How can you avoid the base rate fallacy?

To avoid being influenced by the base rate fallacy, consider the following strategies:

Prioritize statistical data: Always consider the general frequency of an event before focusing on specific instances or results.
Avoid overreliance on specifics: Don’t let compelling details overshadow overall statistical probabilities.

Apply Bayesian reasoning: Start with initial probabilities and systematically update them with new evidence to balance general data with specific information.

How can you avoid the base rate fallacy?: Reasoning

Why is deductive reasoning stronger than inductive reasoning?: Deductive reasoning is considered stronger than inductive reasoning in a specific sense:

If a deductive argument’s premises are factually correct, and its structure is valid, then its conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

An inductive argument, in contrast, can only suggest the strong likelihood of its conclusion
What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?: Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are the two most prominent approaches to critical thinking and argumentation. Each plays a crucial role in reasoning and argumentation, but they serve different functions:

Inductive reasoning relies on specific observations to form general conclusions. Example: “The sun has risen every day of my life; therefore, the sun will always rise every day.”

Cannot prove a conclusion with absolute certainty

Can result in informal logical fallacies (i.e., errors of content)

Deductive reasoning (or formal reasoning) relies on general principles to form specific conclusions. Example: “All humans are mortal. Socrates was human. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

Can prove a conclusion with absolute certainty if the premises are true and the argument has a valid form

Can result in formal logical fallacies (i.e., errors of form)
What is an example of analogical reasoning in everyday life?: An example of analogical reasoning in everyday life is the expression “Love is a battlefield.” This analogy emphasizes the challenges, conflicts, and emotional turmoil that can occur in relationships. It suggests that navigating romantic relationships requires strategy, resilience, and sometimes sacrifice, much like a physical battle.
What is the most important question to ask when assessing analogical reasoning?: To determine the strength of analogical reasoning, the most important question to ask is whether the similarities between the two situations or entities being compared are relevant and meaningful to the conclusion being drawn.
How is analogical reasoning different from the representative heuristic?: Analogical reasoning and the representative heuristic both involve making judgments based on similarities between objects or situations, but there is a key difference:

Analogical reasoning: A process of drawing conclusions or making inferences about a new or unfamiliar situation based on similarities with a known or familiar situation

Representative heuristic: A mental shortcut or rule of thumb used to make judgments based on how closely an object or situation resembles a typical example or prototype
Is analogical reasoning a form of inductive reasoning?: Analogical reasoning is sometimes considered a subcategory of inductive reasoning because it involves generalizing from specific instances to derive broader principles or patterns. However, some argue that analogical reasoning is distinct from induction because it involves drawing conclusions based on similarities between cases rather than generalizing from specific instances.

Along with abductive reasoning, they are forms of ampliative reasoning (in contrast to deductive reasoning).
What is the opposite of black-and-white thinking?: The opposite of black-and-white thinking is often referred to as seeing “shades of gray” or recognizing nuance. This mindset involves appreciating subtleties and complexity and acknowledging a spectrum of possibilities.

Pushing back against the cognitive bias of black-and-white thinking enables us to form deeper and more balanced judgments about the world. Appreciating nuance and complexity helps us guard against logical fallacies such as false dichotomies.
What is nuanced thinking?: Nuanced thinking involves recognizing that situations, ideas, and individuals are complex and typically have a combination of strengths and weaknesses, allowing for flexibility, understanding, and appreciation of diverse viewpoints and interpretations.

This is closely related to the idea of “seeing shades of gray,” an idiom often used in contrast to black-and-white thinking. This metaphor conveys the idea of considering and acknowledging multiple perspectives, recognizing complexities and nuances rather than interpreting everything in extreme terms.
What is splitting in psychology?: In psychology, the term splitting describes a defense mechanism that involves thinking about people in extreme terms (e.g., seeing a person as completely good and later deciding that person is completely evil). Whereas black-and-white thinking is a cognitive bias that pertains to reasoning and affects humans in general, splitting involves human relationships and is associated with specific mental health conditions.

Thinking in extremes makes people susceptible to logical fallacies that involve exaggerated and simplistic representations of an issue, such as the false dilemma fallacy.
What is binary thinking?: Binary thinking, or black-and-white thinking, involves categorizing ideas, people, and situations into two distinct, often opposite, groups. “Binary” in this context refers to a classification system that acknowledges only two possibilities, ignoring a spectrum that exists in between. This bias can lead to logical fallacies such as the either-or fallacy.
What is the plural form of premise?: The plural form of premise is “premises.”

Here is an example of how “premises” can be used in a sentence:

“In a syllogism, it is crucial that both premises support the argument’s conclusion.”
What is the meaning of basic premise?: A basic premise is a fundamental assumption or principle that serves as the foundation of an argument or theory. Basic premises are often implicit and taken for granted, serving as starting points from which logical deductions or inferences are made (e.g., “We assume, as a basic premise, that causing unnecessary suffering is morally wrong).
What is the definition of premise?: A premise is the basis for an argument. It is a foundational element upon which further conclusions or deductions are made. Premises play an especially important role in syllogisms, which express deductive reasoning.
Is modus ponens always valid?: Modus ponens arguments are always valid based on their logical structure, which ensures the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

However, for an argument to be both valid and sound, the premises must also be true. Validity refers to the argument’s structure ensuring the conclusion follows from the premises, while soundness refers to the argument’s validity plus the actual truth of the premises.
Is modus ponens a fallacy?: Modus ponens is not a logical fallacy; it is a valid form of deductive reasoning. Also known as “affirming the antecedent,” it employs a straightforward logical structure:

If P, then Q.

P.

Therefore, Q.

However, flawed attempts at forming a syllogism often result in formal logical fallacies, such as denying the antecedent, which resembles modus ponens in form but fails to provide logical certainty:

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

Although the two arguments look similar, denying the antecedent is an invalid form of argument.
What is the English translation of “modus tollens”?: “Modus tollens” translates to “method of denying” in English.

In contrast, the Latin term “modus ponens” means “method of affirming.” Both refer to types of syllogisms.
How does modus tollens relate to contrapositives in logic?: A contrapositive negates and reverses a conditional (if–then) statement. For example, the contrapositive for the statement “If P, then Q” is “If not Q, then not P.”

Modus tollens validates the contrapositive, demonstrating that “not P” follows logically from “not Q” as follows:

If P, then Q.

Not Q.

