Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 13, 2025
The false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences.
This logical fallacy sometimes results from faulty reasoning, but it is often used deliberately to lead an audience to a desired conclusion.
False equivalence exampleDuring live coverage of a peaceful protest, a reporter comments “As I’ve been reporting on the protests, the disruption brings to mind the recent riot that took place when our city’s team lost a football game. Rioters broke the windows of local businesses and set fire to a police car. The impact of these disruptive protests and riots on our communities is truly troubling. Businesses suffer, streets are barricaded, and law enforcement faces serious challenges. The city must crack down on these demonstrations.”
In this example of a false equivalence fallacy, the reporter treats a peaceful protest and a violent sports-related riot as if they were essentially equal. This commentary gives the misleading impression that the protest is as dangerous as the riot despite its lack of violent intentions or actions.
The false equivalence fallacy can occur in contexts such as politics, media reports, and casual debates when significantly different events or circumstances are treated as if they were essentially the same.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
February 11, 2025
A false dichotomy occurs when someone falsely frames an issue as having only two options even though more possibilities exist.
This oversimplification can lead people to overlook valid alternatives, believing they must choose between the two extreme options.
False dichotomy example“If you don’t support economic sanctions against Country A, you must support its oppressive regime.”
This is an example of a false dichotomy because it oversimplifies a complex scenario and claims there are only two possible stances. In reality, it is possible to have a more nuanced position or support neither option.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
July 22, 2024
The motte and bailey fallacy involves equating a controversial claim with one that is easy to defend and strategically shifting between these two positions in a misleading way.
This strategy is considered dishonest because the speaker strategically confuses the audience about their true position.
Motte and bailey fallacy exampleA politician asserts the urgent need for drastic measures to combat climate change, such as banning fossil fuels and implementing severe taxes on carbon emissions. When faced with criticism or skepticism about the economic feasibility or societal impact of such measures, the politician retreats to the safer position of advocating for incremental changes, such as improving energy efficiency and investing in green technologies.
In this example of a motte and bailey fallacy, the extreme position (the bailey) advocates for sweeping changes to address climate change, while the moderate position (the motte) emphasizes more achievable and less controversial goals. This allows a person to shield a controversial stance from criticism and avoid defending it directly.
Motte and bailey fallacies are often found in political, academic, and philosophical debates, among other contexts.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
September 24, 2024
Amphiboly refers to ambiguity in language that arises from unclear grammar, allowing a phrase or sentence to be interpreted in multiple ways.
The amphiboly fallacy is a relatively rare logical fallacy in which a statement’s ambiguous grammatical structure leads to misinterpretations and misleading conclusions.
Amphiboly examples
Amphiboly: “Call me a taxi.”
Explanation: This could be a request to summon a taxi cab, but it could also be interpreted as a request to be referred to as “a taxi.”
Amphiboly: “The chicken is ready to eat.”
Explanation: This could mean that a cooked chicken is ready to be eaten, but it could also mean that a live chicken is ready to eat something.
Amphiboly: “She saw a man on a hill with a telescope.”
Explanation: This could mean that someone used a telescope to view a man on a hill, but it could also mean that the man on the hill had a telescope.
Published on
June 19, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
October 29, 2025
Unconscious biases are instantaneous stereotyped judgments about people that escape our awareness. These biases often conflict with our consciously held values and beliefs.
Unconscious bias exampleA tech company conducts a study revealing that resumes with conventionally white names received 50% more callbacks than those with names associated with other races, despite identical qualifications. This leads to the implementation of a blind recruitment process, which significantly increases diversity in the company’s hires.
Unconscious biases can be especially harmful in contexts where power is imbalanced, including business, academic, medical, and legal contexts.
Published on
June 10, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
September 30, 2024
Ambiguity occurs when an expression or idea is unclear or open to multiple interpretations. Unintentional ambiguity can be confusing and can lead to misunderstandings.
Ambiguity example“He gave her cat food.”
This could mean someone’s cat was fed or someone was fed cat food.
Published on
June 10, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
September 30, 2024
Loaded questions are designed to make someone concede an unproven point. They are considered a form of logical fallacy because they undermine honest discussion.
Loaded question example“Do you have any regrets about your terrible choices?”
Examples of loaded questions are common in media, politics, and everyday conversations.
Published on
May 30, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 13, 2025
Reductio ad absurdum is the strategy of disproving a claim by demonstrating its logical contradictions. This involves assuming the claim is true to show that it leads to contradictions and cannot actually be true.
Reductio ad absurdum exampleClaim: “The truth cannot be known.”
Reductio ad absurdum: “If the truth cannot be known, then it cannot be known whether the statement ‘the truth cannot be known’ is true.”
Reductio ad absurdum is used in philosophy, mathematics, law, and other disciplines where logical consistency is important.
Published on
May 8, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
September 24, 2024
A disjunctive syllogism is an argument with two premises and a conclusion that describes an either–or relationship. The conclusion is derived through a process of elimination when one of the two options is negated.
Disjunctive syllogism example
A shape is either a hexagon or an octagon.
The shape is not a hexagon.
Therefore, the shape is an octagon.
This argument fits the structure of a disjunctive syllogism because it presents a choice between two options (hexagon or octagon), negates one (hexagon), and concludes by affirming the other (octagon).
Disjunctive syllogisms are typically used in formal logic, but mathematics, computer programming, and other disciplines often use the same pattern of reasoning expressed in different ways.
Published on
May 8, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 13, 2025
Hypothetical syllogisms are arguments in formal logic that deduce conclusions from conditional (if–then) statements.
Hypothetical syllogism example
Premise: If an animal has exactly six legs, then it is an insect.
Premise: And if an animal is an insect, then it has three body segments (head, thorax, and abdomen).
Conclusion: Therefore, if an animal has six legs, then it also has three body segments.
This is an example of a hypothetical syllogism that includes a conditional (if–then) statement in each premise. The conclusion follows from the premises with logical certainty.
Syllogisms are typically found in contexts such as formal logic, but syllogistic reasoning is also applied in fields like science and mathematics.
