No fallacies match your search.
Category 01
Formal Fallacies
Errors in the logical structure of an argument — invalid regardless of whether the premises are true.
F-01
Affirming the Consequent
AKA: Converse Error
Assuming that if "If P then Q" is true, and Q is true, then P must be true. The arrow of implication runs only one way.
Example
"If it's raining, the street is wet. The street is wet. Therefore it's raining."
Why It's Wrong
The street could be wet for many reasons — a hose, a flood, a spill. Wet street does not confirm rain as the cause.
Spot It When…
Someone argues backward through a conditional: "Q, therefore P" after only establishing "P → Q".
F-02
Denying the Antecedent
AKA: Inverse Error
Assuming that if P is false, Q must also be false — when only "If P then Q" has been established.
Example
"If you study, you'll pass. You didn't study. Therefore you won't pass."
Why It's Wrong
You might pass through prior knowledge, luck, or a forgiving curve. Not studying doesn't guarantee failure.
Spot It When…
Someone negates the antecedent and concludes the consequent must also be negated.
F-03
Undistributed Middle
AKA: Fallacy of the Middle Term
In a syllogism, the middle term never applies to all members of the category, making the connection invalid.
Example
"All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore all cats are dogs."
Why It's Wrong
"Mammal" is the middle term. It connects cats and dogs to the same category but not to each other.
Spot It When…
Two things share a property and the argument concludes they share an identity or further relationship.
F-04
Illicit Major / Minor
AKA: Illicit Process
A term that is undistributed (partial) in the premises is treated as fully distributed in the conclusion.
Example
"All professors are educated. No students are professors. Therefore no students are educated."
Why It's Wrong
"Educated" is distributed in the conclusion but wasn't fully distributed in the major premise — many educated people aren't professors.
Spot It When…
The conclusion makes a sweeping claim about a term that was only partially referenced in the premises.
F-05
Begging the Question
AKA: Petitio Principii / Circular Reasoning
The conclusion is smuggled into one of the premises. The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
Example
"The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know it is the word of God because the Bible tells us so."
Why It's Wrong
The truth of the Bible is both the premise and the conclusion. The argument provides no independent support.
Spot It When…
Trace back the chain of justification — if you arrive at the original claim as its own support, it's circular.
F-06
Fallacy of False Conversion
AKA: Improper Transposition
Converting a categorical proposition as if subject and predicate are interchangeable when they are not.
Example
"All criminals are lawbreakers. Therefore all lawbreakers are criminals." (Breaks down for "All A are B → All B are A".)
Why It's Wrong
You can break the law without being a criminal in the full sense — a technicality, a minor infraction. The sets are not identical.
Spot It When…
Someone flips a universal statement and presents the reversal as equally true without proof.
F-07
Existential Fallacy
AKA: Existential Instantiation Error
Drawing a conclusion that assumes the existence of at least one member of a category from purely universal premises.
Example
"All trespassers will be prosecuted. All those prosecuted will face fines. Therefore someone will face a fine."
Why It's Wrong
If no one trespasses, the universal premises are vacuously true but no individual conclusion follows.
Spot It When…
The argument shifts from "all X are Y" to "there is an X" without verifying any X actually exists.
F-08
Masked Man Fallacy
AKA: Intensional Fallacy
Treating co-referential terms as interchangeable in intensional (belief, knowledge) contexts when they are not.
Example
"I know who my father is. The masked man is my father. Therefore I know who the masked man is." — But the mask conceals his identity.
Why It's Wrong
In epistemic contexts, identical referents don't substitute freely. You can know something under one description but not another.
Spot It When…
Someone substitutes one name/description for another inside a belief or knowledge claim.
F-09
Affirming a Disjunct
AKA: Exclusive Or Fallacy
Concluding that one disjunct must be false simply because the other is true — valid only if the disjunction is explicitly exclusive.
Example
"She is either talented or hard-working. She is talented. Therefore she is not hard-working."
Why It's Wrong
Inclusive "or" allows both to be true. Unless the disjunction is explicitly exclusive, affirming one option doesn't negate the other.