Therefore, not P.
Is modus tollens a logical fallacy?: Modus tollens is not a logical fallacy; it is a valid approach to deductive reasoning.

However, syllogisms such as modus tollens are often conflated with formal logical fallacies (or non sequitur fallacies).

The two fallacies that are most easily conflated with modus tollens are affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

Affirming the consequent takes the form “If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.” This argument is invalid because P might not be the only potential cause of Q.

Denying the antecedent takes the form “If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.” This argument is fallacious because negating P doesn’t prove that Q is impossible.
What is a synonym for “syllogism”?: “Syllogism” has several near-synonyms:

formal argument

deductive argument

deductive reasoning

logical deduction

logical inference

Our AI Rewriter can help you find synonyms for words like “syllogism.”
How is “syllogism” pronounced?: The word “syllogism” is pronounced SIL-uh-jiz-uhm (IPA: /ˈsɪləˌdʒɪzəm/).
What is the literary definition of “syllogism”?: A literary syllogism mirrors formal logic by presenting two premises, often implicit, followed by a conclusion, enhancing a narrative’s depth and complexity.

For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch’s argument that all humans are created equal, coupled with evidence of Tom Robinson’s innocence, leads to the conclusion that Tom should be acquitted.
How many types of syllogisms are there?: There are three main types of syllogisms in classical logic:

Hypothetical syllogisms (also known as conditional syllogisms)

Disjunctive syllogisms

Categorical syllogisms

The main distinction between them is the relationships expressed by their premises.
What is an example of deductive reasoning?: An example of deductive reasoning in real life is a student forming conclusions about shapes and angles based on the laws of geometry.

The sum of any triangle’s interior angles is 180°.

Two angles in a given triangle are 50° and 60°.

The third angle is 70°.

Deductive reasoning applies a general rule to a specific case to draw a conclusion.
Why is deductive reasoning important?: Deductive reasoning is a crucial part of critical thinking, especially in domains such as philosophy, mathematics, and science. It allows us to make predictions and evaluate theories objectively.

Deductive arguments provide frameworks for testing hypotheses (typically developed through inductive reasoning) and allow us to establish conclusions with logical certainty.
Are hypothetical syllogisms inductive or deductive?: Hypothetical syllogisms express deductive reasoning, beginning with relatively general premises and inferring specific conclusions. All three major categories of syllogisms (hypothetical syllogisms, disjunctive syllogisms, and categorical syllogisms) are deductive.

In contrast, inductive reasoning begins with specific observations and infers relatively broad conclusions.
How can you prove the validity of a disjunctive syllogism using a truth table?: In symbolic logic, the validity of a disjunctive syllogism can be proved using a truth table. This table expresses all truth values (i.e., true or false, expressed as T or F) of the premises and conclusion under all possible conditions.

P Q P ∨ Q
(“Either P or Q.”) ¬P
(“Not P.”) Conclusion
(“Therefore, Q”)

T

T

F

F
T

F

T

F
T

T

T

F
F

F

T

T
T

F

T

F

This truth table demonstrates that disjunctive syllogisms are valid by showing that when both premises are true (which occurs in row three) the conclusion is also true.
What is an example of a disjunctive syllogism in the media?: An example of a disjunctive syllogism in media would be the narrator of a science documentary explaining, “Either the observed celestial object is a comet, or it is an asteroid. It has a tail, which comets have but asteroids do not; therefore, it is a comet.”

Note: Examples of “either–or” arguments seen in the media typically aren’t syllogisms. Arguments found in media discourse are typically examples of inductive reasoning. (When inductive arguments present exaggerated binary options and ignore nuance, they exemplify the either-or fallacy or the false dilemma fallacy.)
What’s an example of reductio ad absurdum in media?: In media, reductio ad absurdum arguments can be used to demonstrate logical contradictions in policies or positions. For example, a news commentator might make the following argument against government surveillance:

“If total security requires total surveillance, then the government must monitor its own surveillance activities continuously to be consistent. This leads to the absurd conclusion that there must be an infinite number of layers of surveillance, each monitoring the previous layer.”
Who is the Greek philosopher known for reductio ad absurdum arguments?: The Greek philosopher Zeno is renowned for his early examples of reductio ad absurdum, presented in the form of paradoxes. Zeno’s paradoxes challenged assumptions about time and space, laying the groundwork for later philosophers to formalize reductio ad absurdum.
How is reductio ad absurdum used in philosophy?: Reductio ad absurdum is used in philosophy to uncover flaws and inconsistencies in various theories and beliefs.

For example, the following reductio ad absurdum argument is inspired by Emmanuel Kant:

“If moral relativism is true and all moral beliefs are equally valid, then the beliefs that ‘helping others is a moral duty’ and ‘helping others is never a moral duty’ must both be valid. This leads to a contradiction, as an action cannot be both a moral duty and not a moral duty simultaneously.”

This argument exposes how moral relativism defies the law of non-contradiction, encouraging further examination and refinement of moral theories.
What are examples of loaded questions used in debate?: In debates, loaded questions are used to discredit opponents and force them into a defensive position.

Examples of loaded questions used in debate:

“Why don’t you care about x issue?”

“Why do you dismiss the ethical implications of your argument?”

“When will you admit that your argument lacks empirical evidence?”

“Why would you back a policy that has always failed in practice?”

As an underhanded debate tactic, loaded questions are logical fallacies. They can be considered a form of circular reasoning.

You can use the QuillBot Paraphraser to improve the clarity of sentences and avoid ambiguity.
What’s an example of a loaded question fallacy?: A classic example of a loaded question fallacy is “Have you stopped [bad behavior] yet?” For example, “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes yet?”

This logical fallacy is characterized by its assumptions. It is designed to get the respondent to either become defensive or agree with an assertion they either don’t believe or don’t want to admit.
What is the definition of a loaded question?: Loaded questions are defined by their inherent assumptions or assertions that may not be agreed upon by the person being questioned. These assumptions are often unwarranted or unproven, leading the respondent into a rhetorical trap. The question is structured in such a way that any direct answer would implicitly confirm the assumption, thereby putting the respondent at a disadvantage.

This logical fallacy assumes the very thing it attempts to prove, making it a form of circular reasoning or begging the question.
What are some antonyms for ambiguity?: Antonyms for ambiguity include clarity, precision, certainty, lucidity, and explicitness. These words describe a state of being clearly defined and easy to understand.

In contrast, ambiguity describes the condition of being unclear or having multiple meanings.

