Common Logical Fallacies

Quarter II - Lesson 2

Mr. Aldrin S. Antonio

Common Logical Fallacies
• In academic writing, fallacies are frowned upon because they are ill
substantiated statements. Unlike incorrect information that can be
easily corrected, logical fallacies involve flawed arguments where the
premises have not been fully supported, leading to a weak and faulty
conclusion. Academic writing requires careful writing using a language
that is logical-that is, free from bias and properly supported by solid
facts and well-researched evidence. A knowledge of the common
fallacies will help you avoid making flawed arguments. discourse, but
it will help you recognize the common errors in reasoning.
 The following list is neither complete nor
an extensive philosophical
Ad hominem - Literally, this fallacy means "to the person." This
is the equivalent of character assassination and attacks a
person's character instead of focusing on his/her performance.

Example:
Person A: "I think we should invest in renewable energy to
combat climate change."
Person B: "You're just a college student, what do you know
about economics and energy? Your opinion doesn't matter.“
In this case, instead of addressing the actual argument about renewable energy and
climate change, Person B attacks the person making the argument by dismissing their
credibility based on their status as a college student. This disregards the merit of the
argument and focuses on discrediting the individual instead.
Appeal to flattery - This argument uses compliments
and praise (often insincere) to win the argument.

Example:
Person A: "I believe our company should pursue this
new project strategy to increase our market share."
Person B: "Your intelligence and vision are unparalleled!
With your brilliant ideas, there's no doubt this strategy
will succeed. You're the smartest person in the room.“

Here, Person B doesn't directly address the merits of the

proposed strategy but rather showers Person A with
exaggerated praise in an attempt to gain favor and
support for the idea without actually evaluating its
feasibility or potential drawbacks.
Appeal to force - Also called argumentum ad
baculum, this argument uses force to win the
argument.
Example:
Person A: "I don't think your proposal for the new
marketing campaign is the best approach."
Person B: "If you don't support this campaign,
you'll find yourself without a job. It's in your best
interest to get on board with it."

In this situation, Person B isn't presenting valid reasons or evidence to support the
marketing campaign but is instead using the threat of job loss to force agreement or
compliance. This appeal relies on fear or intimidation rather than the strength of the
argument itself.
Appeal to pity - This argument capitalizes on the fact
that people easily fall prey to their emotion and
sentimentality. In the following example, the
fundraisers could be unscrupulous con artists out to
fool unsuspecting victims.

Example:

Person A: "I understand I didn't meet the project

deadline, but my dog has been really sick, and I've
been dealing with a lot of personal issues lately."

Person B: "Oh, I feel sorry for you and your dog, so I

guess we can overlook the missed deadline this time."
In this scenario, Person A is appealing to pity by bringing up personal issues and a sick pet to garner
sympathy and forgiveness for not meeting the project deadline. Person B's decision to overlook the
missed deadline is based on emotional sympathy rather than the merits of the work or adherence to
deadlines.
Bandwagon - This fallacy appeals to one's need to be
part of the group, to be "in" and stems from the
assumption that just because the majority approves
of something, it must be good for the individual, too.

Example:

Person A: "Everyone is switching to this new

productivity app. I think we should use it too."

Person B: "If everyone else is using it, it must be

good. Let's go ahead and switch."

In this case, Person B is swayed by the idea that since everyone else is using the app, it must be the
right choice without considering whether it's actually suitable for their needs or if there are better
alternatives available. The argument relies on the popularity of the app rather than its actual quality
or appropriateness for the situation.
Begging the question - This fallacy
uses circular argument-arguing
without sufficiently explaining why
the argument has to be accepted.

Example: "Aliens must exist

because there are unidentified
flying objects reported, and these
UFOs must be alien spacecraft."

In this statement, the argument assumes that the unidentified flying objects are, without question,
alien spacecraft. The premise ("UFOs must be alien spacecraft") presupposes the conclusion
("Aliens must exist"). It doesn’t offer any solid evidence or reasoning for why UFOs necessarily
equate to alien spacecraft. This reasoning is circular because it uses the assumption of aliens to
justify the existence of aliens, without presenting any independent evidence to support the initial
claim that UFOs are indeed alien in origin.
 Either/or - This fallacy offers only two alternatives and
nothing else, leading to weak correlates.

• The either/or fallacy, also known as false dilemma or

black-and-white thinking, presents a situation as having
only two options when, in reality, more possibilities
exist.

Example: The antibiotics didn't work. It is either expired or

fake.

- "You're either with us or against us in the fight against

climate change. If you don't support every aspect of this
environmental policy, then you're against saving the
planet."