Spot It When…
An "either/or" statement is treated as mutually exclusive without that exclusivity being established in the premises.
F-10
Denying a Conjunct
AKA: Improper Conjunction Inference
Inferring that one conjunct must be true because the conjunction is false and the other conjunct is false — but both could be false.
Example
"It's not the case that both the engine and the battery are fine. The engine is broken. So the battery must be fine." (The battery could also be broken.)
Why It's Wrong
A conjunction "P and Q" is false if either or both conjuncts are false. Knowing one is false tells you nothing definitive about the other.
Spot It When…
Disproving one part of a joint claim is used to confirm the truth of the remaining part without independent evidence.
Category 02
Informal Fallacies — Appeals & Attacks
Arguments that fail due to their content or context, not structural form — often exploiting emotion, authority, or character.
I-01
Ad Hominem
AKA: Appeal to the Person / Character Attack
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. The arguer's character is irrelevant to the argument's validity.
Example
"You can't trust his economic theory — he's been bankrupt twice."
Why It's Wrong
The theory stands or falls on its own merits. Personal financial history is not a logical counter-argument.
Spot It When…
The rebuttal addresses who said it rather than what was said.
I-02
Tu Quoque
AKA: You Too / Appeal to Hypocrisy
Dismissing a criticism by pointing out that the critic is also guilty of the same thing. Hypocrisy is irrelevant to the truth of the criticism.
Example
"You say I should exercise more, but you never go to the gym either."
Why It's Wrong
The advice about exercise is correct regardless of whether the adviser follows it. The critic's behavior doesn't invalidate the claim.
Spot It When…
"But you do it too!" or "Who are you to say?" — deflection rather than engagement.
I-03
Appeal to False Authority
AKA: Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Citing an authority figure whose expertise does not apply to the domain in question, or who is not a genuine authority.
Example
"This famous actor says this supplement cures arthritis — it must work."
Why It's Wrong
Fame does not equal medical expertise. The endorsement carries no evidential weight outside the actor's actual domain of knowledge.
Spot It When…
An authority is cited whose credentials don't match the claim's domain.
I-04
Appeal to Emotion
AKA: Argumentum ad Passiones
Using emotional manipulation — fear, pity, flattery — to bypass rational evaluation and manufacture agreement.
Example
"Think of the children! We must pass this law immediately." (No evidence the law would help children is provided.)
Why It's Wrong
Emotional resonance is not evidence. The policy must be evaluated on its actual effects, not on whether it evokes sympathy.
Spot It When…
The argument produces a strong emotional response but offers no factual or logical support for the conclusion.
I-05
Appeal to Nature
AKA: Naturalistic Fallacy (informal)
Assuming that something "natural" is inherently good or beneficial, and something "artificial" is inherently bad.
Example
"This tea is 100% natural, so it's perfectly safe." (Many natural substances — arsenic, hemlock — are deadly.)
Why It's Wrong
Natural origin has no intrinsic correlation with safety, efficacy, or goodness. The properties must be evaluated independently.
Spot It When…
"Natural" or "artificial" is used as a standalone positive or negative verdict without further argument.
I-06
Appeal to Tradition
AKA: Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
Arguing that something is correct or good because it has been done that way for a long time.
Example
"We've always done our hiring this way. There's no reason to change now."
Why It's Wrong
Duration of a practice provides no evidence of its correctness. Slavery was traditional. Tradition can encode accumulated error as well as wisdom.
Spot It When…
"We've always…", "It's been done this way for centuries…" used as the terminal justification.
I-07
Appeal to Novelty
AKA: Argumentum ad Novitatem / Chronological Snobbery
The inverse of tradition: assuming something is better simply because it is newer or more modern.
Example
"This is a brand new approach — obviously it's superior to the old method."
Why It's Wrong
Recency has no intrinsic correlation with quality. New drugs fail. New management theories collapse. Novelty must be evaluated on its merits.
Spot It When…
"New", "cutting-edge", "modern" used as sufficient justification without evidential support.