You can use QuillBot’s Paraphrasing Tool to help you vary your vocabulary to reflect your intended meaning.
How do you pronounce ambiguity?: Ambiguity is pronounced am-bih-GYOO-ih-tee (/ˌæm.bɪˈɡjuː.ɪ.ti/). Understanding ambiguity is an essential part of critical thinking and helps avoid logical fallacies such as the equivocation fallacy and the motte and bailey fallacy.
What is “The Ethics of Ambiguity”?: The Ethics of Ambiguity is a book by feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. It explores existentialist ethics, focusing on the ambiguity inherent in human existence and challenging the idea of absolute truths.
What does it mean to have tolerance for ambiguity?: Having tolerance for ambiguity means being comfortable with uncertain and unclear situations. It involves the ability to accept, or even embrace, situations with multiple possible interpretations or outcomes.

The opposite is black-and-white thinking, the tendency to view people, situations, and ideas in absolute terms.
What is a major premise?: A major premise is one of the two premises in a syllogism. It is a broad statement expressing a generalization or a principle accepted as true. The major premise always comes first in a syllogism and contains the predicate of the conclusion.

For example, in the syllogism “All dogs have fur. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido has fur”, the major premise is “All dogs have fur”.
How do you pronounce amphiboly?: The word “amphiboly” is pronounced am-FIH-buh-lee (IPA: /æmˈfɪbəli/).

It is the name of a linguistic error as well as a logical fallacy (i.e., the amphiboly fallacy).
What are fallacies of ambiguity?: A fallacy of ambiguity occurs when an argument relies on ambiguous language or unclear definitions to mislead. These fallacies often exploit the vagueness or multiple meanings of terms to make an argument seem strong when it is not.

Fallacies in this category include the following:

Equivocation fallacy: Shifting the meaning of a key term within an argument to mislead or confuse

Amphiboly fallacy: Justifying a misinterpretation of a statement by exploiting its ambiguous sentence structure

Motte and bailey fallacy: Defending a controversial position by retreating to a more widely accepted position when challenged, then returning to the original position
What is the amphiboly fallacy?: The amphiboly fallacy involves using the confusing syntax of a sentence to prove a point. Whereas many logical fallacies result from reasoning errors, the amphiboly fallacy stems directly from linguistic ambiguity—whether due to a mistake or an intentional misuse of language.

Its name is based on the term “amphiboly”: syntactic ambiguity that results in a sentence having multiple possible interpretations.
What does the term motte and bailey mean?: The term “motte and bailey” originates from the fortifications of medieval castles. A motte (a raised mound) provided a strong, defensible position, while a bailey (an enclosed courtyard) offered more accessible but less defensible space.

The motte and bailey fallacy is named after this castle design because, like the tactic of switching between an easily defensible position (the motte) and a more vulnerable but easier to access position (the bailey), it involves switching between extreme and moderate positions in an argument.
What is the difference between the straw man fallacy and the motte and bailey fallacy?: The motte and bailey fallacy and the straw man fallacy both involve misrepresenting an argument, but the main difference lies in their tactics:

Motte and bailey fallacy: Modifying one’s own position to seem less extreme when challenged, then reverting to the original claim

Straw man fallacy: Attacking a distorted version of an opponent’s argument
Can a motte and bailey argument be valid?: The motte and bailey fallacy can include coherent and logically sound points, but the strategy of shifting back and forth between two different claims is considered intellectually dishonest and makes an argument unsound overall. In other words, using this strategy is considered an informal logical fallacy.
What does dichotomy mean?: The word “dichotomy” refers to a division or contrast between two things that are (or are represented as being) opposed or entirely different.

The false dichotomy fallacy occurs when someone presents a situation as having only two possible outcomes or options when there are more alternatives available.
Can a dichotomy be legitimate?: Dichotomies are valid when, considering all scenarios, only two options are indeed possible.

Here are some examples of legitimate dichotomies:

On or off (electricity)

Present or absent

Living or dead

Here is an example of how the word “dichotomy” can be used accurately in a sentence:

“The professor discussed the dichotomy between living and non-living entities, teaching students to distinguish between organisms that exhibit all characteristics of life and those that do not.”

The false dichotomy fallacy occurs when an issue is presented as if it had only two mutually exclusive possibilities, even though it is actually more complex. This fallacy is also called the false dilemma fallacy.
What are the alternative names for the false dichotomy fallacy?: The false dichotomy fallacy is also known as the false dilemma fallacy or the either-or fallacy.
What is the difference between the false equivalence fallacy and the false analogy fallacy?: False equivalence fallacies and false analogy fallacies both involve arguing a point by making faulty comparisons. However, there is a key difference:

False equivalence fallacy: Treating two significantly different situations or viewpoints as if they were equivalent (e.g., “It’s unfair to platform a NASA scientist without giving equal time to a flat earther; both are just expressing their opinions”)

False analogy fallacy (or faulty analogy): Comparing two things that are similar in some way, but not similar enough to support the conclusion drawn (e.g., “Banning guns to reduce school shootings is as ridiculous as banning kitchen knives to reduce kitchen accidents; both problems are really caused by humans”)
What is the difference between the false equivalence fallacy and the false dilemma fallacy?: Both the false equivalence fallacy and the false dilemma fallacy present flawed reasoning by oversimplifying complex situations or comparisons, but there is a difference:

False equivalence fallacy: Incorrectly treating two different arguments or scenarios as equally significant or valid when they are not (e.g., comparing a minor traffic violation to a serious crime)

False dilemma fallacy: Falsely presenting only two options or outcomes when there are actually more possibilities, thereby oversimplifying the situation (e.g., “You’re either with us or against us”)
What logical fallacies involve false comparisons?: Logical fallacies that involve false comparisons include the following:

False equivalence fallacy: Incorrectly treating two different arguments or scenarios as equally significant or valid when they are not

False analogy fallacy: Drawing comparisons (analogy) between two things that are not sufficiently similar, leading to an invalid inference

False dichotomy fallacy: Presenting a situation as having only two options or outcomes, ignoring the possibility of other alternatives
Is the conjunction fallacy a heuristic?: The conjunction fallacy is typically considered a type of heuristic or cognitive bias. These are mental shortcuts that people use to make judgments and decisions. The conjunction fallacy specifically refers to the tendency to incorrectly believe that the conjunction of two events is more likely than one of the events occurring alone.
What is the conjunction rule in psychology?: In psychology, the conjunction rule states that the likelihood of two events happening together cannot exceed the likelihood of either event happening independently.

