Logical Fallacies
If you want to maintain your ethos and appear logical, you need to avoid logical fallacies. These errors in
reasoning, if noticed, can cause your audience to suspect your assertion and your support for it. This list of
fallacies should be helpful as we analyze debates and speeches. Even if you cannot remember the exact
names, hopefully they will help you think about what is good or sound logic compared to unsound logic.
Note that some of the statements given as fallacies may be true, but they do not provide enough logic or
connection to prove the truth. They are not currently functioning as sound reasoning or developed, logical
arguments. Also, the examples given as fallacies reflect many different opinions, and I am not trying to
suggest any political/moral truth due to the particular examples selected.
Source Note: Much of the info. and wording below comes from various sources, including McGraw-Hill’s 2004 5 Steps to a 5:
Writing the AP English Essay (pgs. 69-70); Essentials of Speech Communication (pgs. 188-89);
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14725-watch-out-for-these-common-fallacies/;
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html; and Wikipedia’s articles on Propaganda and Persuasion. Handout put
together by Shauna McPherson (and TAs), Lone Peak High School.
Attacking the Person / Ad hominem: (Latin phrase for “argue against the man”) This technique
attacks the person rather than his/her argument or the issue under discussion. (Ex. 1: We all know
that Brady was forced to leave college. How can we trust his company with our investments? Ex. 2:
“You claim that atheists can be moral—yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and
children.”) This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtue of the
person asserting it. A less obvious ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was
also asserted by some other easily criticized person—could also call this Reductio ad Hitlerum. For
example: “Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with
you.” (Note: It’s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a
claim. If someone is a known liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won’t,
however, prove that their testimony is false concerning whatever matter is under discussion. It also
won’t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.)
Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an
action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt
by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that
undesirable, unpopular, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the
group may decide to change their original position. (Ex. 1 A couple years ago in Utah, some who
argued for Proposition 1 charged that those against it included the liberal NEA and Hillary Clinton.)
Correlation vs. Cause: The fallacy, a form of hasty generalization or false cause, asserts that
because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores
other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. “Literacy rates have steadily declined since the
advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning.” (Possibly a third factor has
caused literary rates to decline.)
Post hoc (full name is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, but most just call Post hoc): A form of a hasty
generalization or false cause in which it is inferred that because one event happened after another
that the second thing was caused by the first event. (This is closely related to correlation vs. cause
as well, but in this case, one item happened first.) Example: A mayor took office, and, a while later,
there was more graffiti in our town. It must be his fault. Or: “The Soviet Union collapsed after
instituting state atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons.”
Basically, this fallacy cites an unrelated (or, at least, not proved as related) event that
occurred earlier as the cause of a current situation. (Ex. 1: I had an argument with my best friend the
night before my driver’s test; therefore, I blame her for my failure. Ex. 2: Ever since Bush came into
office, our economy has tanked; therefore, it’s Bush’s fault.)
Appeal to Emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to
persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions, including pride, pity, fear, hate,
vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer.
Card-stacking: The speaker mentions only the facts that will build the best case for his or her
argument, ignoring other factors or evidence. For example, an advertisement for a sale on spring
clothing doesn’t mention that only 20 items are on sale, making people believe everything in the
whole store is on sale.
Glittering generalities: Oversimplification/favorable generalities are used to provide simple
answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
The speaker/writer uses clichés; makes broad, sweeping, positive statements with little or no
substance; or otherwise tries to make the audience accept something by associating it with other
things that are values. Another explanation says: glittering generalities are “emotionally appealing
words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis.” (Ex. 1:
“Good citizens will support new housing developments in our communities.” Ex. 2: “Ford has a
better idea.”)
Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a
positive image when attached to a person or issue. “Peace,” “happiness,” “security,” “wise
leadership,” and “freedom,” are virtue words. See Transfer. (Ex. 1: A speech mentions
phrases/words like “justice for our children, peace in our lands, virtue in our hearts,” etc.)