I-08
Genetic Fallacy
AKA: Origin Fallacy
Judging the validity or value of an argument by its source or origin rather than its content.
Example
"That idea came from a known socialist — we shouldn't even consider it."
Why It's Wrong
An idea's origin does not determine its truth value. Good ideas can come from bad people, and bad ideas from good ones.
Spot It When…
The source of an idea is used to dismiss it without examining the idea itself.
I-09
Poisoning the Well
AKA: Preemptive Ad Hominem
Presenting adverse information about a person before they have spoken, to preemptively discredit everything they say.
Example
"Before I let my colleague speak, you should know he's been convicted of fraud. Now — go ahead."
Why It's Wrong
The disclosure may be relevant in some contexts, but using it to pre-dismiss the argument rather than evaluate it is fallacious.
Spot It When…
Adverse framing is introduced before a speaker begins — especially when that framing is irrelevant to the topic.
I-10
Appeal to Popularity
AKA: Ad Populum / Bandwagon Fallacy
Arguing that something must be true or good because many people believe or do it.
Example
"Millions of people believe in astrology — there must be something to it."
Why It's Wrong
Popularity is not evidence of truth. The majority has been wrong on factual questions repeatedly throughout history.
Spot It When…
"Everyone knows…", "Most people agree…", "Millions can't be wrong…" used as terminal justification.
I-11
Anecdotal Evidence
AKA: Testimonial Fallacy / Personal Experience Bias
Using a personal story or single case as conclusive evidence in place of systematic data — treating the vivid particular as representative of the general.
Example
"My grandfather smoked two packs a day and lived to 95 — smoking can't be that dangerous."
Why It's Wrong
One vivid exception cannot override population-level statistical evidence. The grandfather's survival is a real data point — but one of millions, weighted inappropriately by proximity and emotional salience.
Spot It When…
A personal story is used to contradict or override statistical or scientific evidence. The story may be true and still be unrepresentative.
I-12
Sunk Cost Fallacy
AKA: Concorde Fallacy / Escalation of Commitment
Continuing a failing course of action because of resources already invested — treating irrecoverable past costs as a reason to incur future costs.
Example
"We've spent five years and millions developing this software — we can't abandon it now." (Whether to continue depends on future prospects, not past spending.)
Why It's Wrong
Past investment is gone regardless of the decision made now. The only rational question is: does continuing produce more value than the alternative from this point forward?
Spot It When…
"We've already put so much into this" as a reason to continue — rather than a prospective analysis of future outcomes.
Category 03
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments that introduce evidence or reasoning that is logically irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn.
R-01
Red Herring
AKA: Ignoratio Elenchi
Introducing an irrelevant topic or consideration to divert attention from the actual argument or question at hand.
Example
"Why should we worry about climate policy when there's so much poverty in the world?" (Both can be addressed; the question diverts rather than answers.)
Why It's Wrong
The existence of other problems does not address the original issue. It's a topic change disguised as a counter-argument.
Spot It When…
The response changes the subject entirely rather than addressing the original argument.
R-02
Straw Man
AKA: Straw Person / Misrepresentation
Misrepresenting someone's argument in a weaker or more extreme form, then attacking that distortion instead of the actual position.
Example
"Senator X says we should reduce military spending." → "Senator X wants to leave us defenseless against our enemies!"
Why It's Wrong
Reducing spending ≠ eliminating defense. The rebuttal attacks an invented position, not the one stated.
Spot It When…
The response describes the opposing position in terms the opponent would never accept as accurate.
R-03
Whataboutism
AKA: What-About Fallacy / Deflection
Deflecting criticism by pointing to a different problem, typically committed by the opposing side, rather than addressing the original critique.
Example
"You criticize our country's human rights record — what about what your country did in the past?"
Why It's Wrong
Others' wrongdoing doesn't nullify the original criticism. Two wrongs don't cancel; they compound.
Spot It When…
"But what about…" as a substitute for addressing the accusation directly.
R-04
Appeal to Force
AKA: Argumentum ad Baculum
Using a threat of negative consequences — explicit or implicit — to compel agreement rather than offering logical justification.