This principle is fundamental to understanding logical reasoning and decision-making processes, particularly in contexts where individuals assess the likelihood of compound events.

The conjunction fallacy occurs when a person mistakenly believes the opposite: that two events are more likely to occur together than independently.
When has someone committed the conjunction fallacy?: The conjunction fallacy occurs when someone believes two events are more likely to occur together than separately. This error in judgment often arises in situations where individuals assess the likelihood of combined events without correctly applying the principle that the probability of joint occurrences cannot exceed the probability of individual occurrences.
What is an example of the burden of proof?: Examples of the burden of proof principle can be seen in many everyday contexts.

For example, if a person claims, “Astrology accurately predicts personality,” the person who makes this assertion must provide supporting evidence in order to make a compelling argument. This responsibility to provide evidence is the burden of proof.

If instead of offering evidence, the speaker challenges others to disprove the claim (e.g., “Astrology accurately predicts personality, and you can’t prove that it doesn’t”), this constitutes a logical fallacy known as the burden of proof fallacy.
Who bears the burden of proof in an argument?: In a debate, the person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof for that particular claim.

If one party makes a claim without supporting evidence and suggests that it must be assumed to be true unless someone else can disprove it, this person has committed the burden of proof fallacy.
What is the reverse burden of proof fallacy?: There are two logical fallacies that involve essentially reversing the burden of proof:

Burden of proof fallacy: Presenting a claim with no evidence and explicitly requiring others to disprove it

Appeal to ignorance fallacy: Asserting that a claim is true simply because it hasn’t been disproven already
Are there two forms of the fallacy of division?: The fallacy of division incorrectly assumes that the properties of a whole apply to its parts.

Its counterpart is the fallacy of composition, which assumes that the properties of parts apply to the whole. These are not two forms of the same fallacy but distinct and essentially opposite errors.

The fallacy of division could also be compared to the ecological fallacy, which similarly involves making assumptions about the parts from the whole. However, the ecological fallacy applies strictly to the misuse of statistical data.
What fallacies are similar to the fallacy of division?: The fallacy of division bears similarities to other logical fallacies that involve overgeneralization:

Hasty generalization fallacy: Making a broad generalization based on a small sample of information

Ecological fallacy: Inferring qualities of individuals from group data without an adequate reason
What is the difference between the is-ought fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy?: The is-ought problem is related to the naturalistic fallacy, but there is a key difference:

The is-ought problem is the unjustified leap from descriptive statements (describing what “is”) to prescriptive statements (describing what “ought to be”).

The naturalistic fallacy is a specific instance of the is-ought problem, in which descriptions of natural phenomena are used to prescribe morality.
Who coined the term naturalistic fallacy?: The term “naturalistic fallacy” was coined by British analytic philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 work Principia Ethica. Moore argued against defining moral qualities such as “goodness” on the basis of observations about nature.
Did Hume write about the naturalistic fallacy?: David Hume did not use the term “naturalistic fallacy.” However, Hume’s thoughts on the problem of “is” vs. “ought” (first explored in A Treatise of Human Nature) influenced later discussions on the relationship between facts and values, including critiques of the naturalistic fallacy.
When is an appeal to nature a fallacy?: A non-fallacious argument can include the idea of what is “natural” or “unnatural” along with specific, evidence-based reasons.

However, an appeal to nature fallacy claims that something is good because it’s natural, or bad because it’s unnatural, without any justification.
What fallacies are related to the appeal to nature fallacy?: Several fallacies could be considered similar to the appeal to nature fallacy:

Naturalistic fallacy: Confuses what is natural with what is good, but in a strictly ethical sense

Moralistic fallacy: Assumes that whatever is deemed moral must be natural or true

False dilemma fallacy: Presents an oversimplified choice between two opposite extremes (e.g., “natural” and “unnatural”)
What is the opposite of the appeal to nature fallacy?: The appeal to novelty fallacy and the appeal to modernity fallacy are near opposites of the appeal to nature fallacy. Both contrast with the appeal to nature fallacy because they value newness for its own sake:

Appeal to novelty fallacy: Assumes that new ideas and practices are inherently superior

Appeal to modernity fallacy: Values modern approaches as opposed to traditional, historical, or natural approaches
What’s an example of cherry picking data?: The cherry picking fallacy is evident in the selective presentation of data. Examples can be found in areas such as scientific research and business:

In its annual report, a company emphasizes its achievements and obscures negative data: “This year, we expanded our customer base by 30%, making it our most successful year in terms of growth.” Although the report includes a comprehensive section on financial performance, it uses complex language and formatting that makes it less obvious that the company is also experiencing a downward trend in profit margins and an increase in operational costs.

As the example demonstrates, cherry picking is often applied to data to convey a specific narrative, aiming to validate a hypothesis or portray an organization more favorably than merited.
What’s the difference between the cherry picking fallacy and card stacking?: Both the cherry-picking fallacy and card stacking (sometimes called stacking the deck) mislead by presenting one-sided information, but while the two can overlap, there are key differences:

Cherry picking fallacy: In reasoning and argumentation, choosing data that supports a certain conclusion while ignoring contradictory data

Card stacking: In propaganda, shaping public perceptions through messaging that emphasizes favorable information and minimizes negative details

While card stacking is deliberate, committing the cherry picking fallacy doesn’t require intentionality.
What fallacies are similar to cherry picking?: The cherry picking fallacy is similar to the hasty generalization fallacy and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, which also involve arguing from poorly chosen data. However, there are key differences:

Cherry-picking: Selectively presenting data that supports an argument while ignoring contrary evidence

Hasty generalization fallacy: Drawing broad conclusions from small or unrepresentative data samples without sufficient evidence

Texas sharpshooter fallacy: Forming a theory after noticing specific data points, and then focusing only on information that fits this theory while ignoring the rest
What is an example of appeal to pity fallacy?: The following example of an appeal to pity fallacy demonstrates how this fallacy replaces reasoned analysis with sympathy-inducing imagery:

Legislators debate a proposed bill that would require users to register online accounts with their legal names and government-issued IDs. A proponent of the bill tells the story of one teenager who was bullied online and argues, “Too many of our young people are bullied online by anonymous users, and too many of their lives have been ruined. We must protect our children from such dangers if we have any humanity.”