Transfer: This fallacy is also known as association; this is a technique that involves projecting the
positive or negative qualities of one person, entity, object, or value onto another to make the second
more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response. Often highly visual, this
technique sometimes utilizes symbols superimposed over other visual images. These symbols may
be used in place of words; for example, placing swastikas on or around a picture of an opponent in
order to associate the opponent with Nazism. Another example is someone running for office with a
large American flag close to him—he’s suggesting that he’s patriotic or he has strong American
values but he doesn’t offer proof of this. Transfer makes an illogical (or stretched/distorted)
connection between unrelated things; for example, if politics is corrupt, this candidate also is
corrupt. Another example: Transfer is used when a soda ad includes a party or an attractive woman:
it suggests that there is some kind of causal connection between drinking the soda and having a good
time or attracting girls, without ever directly proving the logic of such.
False Premise: A speaker begins with a false assumption that is assumed true. Ex. 1: “All other
leading antacid remedies take 20 minutes to provide relief.” (If some of the competitors take less
than 20 minutes to work, the example would be a false premise) Ex. 2: “Because Ms. McPherson is
the worst teacher in the school, she should be fired.” (Understood premise of “The worst teachers
should be fired”; hopefully false premise that Ms. McPherson is the worst teacher). Ex. 3: Because
you are in AP or honors, this work must come easy for you. (Understood—and likely false—
premise that honors work is easy for advanced students.)
Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the
premises. Basically, the writer assumes something in his assertion/premise that really needs to be
proved. (Ex. 1: All good citizens know the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Therefore, a test on the
Bill of Rights should be given to all those registering to vote. Ex. 2: A good Christian would
definitely support the such-and-such act, which bans international prostitution. Therefore, so-and-so
who is arguing for it must not be Christian. Ex. 3: “Our ineffective mayor should be replaced.”)
Circular Reasoning (This is quite similar to “begging the question.”): This mistake in logic restates
the premise (assertion or argument) rather than giving a reason for holding that premise. (Ex. 1:
Science should be required of all students because all students need to learn science. Ex. 2: Of
course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible. Ex. 3: Conversation in
Fletch that goes something like this:
“Who are you?”
“I’m Frieda’s boss.”
“Who’s Frieda?”
“She’s my secretary.”)
Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
“Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is
revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office.” Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An
argument like the above supposedly has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret
Services’ official ban on homosexual employees. (Note: I’d say this particular example could be
categorized as false premise or begging the question as well.)
Circular Definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
Example: “A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pornography.” (We would need to know
what pornography is in order to tell whether a book is pornographic.)
Loaded question or Complex Question: This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One
example is the classic loaded question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question
presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often
used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like: “Where did you hide the money
you stole?” Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: “Does the Chancellor plan
offer two more years of ruinous privatization?” or “How long will this EU interference in our affairs
be allowed to continue?”
Overgeneralization or False Generalization: (Stereotyping) The writer/speaker draws a conclusion
about a large number of people, ideas, things, etc. based on very limited evidence. Any statement
assuming all members of an ethnic, religious, or political group are all the same in all or most
respects is false. (Ex. 1: All members of the Wooden Peg Club are not to be trusted. Ex. 2: Whites
are well-off so they shouldn’t be in the pool for a scholarship for those who are needy or who have
overcome challenges.) Words such as never, always, all, every, everyone, everywhere, no one are
usually indicative of overgeneralization. It’s best to use and to look for qualifiers (some, seem,
appear, often, perhaps, frequently, etc.), which indicate that the writer has an awareness of the
complexities of the topic or group under discussion.
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation.
It’s the error made when you go from the general to the specific. For example: “Christians
generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists.”
Hasty generalization: A person who makes a hasty generalization forms a general rule by
examining only a few specific cases, which aren’t necessarily representative of all cases.
Basically, the evidence is insufficient to be applied to a larger population but someone does it
anyway. It is an error that occurs from going from a specific case and trying to make a
generalization based on that incident (or making a generalization on a whole school or
religion or nation based on a handful of individuals). (Ex. 1: The well-known computer
expert found a virus in his own PC. All computers must be contaminated with this virus. Ex.