Example
"You'd better agree with this proposal if you want to keep your position here."
Why It's Wrong
Threats establish no logical relationship between the position and truth. Coerced agreement is not reasoned agreement.
Spot It When…
Disagreeing with a claim comes with an attached consequence that is unrelated to the claim's truth.
R-05
Appeal to Ignorance
AKA: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false — or false because it has not been proven true.
Example
"No one has proven that ghosts don't exist — therefore they do."
Why It's Wrong
Absence of evidence for the negative is not evidence of the positive. Proof of absence is difficult; that difficulty doesn't confirm existence.
Spot It When…
"No one has disproven X" or "Science can't explain X" used as proof of X.
R-06
Non Sequitur
AKA: It Does Not Follow
A conclusion that has no logical connection to the premises — even if each element is true, the jump between them is unjustified.
Example
"He wears expensive suits and drives a luxury car. He will be an excellent CEO."
Why It's Wrong
Wealth and taste in clothing have no logical connection to executive competence. The conclusion does not follow.
Spot It When…
A conclusion is stated after premises with no logical chain connecting them — and no chain is provided.
R-07
Burden of Proof Shifting
AKA: Onus Probandi Reversal
Placing the burden of disproving a claim on the skeptic rather than on the person making the positive assertion.
Example
"Prove to me that this conspiracy doesn't exist." (The person asserting the conspiracy has the burden of evidence.)
Why It's Wrong
The claimant bears the burden of proof. Requiring the skeptic to disprove an unsupported assertion inverts the logical standard.
Spot It When…
An assertion is made and the questioner is challenged to disprove it rather than the asserter being asked to prove it.
R-08
Appeal to Ridicule
AKA: Reductio ad Absurdum (abused) / Appeal to Mockery
Dismissing an argument by making it appear absurd or laughable rather than engaging with its actual content or logic.
Example
"You believe in evolution? So you think your grandfather was a monkey? How ridiculous." (Misrepresents the theory, then mocks the misrepresentation.)
Why It's Wrong
Laughter and social contempt are not arguments. A position must be engaged on its strongest form, not a distorted caricature designed to invite mockery.
Spot It When…
The "rebuttal" consists primarily of scorn, exaggeration to absurdity, or social humiliation rather than counter-argument.
R-09
Argument from Silence
AKA: Argumentum ex Silentio
Concluding that a claim is true (or false) simply because there is no record, mention, or testimony about it — treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Example
"No ancient texts mention this battle, so it never happened." (The texts may simply have been lost or never written.)
Why It's Wrong
Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence when the evidence would reliably exist if the claim were true. Historical silence often reflects gaps in the record, not gaps in reality.
Spot It When…
"There's no record of X" or "no one mentions X" used as positive proof that X did not occur.
R-10
Kettle Logic
AKA: Freud's Kettle / Inconsistent Defense
Offering multiple mutually inconsistent defenses simultaneously, any one of which would be sufficient, in the hope that the sheer number disguises their incompatibility.
Example
"I never borrowed your kettle. And I returned it in perfect condition. And it was already broken when you lent it to me." (From Freud — all three cannot simultaneously be true.)
Why It's Wrong
Mutually exclusive defenses cannot all be true. Deploying them together is not layered defense but logical contradiction parading as abundance of justification.
Spot It When…
Multiple defenses are offered in rapid succession that contradict each other — each one implicitly denies a premise required by another.
Category 04
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Arguments that exploit vague, shifting, or ambiguous language to create false impressions of logical validity.
A-01
Equivocation
AKA: Semantic Shift / Double Meaning
Using a word in two different senses within the same argument, making an invalid inference appear valid.
Example
"The law says I can do whatever is 'right.' I have the right to swing my fist. Therefore the law lets me punch you."
Why It's Wrong
"Right" shifts from morally correct to legal entitlement. The argument trades on this shift to produce a false conclusion.
Spot It When…
A key term is used in one sense early in the argument and a different sense later, without acknowledgment.
