivocation is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Linguistic, Ambiguity
See also
Confusion principle
 Excluded Middle: Only extreme views are valid.
 Fallacy of Exclusion: see Unrepresentative Sample
 False Analogy: X has property Y. Z is like X. So Z has property Y.
Description
X has property Y. Z  is like X. Z therefore has property Y.
Use analogical comparisons to connect the item in question to another item that has desired characteristics. You can then
claim that the first item has the desired property.
Example
People are like dogs. They respond best to clear discipline.
This soap is like a dream. It lifts you up to a spiritual plane.
A school is not so different from a business. It needs a clear competitive strategy that will lead to profitable growth.
Discussion
Analogy is saying 'A is like B' and is a powerful way of explaining one thing in terms of another. Where it falls down is when A
is assumed to be like B in all respects and any attribute or characteristic of B can be unequivocally attributed to A.
In the false metaphor variant, the comparison is metaphoric. As analogies say 'A is like B', metaphors say 'A is B'.
  Analogy: She is like  a dog
 Metaphor: She is a dog
The effect is still the same: the attributes of the analogy or metaphor are brought back to the original subject. The major
difference is that in a metaphor, the equation is more explicit and direct.
The typical fallacy in this is that the comparison is not a good one and creates significant falsehood.
Classification
Analogy, Inductive, Falsehood
Also known as
False Metaphor
See also
Analogy, Metaphor
 False Cause: A causes B (but no proof).
 False Compromise: Extreme views are wrong. The middle way is right.
Description
X and Y are opposite alternatives. So Z, a middle path, is the best choice.
Avoid extremes. Seek compromise through a moderate, middle way. Take averages. Assume that any polarized view is
automatically wrong.
Example
Environmentalists want us to recycle everything. Capitalists want us to buy everything new. I think we should
recycle some things.
The left wing want to help the poor. The right wing want to minimize taxation. We should have means-tested
benefits so only the poorest people get help.
Jim wants to go North, Fred wants to go South. So lets go West.
Discussion
It is easy to assume that extreme views, by the very fact that they are extreme and so automatically wrong. The middle way is
often a safe choice, and people who are risk-averse will often take this alternative. It is also a view taken by people who see
that all views are valid and that a compromise is the best way of getting agreement. This may be true, but it does not make
this middle choice correct.
Classification
Falsehood, Distraction
Also known as
Splitting the Difference
See also
Excluded Middle
 False Dichotomy: see False Dilemma or Excluded Middle
 False Dilemma: Choice is A or B. Rejecting A is selecting B.
 False Division: see Division
 False Effect: A is assumed to cause B. B is proven wrong, so A is wrong.
Description
X apparently causes Y. Y is wrong. So X is wrong.
If you want to prove something wrong, find something that it appears to cause, and then prove that the caused thing is
wrong. You can also do the reverse to show something to be right.
Example
I pulled on the string and the kite fell to ground. Pulling on the string is therefore ineffective.
Loud music leads to deafness. Turn that music down!
Eating sweets makes you happy. You should eat sweets.
Discussion
This works because attention is distracted from the (incorrect) assumption that X causes Y to the question of whether or not X
is right or wrong (which usually cannot be questioned).
When presented with cause and effect, it often seems to make sense simply because of the assertion of causality. This results
in people accepting invalid causal arguments.
Classification
Assumptive, Causal, Distraction, Falsehood
Also known as
Non Causa Pro Causa
See also
False Cause, Cause-and-effect reasoning,
 False Metaphor: see False Analogy
 False Question: see Complex Question
 Faulty Induction: see Composition
 Faulty Deduction: see Division
 Four Terms: All A is B. All C is D. So all A is D.
Description
All A are B. All C are D. So All A are D.
Make two statements and make an unspoken leap that connects these statements to allow a third, conclusive statement to
be made.
Example
All dogs are mammals. All fish are animals. So all dogs are animals. [true, but not proven by the first two
statements]
Man is an intelligent animal. No woman is a man. Therefore no women are intelligent animals.  ['man' has two
different meanings]
Discussion
Syllogisms should have only three terms, with one term being the bridge between the major and minor premise that forms
the conclusion. So where four terms appear in the major and minor premises, these two statements are logically
disconnected and no logical conclusion may be drawn.
Sometimes it may appear that there are three terms, as in the second example above. This can still cause problems where
one term actually has different meanings (equivocation) in either term. For example, 'man' can mean 'humanity' or 'male'.