This example of an appeal to pity fallacy focuses exclusively on descriptions of online bullying and its effects on children without addressing the proposed bill’s logistics, potential efficacy, or implications for free speech and privacy.
What is the difference between the appeal to pity fallacy and red herring fallacy?: The appeal to pity fallacy and the red herring fallacy have similarities and differences:

The red herring fallacy introduces irrelevant information that diverts attention from the main subject. It encompasses the appeal to pity.

The appeal to pity fallacy distracts specifically by evoking feelings of sympathy or guilt in an audience. It’s a specific type of red herring fallacy.
What is argumentum ad misericordiam?: The appeal to pity fallacy is also known as argumentum ad misericordiam, which is Latin for “argument from compassion or pity.” It involves evoking sympathy to sidestep the core issues of an argument and avoid presenting solid evidence or reasoning.
What are some other common fallacies related to the appeal to emotion fallacy?: Several fallacies are related to the appeal to pity fallacy, including the following:

Red herring fallacy: Diverts from the main argument with irrelevant distractions; encompasses the appeal to pity among other many fallacies

Appeal to emotion fallacy: Evokes emotions rather than presenting evidence and reasoning; the appeal to pity is a subtype

Appeal to fear: Distracts from the core issues of an argument by focusing on fear; similar to the appeal to pity but focuses on a different emotion
How can you avoid the hasty generalization fallacy?: To avoid the hasty generalization fallacy, apply critical thinking and scrutinize evidence carefully, using the following strategies:

Select data samples that meet statistical criteria for representativeness.

Question underlying assumptions and explore diverse viewpoints.

Recognize and mitigate personal biases and prejudices.
What is the opposite of the hasty generalization fallacy?: A fallacy that contrasts with hasty generalization fallacy is the slothful induction fallacy.

Hasty generalizations involve drawing premature conclusions with limited evidence.

Slothful induction, in contrast, is the failure to draw warranted conclusions despite sufficient evidence, often because of preexisting biases and assumptions.
What is the difference between the hasty generalization fallacy and the anecdotal evidence fallacy?: The hasty generalization fallacy and the appeal to anecdote differ in scope and in the type of evidence used to draw conclusions:

The hasty generalization fallacy involves drawing a far-reaching conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample of data, regardless of the type of evidence.

An appeal to anecdote is a specific type of hasty generalization that relies on personal stories or isolated instances as the sole evidence to support a broad conclusion.
What are the two forms of the appeal to ignorance fallacy?: The appeal to ignorance fallacy can take two forms:

Arguing that a claim is true because it has not been proven false (e.g., “Ghosts are real because science has never disproved their existence.”)

Arguing that a claim is false because it has not been proven true (e.g., “We’ve found no clear evidence of life on other planets, so that proves we’re alone in the universe.”)

Both forms of the fallacy make the same essential error, misconstruing the absence of contrary evidence as definitive proof.
What is an example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy in real life?: The lack of definitive proof that cryptids, such as Bigfoot, do not exist is sometimes presented as evidence that they do exist. This line of argumentation is an example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy that one might encounter in everyday life.
What does absence of evidence mean?: The appeal to ignorance fallacy is often countered with the maxim “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” A lack of evidence may merely reflect the current limitations of our knowledge; it does not necessarily mean that evidence will never be discovered.
Can an appeal to tradition be valid?: An argument can include an appeal to relevant traditions without committing the appeal to tradition fallacy. There is a key difference between arguments that consider traditions and arguments that commit the fallacy:

Appeal to tradition fallacy: Assumes that tradition alone is adequate proof; disregards contemporary contexts and evidence

Sound argument: Mentions relevant traditions as a factor to consider; takes into account modern contexts and evidence-based reasoning
How is the appeal to tradition fallacy different from the appeal to emotion fallacy?: Both the appeal to tradition fallacy and the appeal to emotion fallacy can leverage social pressures and sentiments, but they do so in different ways:

Appeal to tradition fallacy: Exploits the human tendency to conform to social norms, often leveraging emotional and social factors

Appeal to emotion fallacy: Manipulates by directly targeting feelings such as fear, loyalty, or sympathy
What is the opposite of the appeal to tradition fallacy?: The opposite of the appeal to tradition fallacy is the appeal to novelty fallacy, also known by its Latin name, argumentum ad novitatem.

The appeal to novelty fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that something is superior simply because it is new or modern.

Like the appeal to tradition fallacy, it relies on the timing of an idea or practice to prove its merits.
How does the ad populum fallacy work?: The ad populum fallacy asserts that a claim is true solely because it’s popular. This fallacy typically occurs in an argument that disregards the need for evidence or sound reasoning, relying instead on the human tendency to conform to prevailing opinions.
What is an example of the ad populum fallacy in politics?: In politics, the ad populum fallacy can compel conformity through either desire (e.g., the desire to belong to the winning party) or fear (e.g., the fear of the stigma of supporting an unpopular candidate).

One historical example of ad populum reasoning is the Red Scare phenomenon in the United States. During periods of strong anti-communist sentiment in the twentieth century, many United States citizens were accused of being communists, often based on accusations without any other evidence. The fear of communism and the pressure to conform to anti-communist sentiments led to snowballing accusations and blacklisting
What is the difference between the ad populum fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy?: Ad populum fallacies and appeal to authority fallacies both rely on people’s opinions to persuade, but there is a key difference:

Ad populum fallacies emphasize the number of people who support a belief or practice.

Appeal to authority fallacies focus on the expertise of the individual or group who support a belief or practice.
Why is equivocation a fallacy?: The core problem with the equivocation fallacy is its deceptive nature. An argument that commits this fallacy is misleading because it uses a word in multiple ways without acknowledging the different meanings.

The equivocation fallacy can lead an audience to accept a conclusion that seems to be supported by the premises but is actually based on a semantic trick.
What is an example of the equivocation fallacy in advertising?: Examples of equivocation fallacies can be found in many advertisements. In particular, advertisements for products marketed as natural, environmentally friendly, or healthy often commit the equivocation fallacy.

“Feeling tired? Pick up a can of NutriBuzz, the healthy energy drink. It’s designed to energize you to pursue a healthy lifestyle, so you can hit the gym and stay active.”

This advertisement initially suggests that NutriBuzz is a “healthy” product, implying that its ingredients are beneficial. However, the primary benefit mentioned is an energy boost to support a “healthy” lifestyle (i.e., exercise), which doesn’t necessarily make the drink itself healthy in terms of ingredients.
What is the difference between the ad hominem fallacy and the genetic fallacy?: Genetic fallacies are similar to ad hominem fallacies in that they are both fallacies of relevance that focus on the source of an argument rather than criticizing it in terms of facts and reasoning. However, there is a difference:

Ad hominem fallacies focus on whoever is currently presenting an argument as the sole basis for rejecting it.