A-02
Amphiboly
AKA: Grammatical Ambiguity
An argument that rests on a grammatically ambiguous statement, where one reading is used to draw a conclusion that only follows from the other reading.
Example
"The oracle says 'You will defeat the enemy.' So we will win!" (The statement could mean the enemy defeats you.)
Why It's Wrong
The sentence is structurally ambiguous. Drawing a confident conclusion from an ambiguous premise is invalid.
Spot It When…
A sentence can be parsed multiple ways, and the argument assumes a specific interpretation without justification.
A-03
Fallacy of Composition
AKA: Part-to-Whole Fallacy
Inferring that what is true of each part of a whole must be true of the whole itself.
Example
"Every player on this team is excellent. Therefore this is an excellent team."
Why It's Wrong
Excellent individuals may perform poorly as a collective due to poor chemistry, redundant skills, or lack of coordination.
Spot It When…
Properties of individual parts are attributed to the collective without examination of how parts interact.
A-04
Fallacy of Division
AKA: Whole-to-Part Fallacy
The inverse of composition: inferring that what is true of a whole must be true of each of its parts.
Example
"This airline is profitable. Therefore every route it operates must be profitable."
Why It's Wrong
A company can be profitable overall while individual routes lose money, subsidized by more profitable ones.
Spot It When…
A collective property is distributed to each member without evidence that the distribution is uniform.
A-05
Fallacy of Accent
AKA: Misleading Emphasis
Changing the meaning of a statement by stressing different words, or by taking words out of context in a way that distorts the original meaning.
Example
Report: "The defendant was not proven guilty of murder." → Headline: "Defendant Not Proven Guilty" (implying broader exoneration).
Why It's Wrong
Selective quotation and emphasis alters the meaning of the original statement without technically lying.
Spot It When…
A partial quote or selectively emphasized version of a claim creates an impression the full original does not.
A-06
Fallacy of Vagueness
AKA: Woolly Thinking
Using terms so imprecise that the argument cannot be properly evaluated — the claim is insulated from falsification by being indeterminate.
Example
"This policy will lead to a better society for everyone." (What counts as better? For whom? Measured how?)
Why It's Wrong
A claim too vague to be falsified is also too vague to be informative. The listener provides their own content, which the speaker did not commit to.
Spot It When…
Ask for a concrete definition or specific measure — if none is possible, the claim is too vague to evaluate.
A-07
Reification
AKA: Hypostatization / Concretism
Treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete, tangible entity — then attributing properties and causal powers to it that only physical things can have.
Example
"Society demands that you conform." / "The economy wants lower wages." (Society and the economy are not agents with desires.)
Why It's Wrong
Abstractions like "society" or "the economy" are conceptual tools, not agents. Attributing intention or causal agency to them smuggles normative claims without argument.
Spot It When…
An abstract noun is given a verb implying will, desire, or agency: "Nature intends…", "History shows that…", "The market has decided…"
A-08
Quoting Out of Context
AKA: Contextomy / Selective Quotation
Extracting a passage from its surrounding context in a way that materially changes or reverses its original meaning.
Example
Full text: "This policy is not ideal, but it is better than the alternatives." Quoted as: "This policy is not ideal." — used to claim the author opposes it.
Why It's Wrong
Meaning is context-dependent. The truncated version inverts the speaker's actual position while technically reproducing their words.
Spot It When…
A quote is cited that seems to support a position — always locate the surrounding passage. Does the argument survive reading the full source?
A-09
Weasel Words
AKA: Hedged Assertion / Epistemic Cowardice
Using deliberately vague qualifiers — "some say," "many believe," "it has been suggested" — to imply a claim without committing to it, making it immune to direct refutation.
Example
"Some people are saying there may be questions about his background." (No source, no claim — but an impression is planted.)
Why It's Wrong
The phrasing conveys insinuation while evading accountability. "Some people say" commits the speaker to nothing while poisoning the listener's view.
Spot It When…
Ask: "Who? What exactly? On what evidence?" If no substantive answer is possible, the claim is a weasel — designed to be unfalsifiable by design.