2: Utah county high schools have had a rise with gang violence, so this must be a rising
problem for all of Utah. Ex. 3: Obama changed his mind on how long the troops need to stay
in Irag; therefore, we can’t trust our politicians—they never stick to what they originally say
they will do. Ex. 4: “Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are
insincere.”)
Anecdotal Evidence: A type of hasty generalization, one of the simplest fallacies is to rely on
anecdotal evidence. For example: “There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing
miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to
church and prayed for her, and she was cured.” It is quite valid to use personal experience to
illustrate a point; but such anecdotes do not act as much proof by themselves. For example, your
friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven’t had the same experience will
require more than your friend’s anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem
very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. Note: When a speaker/writer tries to
use an anecdote alone to prove a point, it is a hasty generalization (perhaps such and such did occur
in one person’s experience, but that experience alone is likely not enough evidence to generalize as a
rule). Note: Anecdotes are often effective in creating pathos or helping a speaker connect with the
audience, but they are not good at creating a foundation of logos—although, an anecdote may be one
building block in creating evidence.
Either/or (also called Black-and-White): The writer asserts that there are only two (usually extreme)
possibilities, when, in reality, there are more. (Ex. 1: Tomorrow is my chemistry final; therefore, I
must study all night, or I will fail the course. Ex. 2: You can have an unhealthy, unreliable engine,
or you can use Brand X oil. Ex. 3: “Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from
inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so
. . . ”). Eithor/or is similar to Many Questions; it’s just that one is in question form.
Many Questions: This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a
complex question. For example: “Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?”
Slippery Slope: This line of reasoning assumes that if one action is taken, it will lead to inevitable
and extreme consequences. There is no gray area or middle ground. This argument argues for (or
against) the first step because, if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last.
For example: “If one Aggie sits down during a football game, soon everyone will; then all our
traditions will be ruined.” Ex. 2: “We can’t allow students any voice in decision-making on campus;
if we do, it won’t be long before they are in total control.” Ex. 3: “If we legalize marijuana, then
more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we’d have to legalize those too. Before long
we’d have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana.” Ex. 4:
“If we allow PDA in the halls, next thing we know tons of girls will be pregnant and then who will
be working our stores and running our economy?” (This last one is pretty similar to what a student
wrote in a paper for my class. It is an example of slippery slope as well as non sequitur.)
Slanting or Slanted Language: This is a form of misrepresentation in which a statement is made
which may be true, but the phrasing, connotations of words, or emphases are manipulative. For
example: “I can’t believe how much money is being poured into the space program” (suggesting
that “poured” means heedless and unnecessary spending). Ex. 2: Do you really think such a
burdensome attendance policy is in the school’s best interest? (Note that the speaker is not allowing
for a neutral conversation. They’ve slanted the question to their side or their audience to their side
by the way they’ve phrased the question.)
Red Herring: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It
takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. (It might be related to what’s being
discussed, but it’s not the exact issue on the table.) For example: Many people say that engineers
need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the
math and drawing skills that an engineer requires. Ex. 2: “You may claim that the death penalty is
an ineffective deterrent against crime—but what about the victims of crime? How do you think
surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their
expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son’s murderer to be fed and housed?”
Straw Man argument: This fallacy occurs when you misrepresent (or distort) someone else’s
position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then
conclude that the original position has been demolished. Or, Straw man is also explained as putting
an opponent’s weak argument with his stronger arguments and then suggesting that when you’ve
overcome the weak argument, you’ve overcome the opponents’ arguments as a whole. Example:
“Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens
and put them into the hands of the criminals.” Ex. 2: Grouping all those opposed to the 2003
invasion of Iraq as “pacifists” allows the speaker to refute the group by arguing for war in general.
Likewise, someone might call those who are for the war “warmongers” or “lackeys of the United
States.”