Classification
Syllogistic, Assumptive
See also
Equivocation
 From Ignorance: see Argument from ignorance
 Gambler's Fallacy: Chance can be predicted.
Description
Chance is affected by more than random events. It can be controlled by luck, skill and specific identified events. When you hit
a 'lucky' patch, you just cannot lose. When the odds are stacked against you, you have no chance.
Example
I've lost three nights in a row. I will win big tonight. I'm wearing my lucky watch, just to make sure.
You know, every time it rains, I've come out without an umbrella and am miles from the car.
Discussion
One of our basic needs is for a sense of control, which we gain by seeking to predict the future and by attributing cause to
events that occur. We also seek to win and avoid failure, which further drives us both to explain our losses outside
ourselves and also to compensate for losses by trying to end up as a winner.
 Habitual gamblers fall headlong into these traps. Many others are affected by it too. For example, 'Murphy's Law' (that when
something goes wrong it will be the worst thing at the worst time) is often used to explain and provide comfort when things
go wrong. Particularly for the gambler, it also means explaining winnings through external events and lucky charms (most of
us prefer to explain winning through personal skills, although where chance is involved, we also fall into the trap). 'Luck' itself
is an example, as it does not exist. What is random is random. The laws of statistics are all there are.
When things do go wrong and when our predictions fail, we need to be comforted in some way and the Gambler's Fallacy can
be turned to this purpose also. We can explain failures as bad luck rather than incompetence or poor decision-making. We
can take comfort in the fact that lady luck has gone out for the evening and there was nothing we could have done to change
things.
Classification
Statistical
See also
Gambler's Fallacy (theory), Post Hoc, Attribution Theory, Fundamental Attribution Error
 Generalization: see Composition
 Hasty Generalization: Generalizing from too-small a sample.
 Hasty Induction: see Hasty Generalization
 Hypostatisation: see Reification
 Ignorance of Refutation: see Missing the Point
Description
A set of statements leads to conclusion X. Yet conclusion Y is drawn.
An argument is given from which a perfectly valid and sound conclusion may be drawn, yet the stated conclusion is something
else.
Example
There has been an increase in burglary in the area. It must be because there are more people moving into the area.
The Chief Executive has a Law degree. We'd better make sure we're all above board.
You are hot and I am cold. You are wearing a brown coat. So let's go for a drink.
Discussion
Sometimes this fallacy is used by people who want to prove something but do not know how, so they use any argument and
then tack their desired conclusion on to the end. This is something that politicians often do.
This is effective persuasion when the listener does not work through the logic of the argument and is persuaded simply by the
fact that some kind of argument is being used (as opposed to the conclusion being given as a simple statement). This can be
encouraged by speaking with passion and apparent authority.
Missing the Point (or Ignorance of Refutation) is one of Aristotle's 13 fallacies.
Classification
Non-sequitur, Relevance
Also known as
Ignoratio Elenchi, Ignorance of Refutation, Irrelevant Conclusion
See also
Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent
 Ignoratio Elenchi: see Missing the Point
 Illicit Major: All X is Y. No P (which is a subset of Y) is X. Therefore no P is Y.
Description
All X is Y. No P (which is a subset of Y) is X. Therefore no P is Y.
Unspoken assumption: All Y is X.
Example
All Londoners are European. No Parisiens are Londoners. Therefore no Parisiens are European.
Discussion
This is a particular case of a categorical syllogism, where overlaps of sets are taken to be different in each statement. Thus the
fallacy in the example occurs when the first statement is assumed to be reversible (that if all Londoners are European, then all
Europeans are Londoners).
More formally, the predicate (Y) of the conclusion (no P is Y) refers to all members of that set. Yet the same term (Y) in the
major premise (All X is Y) refers only to some of the members (X) of that set.
The 'Major' in the name is the major premise, the first statement in the syllogism.
 
Classification
Assumptive, Syllogistic
See also
Illicit Minor, Categorical syllogism
 Illicit Minor: All X are Y. All X are P. Therefore all P are Y.
Description
All X are Y. All X are P. Therefore all P are Y.
Unspoken assumption: All P are X.
Example
All New Yorkers are beautiful. All New Yorkers are intelligent. Therefore all intelligent people are beautiful.
Discussion
This is a particular case of categorical syllogism, where the second statement is assumed to be reversible. In the example, it is
assumed that the statement about New Yorkers and intelligence is reversible (all intelligent people live in New York).