Category 05
Causal Fallacies
Errors in reasoning about cause and effect — confusing correlation for causation, or misidentifying causal mechanisms.
C-01
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
AKA: False Cause / After This Therefore Because of This
Inferring that because B followed A, A must have caused B. Temporal sequence is confused with causal relationship.
Example
"I wore my lucky socks and we won the game. My socks caused the win."
Why It's Wrong
Correlation in time establishes nothing about causation. Thousands of events preceded the win; sequence alone doesn't isolate a cause.
Spot It When…
"X happened, then Y happened — therefore X caused Y" with no mechanism identified.
C-02
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
AKA: Correlation-Causation Fallacy
Inferring that because two things occur together (simultaneously), one must cause the other — ignoring confounders and common causes.
Example
"Regions with more churches have higher crime rates. Therefore churches cause crime." (Both correlate with population density.)
Why It's Wrong
A third variable — population — explains both. Co-occurrence without mechanism, ruling out confounders, and ruling out reverse causation does not establish cause.
Spot It When…
A statistical correlation is presented as direct evidence of causation without isolating the mechanism.
C-03
Slippery Slope
AKA: Domino Fallacy / Causal Chain Fallacy
Claiming that one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences through a chain of events, without demonstrating why each step is likely.
Example
"If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry animals, then objects, and civilization will collapse."
Why It's Wrong
Each step in the chain must be independently justified. The mere possibility of a sequence is not evidence it is probable or inevitable.
Spot It When…
A mild initial action is said to "inevitably" produce extreme outcomes, with no evidence for each step in the chain.
C-04
Ignoring Common Cause
AKA: Third Variable Fallacy / Lurking Variable
Attributing causation to one of two correlated things while ignoring a third factor that actually causes both.
Example
"Ice cream sales cause drowning deaths — both peak in summer." (Heat, not ice cream, drives both.)
Why It's Wrong
A common cause — seasonal temperature — produces both effects. Ignoring it creates the appearance of a direct causal link that doesn't exist.
Spot It When…
Ask: "Is there a third factor that could independently produce both of these observations?"
C-05
Reverse Causation
AKA: Cause-Effect Reversal
Getting the direction of causation backwards — attributing to the cause what is actually the effect, and vice versa.
Example
"Depressed people stay in bed longer — so sleeping too much causes depression." (Depression may cause the extended sleep.)
Why It's Wrong
Correlation data alone cannot establish direction. Without temporal precedence and mechanism, the causal arrow could run either way.
Spot It When…
Ask: "Could the supposed effect actually be what's producing the supposed cause?"
C-06
Single Cause Fallacy
AKA: Causal Reductionism / Mono-Causalism
Assuming a complex phenomenon has only one cause, ignoring the multi-causal nature of most real-world events.
Example
"Crime is caused by poverty. Fix poverty, end crime." (Ignores cultural, psychological, institutional, and other causal factors.)
Why It's Wrong
Most complex social phenomena are overdetermined — many factors contribute. Identifying one doesn't negate the others or justify ignoring them.
Spot It When…
"The cause of X is Y" stated without acknowledgment that other causes may also operate.
C-07
Regression to the Mean Fallacy
AKA: Statistical Regression Error
Attributing natural statistical regression — extreme values drifting toward average — to an intervention when no intervention caused the change.
Example
"After taking the new supplement during my worst flu, I recovered. The supplement cured me." (Natural recovery over time would have occurred regardless.)
Why It's Wrong
Extreme illness naturally improves. The supplement was introduced at a peak; the subsequent improvement is predicted statistically, not pharmaceutically.
Spot It When…
An intervention is introduced at an extreme state and credited with improvement that occurs naturally as the state normalizes.
C-08
Confusing Necessary & Sufficient Conditions
AKA: Condition Conflation
Treating a condition that is merely necessary (required but not enough) as if it were sufficient (enough on its own to guarantee the outcome), or vice versa.
Example
"Oxygen is necessary for fire. There's oxygen here. Therefore there will be fire." (Oxygen is necessary but not sufficient — fuel and ignition are also required.)