Tu quoque or Two Wrongs Make a Right: This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an
apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do
it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often
guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system. Ex 2:
Children sometimes try and avoid a punishment because their sibling, parent, or teacher committed
the same offense, but, logically, this does not negate their own offense.
Appeal to Authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea,
argument, or course of action. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his
field. For example: “Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God.” Other examples include
sports stars selling cars or hamburgers, or the actor on a TV commercial that says, “I'm not a doctor,
but I play one on TV.” This line of argument isn’t always completely bogus when used in an
inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a
particular field, if you’re discussing that subject. For example, the following would be pretty good as
a piece of evidence: “Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation.” (Stephen
Hawking is a renowned physicist, and so his opinion seems relevant.) But logicians would still say
that appealing to an authority is not as strong as logically proving something through reasoning,
stats, experiments, etc.
Unrelated testimonials: Authorities in one field are used to endorse a product or an idea that
they lack expertise about. (Ex. 1: A famous basketball player endorses a political candidate.)
Common Man: The “plain folks” or “common man” approach attempts to convince the audience
that the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense of people. It is designed to win the
confidence of the audience by communication in the common manner and style of the target
audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-toface and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the
average person.
Common Belief: This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence
that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the
truth. Example: “Of course O.J. Simpson killed his former wife. Everybody knows that.” Ex. 2:
“Obviously God exists. Nearly all Americans know this to be true.”
Past Belief or Appeal to Tradition (a form of the Common Belief fallacy): An error in reasoning is
committed based on what we’ve done in the past. In other words, asserting that something is good
or bad simply because it’s old, or because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Example: “Everyone
knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?” This is the opposite of
the Argumentum ad Novitatem fallacy, which suggests something is better just because it is newer.
Example of Appeal to Tradition: “For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ.
Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution.” Ex. of
Argumentum ad Novitatem: “BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it
has a much newer design.”
Bandwagon: This form of fallacy/persuasion attempts to persuade the target audience to join in and
take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.” (Similar to Argumentum ad Numerum,
which talks about the numbers/people behind something.)
Distraction by Nationalism: A variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies
applied to entire countries. The method is to discredit opposing arguments by appealing to
nationalistic pride or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear of dislike of a specific
country, or of foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it discredits foreign journalists (the
ones that are least easily manipulated by domestic political or corporate interests). Example: “The
only criticisms of this trade proposal come from the United States. But we all know that Americans
are arrogant and uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant.” Ex. 2: “This has worked in France,
but since when do we follow the French? Do we really want to follow the lead of someone who has
been so wrong in so many other aspects of their foreign policy?”
Non Sequitur: (Latin phrase for “does not follow”). Non Sequitur is a good catch-all. It is a broader
category which can include hasty generalizations, transfers, post hoc, etc., but it is especially useful
if the lack of logic is apparent—the links in logic seem to be missing and could cause some headscratching. A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. For example: A
waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an
automobile’s performance (This is also “transfer.”). In another example: “Tens of thousands of
Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on
other planets is fast becoming certainty!” (Ex 3: Jesse drives a Mercedes. He must have a great deal
of money and live in a mansion. Ex 4: Dr. X is being sued. He must be a terrible doctor. Ex. 5: I
saw some suspicious-looking people in this neighborhood last night. This must be a dangerous
neighborhood.) Note that sometimes the conclusion could be true—if more clues/data added up to it,
but based on the one item, the conclusion seems to come out of nowhere. Note: Colloquially, “non
sequiturs” can refer to a random statement that someone—such as a character in a movie—says that
leaves people laughing and scratching their head, wondering, “Where did that come from?”
Here are a few things people have said or written in my class that I would call non sequiturs (in the
colloquial sense):
 “I can be in whatever mood I want to be because you’re sitting in my seat.” (and then: “I
don’t care if what I said made sense. You’re sitting in my seat, so it doesn’t matter.”)
 “Although players had shaved legs, the team unity at the State Meet was high.”
 “Why are there three girls’ choice dances in a row?” “Because the girls soccer field needs to
be re-done.”