More formally, the subject (P) in the conclusion (All P are Y) refers to all members of at category, but the same term (P) in the
minor premise (All X are P) refers only to some members of that category.
The 'Minor' in the name is the minor premise, the second statement in the syllogism.
Classification
Assumptive, Syllogistic
See also
Illicit Major, Categorical syllogism
 In a Certain Respect and Simply: Extending assumed boundaries too far.
Description
A is an attribute of B. So A is an attribute of C.
Take an attribute that is bound to a certain area and assume that it can be applied to a wider domain than was originally
intended.
Example
A dog has white teeth, so the dog is white.
There is money in my pocket, so there is always money in my pocket.
Discussion
When we discuss an attribute of something or somebody, we implicitly assume that there is some constraining contextual
factors. When the assumption is carried too far in this context, then this fallacy is committed.
Classification
Non-sequitur
Also known as
Secundum quid et simpliciter
See also
Logic principle
 Inconsistency: see Logical Inconsistency
Description
Multiple statements are given which contradict one another.
 These may be given together or may be separated in time. Sometimes the contradictions are rather subtle and are difficult to
spot. At other times, they are obvious. If you have enough authority, then you may be able to carry this off.
Example
Sim is cleverer than Jim. Jim is cleverer than Tim. Tim is cleverer than Sim.
Let's all go to the football game tomorrow. My wife doesn't like football. I know you're busy. We'll all enjoy
ourselves.
Discussion
Inconsistencies may be found in various circumstances. Often they are used in ignorance, where the person does not realize
they are being inconsistent. Sometimes it is just lazy thinking. Sometimes they are used within an emotive context, where the
person has lost all sense of logic and is desperately trying to prove something. Another possibility is a deliberate use of
inconsistency toconfuse the other person and hence distract them from the real game. Finally, sometimes people
in authority deliberately contradict themselves because they know they will not be challenged and possibly as a
demonstration of power.
Logical inconsistency is different from personal inconsistency. Logical inconsistency is about using arguments which are not
internally consistent. Personal inconsistency is about accusing others of inconsistency.
Classification
Non-sequitur
Also known as
Inconsistency
See also
Appeal to Authority, Personal Inconsistency, Confusion principle
 Inductive Generalization: see Hasty Generalization
 Insignificance: Making a minor cause seem major.
Description
X is actually one relatively minor cause of Y. Yet X is assumed to be a major cause of Y.
Blow up a minor cause to be a major cause. Make a big deal about it. Show how wonderful or terrible it is.
Example
I was in too much of a hurry to put on my make-up, which is obviously why he did not ask me to dance.
Genetically-modified crops are a terrible threat to human health. [spraying with chemicals is not something I want
to talk about]
This stage is far too small. No wonder we are not getting the audiences we deserve.
Discussion
Blowing up an insignificant cause can have two different benefits for the persuader. First, if this minor cause is important to
the persuader, then disproportionately high significance is placed on it. The other use is when the persuader wants to avoid
talking about another cause. By making a big deal of the minor cause, a distraction away from the unwanted cause is created.
Classification
Assumptive, Causal, Distraction
See also
Amplification principle
 Insufficient Sample: see Hasty Generalization
 Insufficient Statistics: see Hasty Generalization
 In Terrorem: see Appeal to Fear
 Irrelevant Conclusion: see Missing the Point
 Leaping to Conclusion: see Hasty Generalization
 Loaded Question: see Complex Question
 Logical Inconsistency: Arguments that contradict one another.
 Lonely Fact: see Hasty Generalization
  Many Questions: overloading them with lots of questions.
Description
Ask many different questions. They may be related with a central theme. They may also be unrelated.
Example
When and where will you expect me to be and how often do you want this to happen and what will be the time of
day and which weeks?
Tell me what you want to do next, and then let me know what we can do tomorrow. I want to know from you
exactly what you think about the show we did and also which way it is to the middle of town and whether we
should go there today or tomorrow. Oh, and, do you want pizza for tea or will David be home this evening?
Discussion
When listening to a complex question or statement, we have a limited ability to understand everything. This
causes confusion and we may stumble through a partial answer or say nothing, letting the speaker pick up again and perhaps
answer the question in the way they want, or just to continue.
If unrelated questions are asked, the effect is multiplied as the listener not only tries to remember them but also make sense
of them with regard to the relationship between them.
Classification
Attack, Distraction
Also known as
Plurium Interrogationum
See also
Bounded Rationality, Confusion principle
 Misleading Vividness: a memorable few events prove high probability.
