Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
October 29, 2024
Non sequitur fallacies, also known as formal fallacies, occur when a deductive argument has a flawed structure. In arguments that commit non sequitur fallacies, the premises don’t logically imply the conclusion, rendering the argument invalid.
Non sequitur fallacy examplePremise: All poets are writers.
Premise: Some writers are journalists.
Conclusion: Therefore, some poets have journalism degrees.
This example illustrates a type of non sequitur fallacy. The truth of the conclusion, that some poets have journalism degrees, can’t be inferred from the premises. The argument thus fails to meet the standards of deductive reasoning, in which the truth of the premises should necessitate the truth of the conclusion.
All formal fallacies can be considered non sequitur fallacies. However, the term is especially useful for formal fallacies that don’t fall into another named category.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
A false dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument falsely suggests that there are only two possibilities. False dilemmas manipulate the audience into making a choice by oversimplifying the situation.
This fallacy is often used in persuasive rhetoric to make one option seem much more appealing than the other.
False dilemma fallacy example“You either support all government policies or you leave the country.”
False dilemma fallacies are common in contexts such as politics and marketing when an audience is being pressured to make a decision.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 21, 2024
The no true Scotsman fallacy occurs when an argument defines a category in one way but later refines that definition, specifically for the purpose of excluding counterexamples. This tactic is used in response to evidence that directly contradicts a broad generalization.
No true Scotsman arguments allow the speaker to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with their views without honestly confronting new or conflicting information.
Example of no true Scotsman fallacyPerson A: No vegan would want to eat imitation meat.
Person B: I’m vegan, and I like eating imitation meat because it allows me to enjoy my favorite foods without harming animals.
Person A: Then you’re not a true vegan. A real vegan wouldn’t even want to remember the taste of meat.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
December 18, 2024
The genetic fallacy involves judging a claim based on its origins rather than the evidence and reasoning presented. Instead of evaluating an idea based on its merits and flaws, an argument that commits the genetic fallacy simply casts aspersions on its source.
Genetic fallacy example“Recent studies have claimed that black cumin seed has therapeutic potential, but that’s absurd. The medicinal use of the seed originates from ancient superstitious practices.”
This stance exemplifies the genetic fallacy by rejecting scientific evidence of black cumin seed (Nigella sativa) based solely on the fact that the seed was used medicinally in ancient times.
Genetic fallacies can result from poor reasoning or a disingenuous attempt to discredit an opposing position.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
September 30, 2024
Equivocation fallaciesoccur when an argument’s persuasiveness depends on the confusing use of a word that has multiple meanings. When a word is used in different ways in the same argument, and no clear distinction is made, the argument can become misleading.
Equivocation fallacy example“Our nation values freedom. That’s why we should have only state-run media. Government controlled media that aligns with our national values will keep our citizens free from foreign influences and disinformation.”
This argument commits the equivocation fallacy by conflating two meanings of being “free.” Initially the word “freedom” is used to refer to the idea of having civil liberties and not being controlled or dominated by anyone. However, the word “free” is later used in the sense of being relieved of something negative.
People may commit the equivocation fallacy intentionally, in persuasive contexts, or as a result of faulty reasoning.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 7, 2024
The ad populum fallacy, also known as the appeal to popularity, is the mistake of arguing that a claim is true based solely on the fact that many people believe it. This fallacy appeals to innate biases that encourage us to conform to others’ opinions and behaviors.
Ad populum fallacy exampleThe Cardiff Giant, a 10-foot-tall “petrified man” statue discovered in New York in 1869, was said to be a petrified prehistoric giant. Many people believed in its authenticity solely due to its widespread popularity. However, the giant was revealed to be a carving created as a deliberate hoax.
This example of ad populum reasoning underscores how popularity alone can lead to the acceptance of a claim without sufficient evidence.
Ad populum arguments are often used to distract from a lack of substantial evidence for a claim. Examples can be found in many domains, including discussions of health, politics, and investment strategies.
Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The appeal to tradition fallacy involves arguing that something is right solely because it has been accepted or practiced for a long time.
Tradition is treated as sufficient proof of an idea or behavior’s merit without evidence or analytical reasoning.
Appeal to tradition fallacy example“People have been using St. John’s Wort as a remedy for depression for generations, proving that it has legitimate therapeutic effects.”
Regardless of whether St. John’s Wort has therapeutic value in treating depression, this argument commits the appeal to tradition fallacy because it expresses certainty without any discussion of objective evidence. The error lies in treating tradition alone as adequate proof of the treatment’s efficacy.
The appeal to tradition fallacy often occurs in debates about cultural practices, religious beliefs, legal and political decisions, and medical treatments.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when a claim is considered true or false based solely on the absence of definitive proof of the contrary.
This logical fallacy is an attempt to sidestep the burden of proof by suggesting that the absence of preexisting counter-evidence is sufficient to prove the speaker’s claim.
Appeal to ignorance exampleA celebrity defendant is acquitted of a crime, but the public disagrees with the verdict. A commentator defends the celebrity: “The prosecution couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so it’s been definitively proven that this person is innocent. Anyone who still questions the verdict is being unreasonable.”
This reasoning is an example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy because it wrongly suggests that the prosecution’s failure to definitively prove guilt implies the defendant’s innocence. In reality, the absence of irrefutable evidence can result in an acquittal, but it does not prove with certainty that the accused did not commit the crime.
Appeals to ignorance can be found in a variety of contexts, including law, marketing, and politics. This faulty line of reasoning can also be seen in discussions of paranormal activity and conspiracy theories.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The hasty generalization fallacy involves forming far-reaching conclusions without sufficient evidence.
Such conclusions often lead to misleading or inaccurate representations of reality, as they are based on an incomplete understanding of the data.
Hasty generalization fallacy example“In several cases, individuals released early from prison due to reform policies committed crimes shortly after their release. This proves that early release policies are dangerous and increase crime rates.”
This argument commits the hasty generalization fallacy by extrapolating the outcomes of a few cases to critique all early release policies and neglecting to analyze broader statistics that might show overall positive impacts or different outcomes.
Hasty generalizationsare often called overgeneralization fallacies or faulty generalization fallacies.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
December 9, 2024
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an argument relies solely on soliciting sympathy in a situation that requires rational analysis. Instead of focusing on evidence and reasoning, an argument that commits this fallacy tries to sway opinions by eliciting pity or guilt.
Appeal to pity fallacy exampleDuring conflicts, it’s common for state propaganda to portray a country as a defenseless victim of unprovoked attacks to garner backing for military endeavors or validate government actions. This approach bypasses a balanced discussion on the motivations and strategies of all the involved parties, as well as the broader implications of various courses of action.
The fallacy is also known by the more formal name argumentum ad misericordiam, meaning “argument from compassion” in Latin. Fallacious appeals to pity are easy to find in many contexts, such as advertising, politics, law, and fundraising.