Genetic fallacies focus on the original sources of an argument (e.g., people, cultures, movements) as the sole basis for rejecting it.
What are fallacies of relevance?: Fallacies of relevance, also known as red herring fallacies, divert attention from the core issues of an argument, dismissing an opposing view based on irrelevant information. Examples include the following:

Genetic fallacies, which focus on the origins of the ideas expressed

Tu quoque fallacies, which criticize the supposed hypocrisy of the person presenting the argument

Straw man fallacies, which attack a distorted version of the opponent’s real argument
Why are fallacies misleading?: Arguments that commit logical fallacies can be misleading because they typically resemble valid or sound arguments on a superficial level, while they actually present conclusions that aren’t adequately supported by their premises.

Fallacious arguments are often effective at misleading an audience because they fall into convincing patterns of errors that people tend to make based on emotional instincts, cognitive biases, and heuristic decision-making patterns.
Is no true Scotsman always a fallacy?: The no true Scotsman fallacy is inherently fallacious when used to arbitrarily dismiss counterexamples that disprove a general claim. However, arguments that look similar at a glance aren’t always fallacious. The soundness or fallaciousness of the argument depends on the nature of the claim and the definitions involved.

If a claim is made about a category based on well-defined, objective, and agreed-upon criteria, then refining a definition to exclude a counterexample that doesn’t meet those criteria typically isn’t considered fallacious.
Why is no true Scotsman a fallacy?: No true Scotsman arguments are fallacious because they arbitrarily redefine criteria to exclude counterexamples rather than addressing the substance of counterarguments. This technique allows one to avoid engaging with evidence in an intellectually dishonest manner, rendering the debate useless.
What is the appeal to purity fallacy?: The appeal to purity fallacy and the no true Scotsman fallacy are closely related, but the appeal to purity fallacy is broader:

Appeal to purity fallacies dismiss deviations from an idealized form, rejecting any variation or nuance within a belief system or identity.

No true Scotsman fallacies are a type of appeal to purity that involves dismissing counterexamples to defend a specific claim.
What is another name for false dilemma fallacy?: The false dilemma fallacy is also known as the false dichotomy, false binary, or either-or fallacy.
How does the false dilemma fallacy work?: The false dilemma fallacy artificially limits choices, creating a situation where it seems there are only two mutually exclusive options. This fallacy rules out the possibility of any alternative, including combined or middle-ground solutions.
How do I avoid the false dilemma fallacy?: The following strategies can help you avoid committing the false dilemma fallacy:

Explore alternatives: Make a habit of considering a range of possible options, including the less obvious and less popular possibilities.

Avoid extremes: Refrain from framing arguments or choices in an overly polarized or binary manner.

Use nuanced language: Use language that reflects the complexity of the issue and avoids oversimplification.

Seek common ground: Look for areas of agreement and compromise to bridge differences.
What is the difference between the post hoc fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy?: Post hoc and non sequitur fallacies both involve the concept of “following.” However, post hoc fallacies are related to the chronological sequence of events, whereas non sequitur fallacies are related to the logical connection between statements.

Post hoc fallacies are informal logical fallacies in which one event is assumed to have been caused by another solely because it follows temporally.

Non sequitur fallacies are formal logical fallacies in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises logically.

To accurately distinguish between the two fallacies, assess whether the argument’s focus is chronological (post hoc) or logical (non sequitur).
What is an example of non sequitur?: Examples of non sequitur fallacies, also known as formal fallacies, aren’t easy to find in daily life because they typically occur in formal disciplines such as logic, mathematics, and physics. The following example illustrates the nature of a non sequitur fallacy:

Premise: All cats are mammals.

Premise: A dog is a mammal.

Conclusion: Therefore, a dog is a cat.

More specifically, this example falls into the subcategory of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, in which the middle term in the premises doesn’t cover all possible cases, leading to a faulty conclusion.
What is the opposite of the fallacy of composition?: The direct opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division.

The fallacy of composition occurs when an argument incorrectly assumes that what is true for the parts is also true for the whole (e.g., if a company has some successful products, the company must be successful on the whole).

The fallacy of division occurs when an argument incorrectly assumes that what is true for the whole is also true for its individual parts (e.g., if a car is well made overall, its individual components must be well made).

A related concept is the ecological fallacy, an error in statistical analysis where conclusions about individuals are wrongly inferred from group-level data. While not the exact opposite of the fallacy of composition, the ecological fallacy also involves the unwarranted transfer of qualities between parts and wholes
What is the difference between the fallacy of composition and hasty generalization fallacy?: The fallacy of composition can be considered a type of hasty generalization fallacy.

Hasty generalization fallacies involve drawing broad conclusions from an inadequate sample of information.

Fallacies of composition specifically assume characteristics of a whole based on characteristics of an individual component.
What is the difference between cognitive biases and logical fallacies?: Cognitive biases and logical fallacies are distinct but related concepts that both involve errors in reasoning.

Cognitive biases refer to inherent human tendencies toward specific erroneous thought patterns.

Logical fallacies are errors in persuasive communication that undermine the validity or soundness of an argument.

Logical fallacies sometimes result from, or appeal to, cognitive biases.
How can I identify a false cause fallacy in an argument?: To identify a false cause fallacy, look for the following mistakes in an argument:

Unsubstantiated causal claim: Assess whether the argument asserts a cause-and-effect relationship without providing adequate evidence to support the claim.

Ignoring other possible causes: Observe whether the argument overlooks or dismisses other plausible explanations for the observed outcome.

Correlation or timing assumed to prove causality: Beware of conclusions based solely on correlations or the order of events, which aren’t sufficient to prove causation.
What’s the difference between correlation and causation?: In the correlation–causation fallacy, a perceived similarity or relationship between two variables is wrongly assumed to imply a cause-and-effect relationship. It’s important to understand the differences between correlation and causation:

Correlation: variables change together or share common characteristics

Causation: one variable, event, or phenomenon directly leads to another

The maxim “correlation does not imply causation” is often used to rebut the correlation–causation fallacy. Observing a similarity or relationship between two variables does not necessarily indicate a causal link.
What are some examples of false cause fallacy?: False cause fallacies assume a causal relationship between events, as demonstrated in the following examples:

A manager attributes a company’s profit increase to a new marketing campaign while ignoring market trends.