Description
A few vivid and memorable events occur (even just one). These are taken as proof that the event happens more often than it
actually does. The pattern is as follows:
 X occurs.
 X is memorable.
 X is repeatedly thought about.
 X is assumed to be a common event (or at least more likely than it actually is).
Example
A gruesome night-time murder is covered in the news. People listening become worried and fewer people go out at
night, to the extent that restaurants notice a drop in takings.
A student knows several people who got jobs easily after college. They assume they will also get a job without much
effort. The student is surprised when they find jobs are not easy for them to to get.
A few people are found to be cheating in order to get state benefits. This is played up in a TV expos � and is
subsequently taken as proof that there is a 'benefits culture' and that most people on benefits do not deserve such
support.
Discussion
The way that this fallacy works is that there is a confusion between recall and occurrence. When an event comes to mind a
number of times, each remembering appears as a separate occurrence of the event (even if the person knows well that the
event happens infrequently). This biases the person's estimation of probability.
This effect appears in decision errors when the availability heuristic is applied. It may also be seen in sayings such as 'One
swallow does not make a summer' (the swallow bird migrates to the UK for the summer season).
After the 9/11 disaster in New York, the pictures of the towers collapsing were shown so often that some people (and
particularly children) thought that many towers were collapsing. Fear of further terrorist attack increased massively and much
more was spent on security in many areas.
 This type of decisions is often one where there is a low probability of an event, but where the occurrence of the event would
be disastrous or otherwise very unwelcome (sometimes called a 'Black Swan' event). In considering the decision, the
anticipated pain of the possible event overwhelms the fact of the low probability.
A reversal of this is also possible, where the desirability of the event makes it seem more likely than in fact it actually is. This is
an effect that gamblers face when they believe they are more likely to win than they actually are.
Misleading vividness plays to hope, where the person translates the hope for an event to happen (or not) into a probability of
the event.
Classification
Inductive, Assumptive
See also
Hasty Generalization, Availability Heuristic, Gambler's Fallacy, Hope
 Misplaced Concreteness: see Reification
 Missing the Point: Drawing the wrong conclusion.
 Nagging: see Repetition
 Non Causa Pro Causa: see False Effect
 Non Sequitur: See Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent or Missing the Point.
 Petitio Principii: see Begging the Question
 Personal Inconsistency: Past words or deeds do not match claim.
 Plurium Interrogationum: see Many Questions
 Poisoning the Well: Discrediting the person before they speak.
 Polarization: see Excluded Middle
 Post Hoc: X follows Y. Therefore X is caused by Y.
Description
If X follows Y, then X is caused by Y.
The sequence of things proves cause.
Example
The man pulled out a gun. A shot was fired. Therefore the man fired the shot.
You used the telephone and then it stopped working. You broke the phone.
I am feeling very unwell. It must have been the meal last night.
Discussion
Just because something follows something else, this is not sufficient evidence to prove true cause and effect. This temporal
relationship may simply be coincidence.
Coincidence is often related to superstition -- hence saying 'bless you' when someone sneezes (it is assumed that sneezing
lays a person open to spiritual attack) or throwing salt over your shoulder when you spill it (it is assumed to cause bad luck
otherwise).
Classification
Assumptive, Causal
Also known as
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this)
See also
Gambler's Fallacy
 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: see Post Hoc
 Questionable Cause: see False Cause
 Reasoning in a Circle: see Begging the Question
 Red Herring: Distracting with an irrelevancy.
Description
We are talking about X. Y is mentioned. The conversation changes to Y.
 If you want to avoid talking about something, change the subject.
Pick something that will engage the other people. It can be completely off the current track or something related, but not
really relevant. Something controversial or anything that arouses their emotions is often a good idea.
Example
What about Christmas? Well, my aunt is coming next week.
This is expensive. Mind you, I heard that we might get a raise soon.
Yes, it is expensive, sir. Is that a scratch? No, it's reflection in the fine paintwork.
Discussion
Red Herrings, if they snag the interest of the other party, can cause the conversation to change direction (and perhaps away
from the direction the speaker does not want it to go).
When a word or sentence does not fit in with other words and sentences, the overall semantics are lost and listeners are
confused. In that state of confusion they are open to other suggestions.
Classification
Distraction
See also
Confusion principle
 Reductio ad Absurdum: A false X is silly, so X is true.
Description
If X is false, then the situation would be absurd. So X is true.
