Context Slice What Are Logical Fallacies?
Fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They may sound persuasive but fail to provide valid support for a conclusion. Recognizing fallacies helps evaluate whether an argument actually proves what it claims.
Fallacies of Relevance
These introduce irrelevant information to distract from the actual argument.
Ad Hominem — Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. "You can't trust his economic analysis—he's never run a business." The speaker's background doesn't determine whether the analysis is correct.
Appeal to Authority — Claiming something is true because an authority figure said it, without examining the actual evidence. "This diet works because a celebrity endorses it." Expertise in one area doesn't transfer to others, and even experts can be wrong.
Appeal to Emotion — Using emotional manipulation instead of logical reasoning. "Think of the children!" may be valid context but doesn't constitute an argument on its own.
Appeal to Tradition — Arguing something is correct because it's always been done that way. "We've always used this process" doesn't mean it's optimal or even good.
Appeal to Popularity — Claiming something is true because many people believe it. "Everyone knows this works" is not evidence.
Red Herring — Introducing an unrelated topic to divert attention from the original issue. When asked about budget overruns, responding with "But look at our customer satisfaction scores" sidesteps the question.
Fallacies of Presumption
These assume something that hasn't been established.
Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning) — The conclusion is assumed in the premise. "This is the best approach because nothing else is as good" restates the claim without supporting it.
False Dichotomy — Presenting only two options when more exist. "You're either with us or against us" ignores nuance and middle ground.
Loaded Question — A question that presupposes something unproven. "Have you stopped making bad decisions?" assumes bad decisions were being made.
Hasty Generalization — Drawing broad conclusions from limited examples. "Two customers complained, so the product is failing" doesn't account for sample size.
Slippery Slope — Claiming one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without showing the causal chain. "If we allow this exception, soon there will be no rules at all" requires proof of the cascade.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
These exploit unclear language or shifting meanings.
Equivocation — Using a word with different meanings in different parts of the argument. "The law says we must be fair. I want a fair outcome. Therefore this outcome must be legal." The word "fair" shifts meaning.
Straw Man — Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. "They want to improve work-life balance, so they must not care about results" distorts the original position.
Moving the Goalposts — Changing the criteria for success after the original criteria are met. "Yes, we hit the target, but that's not really success because..."
Fallacies of Causation
These draw incorrect conclusions about cause and effect.
Post Hoc (False Cause) — Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B. "We launched the campaign and sales increased" doesn't prove the campaign caused the increase—other factors may be responsible.
Correlation vs Causation — Treating correlation as proof of causation. Two things happening together doesn't mean one causes the other; they may share a common cause or be coincidental.
Single Cause — Oversimplifying by attributing an outcome to one cause when multiple factors contributed. "The project failed because of the deadline" ignores scope, resources, and other variables.
Detecting Fallacies
When analyzing an argument, ask:
- Is the evidence actually relevant to the conclusion, or does it distract?
- What's being assumed that hasn't been proven?
- Are there other options beyond what's presented?
- Does correlation equal causation in the causal claims?
- Is the opponent's position being represented fairly, or distorted?
- Would the same logic support absurd conclusions if applied elsewhere?
A fallacy doesn't automatically mean the conclusion is wrong—it means the argument doesn't prove what it claims. The conclusion might still be true for other reasons.