The principal of a high school credits a new textbook for improved student grades while disregarding the impact of a new tutoring program.

A city’s mayor takes credit for a reduction in crime, attributing it to increased policing, while overlooking the benefits of new community initiatives aimed at alleviating poverty and improving education.

There are several types of false cause fallacies that have specific names, including the post hoc fallacy and the cum hoc fallacy.
What is an example of the base rate fallacy?: The following fictional scenario is an example of the base rate fallacy:

A search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) program develops an algorithm with 99% accuracy for identifying alien signals among cosmic noise, where the actual occurrence of alien signals is estimated to be only 1 in a million. When the algorithm flags a signal as alien, the media reports that alien life has been contacted. This assumption is based on the algorithm’s high accuracy rate, but it ignores the extremely low probability that the signal is from alien life.

In this example, the media commits the base rate fallacy by ignoring statistical reality and focusing on a specific incident. Given the base rate of 1 alien signal in a million, the vast majority of flagged signals are false positives.
What is a cost-benefit fallacy?: The term “cost-benefit fallacy” is not a formally recognized logical fallacy, but it might be used to refer to errors in cost-benefit analysis.

Cost-benefit analysis is a framework for systematically evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of investments, policies, and other decisions in fields such as economics, public policy, and healthcare.

Mistakes in cost-benefit analyses can include the following:

Confirmation bias: favoring information that supports preconceived notions

Incomplete data: overlooking relevant costs or benefits

Subjectivity: biases in valuing intangible benefits or costs

Discounting: incorrect application of discount rates affecting future values

Time horizon: misjudging the appropriate timeframe for analysis
What are some other common fallacies related to the appeal to emotion fallacy?: A number of fallacies are directly related to the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Specific categories of emotional appeals include the following:

Appeal to pity fallacy (argumentum ad misericordiam): Elicits sympathy to sway opinions or decisions

Appeal to fear fallacy (argumentum ad baculum): Uses fear as the primary motivator to influence opinions or actions

Appeal to flattery: Wins favor through compliments that bolster the recipient’s pride

Other related fallacies include the following:

Red herring fallacy: Relies on distraction to mask an argument’s weakness; includes other fallacies of relevance such as the appeal to emotion fallacy

Appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum): Focuses on a position’s popularity but may also appeal to the comfort of belonging or the fear of exclusion

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem): Argues that a position should be accepted solely out of reverence for the past; may evoke nostalgia

Appeal to ridicule: Discredits an argument through derisive humor; may appeal to the audience’s pride and sense of superiority
Why is the appeal to emotion fallacy problematic?: The appeal to emotion fallacy is problematic because it replaces logic and evidence with emotionally charged content.

Including evocative language and imagery in an argument is an acceptable rhetorical strategy. However, an argument is rendered unsound when an emotional appeal is used to distract from the main points of the argument.
How do you identify an ecological fallacy?: All ecological fallacies have the following traits:

They occur in arguments premised on statistics.

They use group-level statistics to make inferences about individuals.
What is an example of ecological fallacy in epidemiology?: The ecological fallacy can occur in the field of epidemiology when individual risk factors or health outcomes are inferred from population-level data. Consider the following example:

Population-level data: Research indicates that Japan has one of the lowest rates of heart disease globally. The low incidence of heart disease is commonly attributed to healthy lifestyle choices.

Ecological fallacy inference: A graduate student conducts a study on a small group of test subjects from Japan and assumes that each test subject has a very low risk of heart disease.
What are common types of fallacies in research?: Logical fallacies that are common in research include the following:

Hasty generalization: Drawing broad and general conclusions from a small or unrepresentative sample of data

Fallacy of composition: Assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole

Post hoc fallacy: Inferring that simply because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second event

Ecological fallacy: Forming conclusions about individuals based on group-level data

False cause fallacy: Inferring a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables when none exists
Why is the either-or fallacy an informal logical fallacy?: The either-or fallacy is an informal logical fallacy because it is a content-level error that occurs in inductive arguments. Inductive arguments reason from specific observations to propose general principles. If an inductive argument commits an informal fallacy, it is called “unsound.”

By contrast, formal fallacies are structural errors that occur in formal (or deductive) arguments and make the argument “invalid.”
What is another name for either-or fallacy?: The either-or fallacy is also known as “false dilemma” or “false dichotomy.” These terms are used interchangeably to describe a common logical fallacy that limits options to just two, overlooking the potential for middle-ground solutions or a spectrum of possibilities.
How can you avoid the either-or fallacy?: To avoid the either-or fallacy, consider the following questions:

Are there any other options than the two presented?

Could a spectrum or middle ground exist between the two extremes?

Is every possibility being portrayed accurately and with appropriate nuance?
How can I identify a post hoc fallacy?: Post hoc fallacies can be recognized by the following attributes:

A causal relationship is asserted with certainty

The fact that one event happened first is the only evidence that suggests it caused the next event

No evidence is provided

Other contributing factors are ignored or underestimated
What is the difference between post hoc fallacies and hasty generalization fallacies?: Post hoc and hasty generalization fallacies both involve jumping to conclusions, but there is a difference between the two.

Hasty generalization fallacies derive broad assumptions from an inadequate sample of evidence.

Post hoc fallacies assume cause-and-effect based on the order of events.

The post hoc fallacy could be considered a subcategory of the hasty generalization fallacy that focuses specifically on causation and timing.
What is the difference between the post hoc fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy?: The post hoc fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy are sometimes conflated, but they are fundamentally different.

Non sequitur is Latin for “does not follow.” A non sequitur is an invalid deductive argument whose conclusion doesn’t follow logically from its premises because of its faulty structure. Any formal fallacy that doesn’t fall into another, more specific category can be called a non sequitur fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this” and refers to an informal fallacy in which causation is assumed based on the chronological order of events. It is also called “post hoc fallacy.”
What is an example of post hoc fallacy?: The following scenario is an example of the post hoc fallacy:

A country introduces new environmental regulations. Shortly afterward, there is a downturn in the economy. Some politicians argue that the new regulations caused the economic decline, neglecting other global economic factors at play.

The argument is fallacious because it assumes that the order of events is sufficient to prove causation. Although it’s possible that the regulations affected the economy, they can’t be assumed to be the main or sole cause of the economic downturn without further evidence.
What’s the correct pronunciation of tu quoque?: The logical fallacy “tu quoque” is pronounced /ˈtuː ˈkwoʊkwiː/ (too-kwoh-kwee).