Why It's Wrong
Necessary conditions must be present but cannot alone produce the result. Sufficient conditions guarantee the result. Conflating these produces systematically wrong predictions.
Spot It When…
Ask: "Is this condition merely required, or does its presence alone guarantee the outcome?" The answer determines which logical inference is valid.
C-09
Causal Mechanism Fallacy
AKA: Unexplained Causation / Black Box Causation
Asserting a causal relationship without any plausible mechanism — relying entirely on correlation or intuition and treating it as established causation.
Example
"Listening to classical music makes babies smarter." (The Mozart Effect claim was built on correlation with no confirmed mechanism.)
Why It's Wrong
Causal claims require more than correlation — they require a plausible, testable mechanism that explains how the cause produces the effect.
Spot It When…
Ask: "How exactly does X produce Y?" If no coherent mechanism can be described, the causal claim is premature.
C-10
Proximate vs. Distal Cause Confusion
AKA: Surface Cause / Root Cause Fallacy
Attributing an outcome to the most immediate preceding cause while ignoring the deeper structural or distal causes that made it possible or inevitable.
Example
"The war started because the archduke was assassinated." (The proximate trigger — the assassination — obscures the distal web of treaties, militarism, and imperial rivalry that made war nearly inevitable.)
Why It's Wrong
Focusing only on the immediate trigger assigns explanatory weight to the surface event and obscures the structural conditions that made the outcome possible.
Spot It When…
A single triggering event receives full causal credit for a complex outcome. Ask: "What made this trigger effective? Could any trigger have produced the same result?"
Category 06
Fallacies of Presumption
Arguments that assume more than the premises justify — embedding unearned claims into the structure of reasoning.
P-01
False Dilemma
AKA: False Dichotomy / Either-Or Fallacy
Presenting only two options as if they are exhaustive when additional possibilities exist — forcing a choice within a manufactured constraint.
Example
"You're either with us or against us." (Neutral, partial agreement, conditional support, and principled abstention are all erased.)
Why It's Wrong
Real choices typically occupy a spectrum. Forcing a binary obscures the middle ground and manufactures pressure to pick a side.
Spot It When…
The argument offers exactly two options and implies no others exist. Ask: "Is there a third option being ignored?"
P-02
Hasty Generalization
AKA: Insufficient Sample / Overgeneralization
Drawing a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative or insufficient sample of cases.
Example
"I met two rude people from that city. Everyone from there is unfriendly."
Why It's Wrong
Two data points from a population of millions cannot support a universal claim. The sample is too small and likely biased by recency and availability.
Spot It When…
"All," "every," or "always" conclusions drawn from a handful of examples or a single vivid experience.
P-03
Sweeping Generalization
AKA: Secundum Quid / Accident Fallacy
Applying a general rule rigidly to a specific case where an exception is clearly warranted, ignoring contextual factors.
Example
"Lying is always wrong. Therefore you should not have lied to the murderer about where your friend was hiding."
Why It's Wrong
General moral rules are meant for normal circumstances. Applying them mechanically to extreme edge cases ignores the purpose the rule serves.
Spot It When…
A general principle is applied robotically to a case that clearly falls outside the rule's intended scope.
P-04
Complex Question
AKA: Many Questions Fallacy / Loaded Question
Asking a question that bundles a controversial assumption with a seemingly simple query, so any direct answer concedes the assumption.
Example
"Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?" (Both yes and no accept that you did cheat on your taxes.)
Why It's Wrong
The question presupposes guilt before it has been established. Answering on its own terms means accepting an unproven charge.
Spot It When…
Both yes and no answers to the question accept something contested. Refuse the framing before answering.
P-05
No True Scotsman
AKA: Purity Fallacy / Ad Hoc Rescue
Protecting a universal claim from counterexample by redefining the category to exclude the counterexample, without principled justification.
Example
"No Scotsman would do such a thing." → "But Angus did it." → "Well, no true Scotsman would."
Why It's Wrong
The category is redefined post-hoc to exclude counterexamples. This makes the claim unfalsifiable — any counterexample is dismissed by definitional fiat.