When you want to prove something is true, indicate that if it were false, then the situation would be plainly ridiculous and
things might happen that are obviously nonsensical. Make it seem that anyone who believes that the item is false would also
be ridiculous and unworthy.
A variant on this is to start by assuming several things might be true, then show that if the (desired) item is true then other
items must be false.
Example
If you can't float on water then you would sink like a stone and walk on the bottom of the ocean.
If people didn't talk to one another, then there would be no society.
If you were the unhappiest person in the world then you would probably die from sadness. You are still here so you
cannot be that unhappy.
Discussion
'Reductio ad absurdum' means 'reduction to the absurd' and reflects the method of creating an absurd situation rather than
there being true absurdness naturally present.
This way of arguing works on the basic principle of offering the other person agreement or stupidity. In effect, it says 'If you
do not agree then stupid things would happen and so you are stupid'.
The real fallacy within the argument is that an extreme alternative to agreement is used rather than considering more
moderate and realistic alternatives. When arguments are taken to extreme, then most things will appear ridiculous.
Classification
Distraction, Falsehood, Threat
Also known as
Ad Absurdum, Reductio ad Ridiculum
See also
Strawman, Appeal to Ridicule, Contrast principle
 Reification: Treating a concept as concrete reality.
 Repetition: Repeating something makes it more true.
 Scare Tactics: see Appeal to Fear
 Secundum quid et simpliciter: see In a Certain Respect and Simply
 Slippery Slope: Loosely connected statements with ridiculous conclusion.
  Social Conformance: Agree with me or be socially isolated.
 Splitting the Difference: see False Compromise
 Statistical Generalization: see Hasty Generalization
 Strawman: Attack a weak argument used by the other person.
Description
You have a several arguments for your case. I disprove one of those arguments, therefore the whole case is false.
Rather than attack the strongest argument, go for a weak one that is easier to attack.
Seek to change their real position to that where you can attack it.
Example
Astrology may be unproven, but neither has it been proved to be false.
You said the common man is important, so show me this 'common man'.
You want to spend less on education. Do you really want to cripple this country's future?
Discussion
By picking on a weak part of the argument and making a big deal of it, attention is distracted from the stronger reasons that
should be the main part of the discussion.
The basic assumption is that if one small part of an argument can be proved false then, by association, the whole argument is
also false.
A weak argument is one made of straw that is easily knocked over. Hence the name 'strawman'.
Classification
Attack, Distraction
See also
Association principle
 Style over Substance: An attractive presentation makes it more right.
Description
Presenting something in an attractive way makes it more right.
Dress well. Speak well. Use props, pictures and powerpoint. Use panache, verve, flair and elegance. Wow the crowds with
your style and they may not notice that your content is not so hot. Use elaborate language that sounds good and fills up the
space you have, covering the fact that you may actually have very little to say.
Example
Good ladies and Gentle men, let me first welcome you to this auspicious occasion...
[Arrive to sound of trumpets] Thank you folks. Well, I don't want to blow my own trumpet, you know...(laughter)
Well, how can I disagree with such a smart young man.
Discussion
Just because something is attractive does not make it right.
If people like you, then they will bond with you and will be unwilling to criticize what you say, or even think ill of you -- to do
otherwise would cause cognitive dissonance.
Classification
Distraction, Relevance
See also
Bonding principle, Cognitive Dissonance
 Sweeping Generalization: see Accident
 Undistributed Middle: All A is B. All C is B. Therefore all C is A.
Description
All A is B. All C is B. Therefore all C is A.
B is assumed to cover all items in its category.
Example
All Californians are beautiful. All women are beautiful. Therefore all women are Californian.
 All fools act stupid. You acted stupid. Therefore you are a fool.
All elephants are big. Some boys are big. Therefore some boys are elephants.
Discussion
The problem here is that the middle term (that connects the first two statements) is assumed to refer to the same thing --
typically all of the members in its category, yet this is seldom true. Thus, in the first example above, neither all Californians
nor all women cover all of the beautiful people in the world (some British men are beautiful).
In effect, the 'reasonable' assumption is that the first two statements are of the form A=B and C=B, from which the
mathematically sound conclusion is that C=A. Unfortunately, syllogisms deal with sets, not mathematical variables.
Classification
Assumptive, Syllogistic
See also
 Unrepresentative Sample: What is true about any sample is also true about the population.
 Value of Community: see Appeal to Common Belief
 Weak Analogy: see False Analogy
 Wishful Thinking: A is true because I want it to be true.
 You too: See Personal Inconsistency