In this statement, the argument creates a false dichotomy by suggesting that there are only two
extreme positions: fully supporting the presented environmental policy or being against the entire
fight against climate change. It ignores the possibility of alternative viewpoints or different
approaches to addressing the issue. This fallacy oversimplifies a complex problem by limiting
options to only two extremes.
False cause - This fallacy arises when a misleading
correlation was drawn between two events, ending in a
questionable conclusion.

Example: A large percentage of voters under 25 voted

for the president. In the event that he won in the 2016
elections, it is safe to assume that he’s popular with the
under-25 population.

Example: "Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team

wins. Therefore, my lucky socks are the reason my team
wins."

In this statement, the assumption is that wearing the lucky socks directly causes the team to win. However, just
because the person wore the socks and the team won doesn't prove that the socks caused the victory. There could
be other factors at play that actually influence the outcome of the game, and the correlation between wearing the
socks and winning may be purely coincidental. The fallacy lies in attributing the success of the team solely to the
act of wearing the lucky socks without considering other possible explanations.
False analogy - This kind of fallacy happens when the
debater uses ideas that have similarities but doesn't
consider that the analogy has been overextended, and no
longer applies.

- false analogy fallacy occurs when an argument relies on

an inappropriate comparison between two things that are
not actually alike in relevant aspects.

Example: The presidential campaign is so much like a sales

campaign.

Example: "Debating should be like playing chess. Just as a

chess player sacrifices a piece to gain an advantage, a
debater should sacrifice an argument to win the debate."
In this statement, the analogy between debating and playing chess suggests that sacrificing an
argument in a debate is akin to sacrificing a chess piece to gain an advantage. However, the
comparison is flawed because the nature and rules of chess are fundamentally different from the
principles and objectives of a debate. The analogy fails because it overlooks the crucial differences
between the contexts, rendering the comparison invalid.
Hasty generalization - This fallacy uses an
isolated experience as basis for a general
statement.
Example: I've had spicy food for breakfast
and lunch this day. All the dishes in this
town are spicy indeed.
Example: "I met two people from that city,
and they were both rude. People from that
city must be very unfriendly."

In this case, the conclusion that all people from the city are unfriendly is drawn from a very small
sample size (just two individuals). It doesn’t account for the diversity within the city or consider that
the two people encountered might not be representative of the entire population. It's a hasty
generalization because it jumps to a broad conclusion without enough evidence or a comprehensive
understanding of the population being judged.
Non sequitur - This argument literally means "it doesn't
follow" and contains a weak conclusion from a set of
premises.

Example: If we offer a 10% discount to all students who

dine in our restaurant, all students will choose to dine here.
Example: "She's wearing a red dress, so she must be a good
singer." The color of someone's dress is unrelated to their
singing ability, making this a non sequitur.
Example: "If we don't buy this brand of cereal, our car will
break down." There's no logical connection between the
choice of cereal and the functioning of a car, making it a
non sequitur.

These statements present conclusions that don't logically flow from the premises or
preceding arguments, rendering them non sequiturs.
 Oversimplification - This argument
happens when the correlation between
events is hastily concluded without
sufficient reason or explanation and so
much has been attributed to the
conclusion being the result of the cause.
Example: Meat contains carcinogens.
Meat eaters will ultimately have cancer.
Example: "Exercising regularly will solve
all your health problems."

This statement oversimplifies the complexities of health. While exercise is undoubtedly beneficial, it
doesn't account for other crucial aspects like diet, genetics, mental health, or specific medical
conditions that can influence overall health. The claim suggests that a single solution can address all
health issues, which oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of well-being.
Red herring - This fallacy is used by debaters when
they try to distract their opponent away from the
real issue and onto something irrelevant. It is also a
common ploy committed by the government to veer
the public’s attention away from more pressing
concerns by focusing on something less pressing.

Example: During a political debate about healthcare

reform:
Candidate A: "We need to focus on improving our
healthcare system to make it more accessible to
everyone."
Candidate B: "While healthcare is important, let's
not forget that Candidate A was involved in a
financial scandal a few years ago."
In this scenario, Candidate B brings up the financial scandal, which is unrelated to the topic of
healthcare reform. It's used as a red herring to divert attention away from the main issue being
discussed (healthcare) and instead focuses on an irrelevant and potentially damaging topic about
Candidate A's past.
Slippery slope - This erroneous argument
happens out of fear that once an action has
been taken, a series of actions (often negative)
will happen as a result of the previous action.
Example: "If we allow students to resubmit
their assignments for a better grade, soon
they'll expect to redo every assignment
whenever they want. Eventually, nobody will
take deadlines seriously, and the entire
education system will collapse."
This argument suggests that allowing students to resubmit assignments will inevitably lead to the
downfall of the education system by undermining deadlines and academic standards. However, it
lacks evidence or a logical connection between allowing resubmissions and the extreme scenario of a
collapsed education system. It assumes a chain of events without demonstrating how one step
necessarily leads to the catastrophic outcome.