Spot It When…
A counterexample is dismissed not by argument but by redefinition: "That's not a real X."
P-06
Special Pleading
AKA: Double Standard / Ad Hoc Exception
Applying a standard consistently except when it works against oneself, then claiming a special exemption without principled justification.
Example
"I know psychics are usually frauds, but this one is different — she really has the gift." (No non-circular criterion given for why this case is different.)
Why It's Wrong
Exceptions must be justified by criteria that apply independently of who benefits. Otherwise, the standard is not a standard — it's a preference.
Spot It When…
Ask: "Would you accept this exception if applied equally to a case where you don't benefit?"
P-07
False Middle Ground
AKA: Argument to Moderation / Fallacy of the Mean
Assuming the truth must lie between two extreme positions simply because both extremes are presented — when one may be entirely correct.
Example
"Some say the Earth is flat, some say round. The truth is probably somewhere in between."
Why It's Wrong
When evidence overwhelmingly supports one position, "balance" is not intellectual virtue — it is distortion. Not all positions deserve equal treatment.
Spot It When…
"Both sides have a point" or "the truth is in the middle" used where one position is well-evidenced and the other is not.
P-08
Naturalistic Fallacy
AKA: Is-Ought Problem / Moore's Fallacy
Inferring what ought to be from what is — deriving a normative conclusion from purely descriptive premises without bridging argument.
Example
"Animals in nature kill each other for food and survival. Therefore humans are justified in any aggressive behavior." (Is → Ought.)
Why It's Wrong
What is natural or observed in nature establishes no moral obligation. Moral claims require moral premises — purely empirical premises cannot yield them.
Spot It When…
The argument moves from "X is" or "X happens" to "X is good" or "X should be" without providing a moral bridging premise.
P-09
Gambler's Fallacy
AKA: Monte Carlo Fallacy / Hot Hand Fallacy
Believing that past random outcomes affect future independent random events — that a long streak makes a different outcome "due."
Example
"The coin has landed heads ten times in a row — it must land tails next." (Each flip is independent; the coin has no memory.)
Why It's Wrong
For independent events, prior outcomes don't alter probabilities. The 11th flip is still 50/50 regardless of what the first ten were.
Spot It When…
Past frequency or streaks in random events are used to predict a future independent outcome.
P-10
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
AKA: Retrospective Clustering / Data Dredging
Identifying a pattern in data after the fact, then treating that post-hoc observation as if it were a prediction or meaningful finding.
Example
"I looked at all the lottery numbers for 2023 and found they cluster in certain ways — I've discovered a pattern!" (The pattern was sought after the fact.)
Why It's Wrong
Enough data always contains apparent patterns by chance. Post-hoc pattern identification without pre-specified hypotheses inflates false positives dramatically.
Spot It When…
The "discovery" of a pattern was preceded by examining the data without a prior hypothesis — the target was drawn after the shots.
P-11
Nirvana Fallacy
AKA: Perfect Solution Fallacy
Rejecting a real, imperfect solution in favor of an ideal but non-existent one — demanding perfection as the standard for action.
Example
"This vaccine isn't 100% effective, so there's no point taking it." (It significantly reduces risk even without perfect efficacy.)
Why It's Wrong
The relevant comparison is not with a hypothetical perfect solution but with the available alternatives. Imperfect improvements are still improvements.
Spot It When…
A real option is dismissed because it doesn't achieve the ideal outcome — without comparing it to the realistic alternative (doing nothing).
P-12
Fallacy of Relative Privation
AKA: Appeal to Worse Problems / "At Least" Fallacy
Dismissing a concern because worse problems exist elsewhere — as if the relative severity of a problem determines whether it deserves attention.
Example
"You're complaining about workplace discrimination? Children are starving in war zones."
Why It's Wrong
The existence of worse suffering does not negate the validity of addressing real harm. Human attention and policy capacity are not zero-sum in this way.
Spot It When…
"At least…" or "compared to real problems…" used to dismiss rather than engage with a legitimate concern.