Other accepted pronunciations include the following:

/ˈtyuː ˈkwoʊkwiː/ (tyoo-kwoh-kwee)

/ˈtuː ˈkoʊkwiː/ (too-koh-kwee)
What’s the difference between the tu quoque fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy?: The tu quoque fallacy is a specific kind of ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem fallacies criticize a person for something irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Tu quoque fallacies specifically criticize the person posing a question, criticism, or argument with an accusation of hypocrisy.

Both belong to the category of fallacies of relevance, also known as red herring fallacies.
What’s the difference between tu quoque fallacies and whataboutism?: The tu quoque fallacy and whataboutism sometimes overlap, but they have distinct characteristics.

Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem argument that counters criticism by pointing out hypocrisy in the critic’s behavior. It effectively says, “You do the same thing you’re criticizing me for.”

Whataboutism is a broader tactic that involves responding to an accusation by deflecting to a different issue or making a counter-accusation. It shifts focus by essentially saying, “What about this other thing?”

Both are typically considered informal logical fallacies or specious approaches to argumentation.
What is the difference between cognitive biases and logical fallacies?: Cognitive biases describe flawed thought processes, whereas logical fallacies describe errors in argumentation.

A cognitive bias describes a common error in judgment. Examples of cognitive biases include confirmation bias (i.e., the tendency to seek out information that confirms one’s beliefs) and the halo effect (i.e., the tendency to assume that someone who exhibits one positive attribute, such as beauty, also has another positive attribute, such as honesty).

A logical fallacy is a type of flawed argument. Many logical fallacies either result from or intentionally appeal to cognitive biases.
Is an appeal to ignorance a logical fallacy?: Yes, an appeal to ignorance is a type of logical fallacy. It involves asserting that because something hasn’t been proven true, it must be false, or because something hasn’t been proven false, it must be true (e.g., “Scientists can’t prove that the Egyptian pyramids don’t have extraterrestrial origins”).

There is an aphorism that is often used to counter arguments from ignorance: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

A similar mistake is the burden of proof fallacy, which occurs when someone makes a claim but doesn’t offer evidence, instead claiming that others must disprove it (e.g., “There’s a secret society manipulating world governments. Prove me wrong”).
Is an ad hominem a logical fallacy?: Ad hominem is the informal logical fallacy of attacking a person instead of refuting an argument. Based on the Latin “to the person,” ad hominems focus on irrelevant criticisms of an individual rather than making a good-faith rebuttal.

Name-calling is one common form of ad hominem fallacy. It’s used to dismiss an argument by simply ridiculing the individual presenting it (e.g., “Now that we’ve heard the bleeding-heart proposals from my naive young colleague, let’s move on to discussing realistic solutions”).
What is the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and escalation of commitment?: The sunk cost fallacy can lead to an escalation of commitment (or commitment bias).

The sunk cost fallacy is the mistake of remaining committed to a past decision based on the misconception that the costs already incurred can be recovered.

An escalation of commitment is the act of increasing the resources or conviction invested in a failed course of action.

An escalation of commitment stems from fallacious sunk cost reasoning and entails committing even more time, money, effort, emotions, or conviction to a failed decision in a futile attempt to recover what has been lost.
What are common types of fallacies in research?: Common types of fallacies, or errors in reasoning, that are found in research include the following:

Correlation/causation fallacy: The mistaken assumption that a correlation (e.g., two events happening at the same time) implies a cause-and-effect relationship

Ecological fallacy: Drawing conclusions about an individual’s characteristics by relying on collective data for a group

The base-rate fallacy: Overlooking important statistical data, like the general frequency of an event, and focusing on less significant details, such as an isolated case

Hasty generalization fallacy: Drawing broad conclusions based on insufficient or biased evidence

Straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack

False dilemma fallacy: Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities
Is a slippery slope argument always a fallacy?: Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

Fallacious slippery slope arguments overstate the certainty of the negative outcome and typically don’t provide adequate evidence.

Non-fallacious slippery slope arguments acknowledge a series of logically connected steps leading from one event to another, with each step being reasonable and supported by evidence.
How do you respond to a slippery slope fallacy?: There are several ways to debunk slippery slope fallacies:

Identify exaggerations or leaps of logic between the initial action and the undesirable outcome.

Ask for substantiating evidence supporting the proposed relationships between the predicted events.

Evaluate the validity of each link in the chain of events; if any of these links lack rationality or evidence, the entire argument may be compromised.
How should you respond to a straw man fallacy?: To effectively respond to a straw man fallacy, identify and explain the misrepresentation as precisely as possible. Restate your original argument accurately to dispel any misconceptions, and ask the other party to address your argument directly, rather than the distorted version. This approach not only highlights the fallacy but also refocuses the discussion on the substantive points of the debate.
Why is the straw man fallacy a problem?: The straw man fallacy disrupts productive discourse and makes it difficult to resolve problems by shifting focus away from the most relevant issues. Committing the straw man fallacy also causes a speaker to lose credibility, as it typically demonstrates a degree of intellectual dishonesty.
What is the difference between a red herring fallacy and a straw man fallacy?: The straw man fallacy can be considered a subcategory of red herring fallacy.

Red herring fallacies are also known as fallacies of relevance; they divert attention from the main topic of debate.

Straw man fallacies focus on a specific type of irrelevant information: a simplistic or distorted version of the opposing argument.
What is a straw man argument?: Straw man arguments are the simplified, distorted, or fabricated versions of an opponent’s stance that are presented in debates where the straw man fallacy is committed.
What is the difference between circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question?: Although many sources use circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question interchangeably, others point out that there is a subtle difference between the two:

Begging the question fallacy occurs when you assume that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That’s why we should get a snake” begs the question “Are snakes really great pets?”

Circular reasoning fallacy, on the other hand, occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. For example, “People have free will because they can choose what to do.”

In other words, we could say begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
Which type of fallacy uses circular reasoning to support an argument?: The circular reasoning fallacy is a logical fallacy in which the evidence used to support a claim assumes that the claim is true, resulting in a self-reinforcing but ultimately unconvincing argument. For instance, someone might argue, “This brand is the best (conclusion) because it’s superior to all other brands on the market (premise).”
What is argumentum ad hominem?: Argumentum ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning “argument against the person.” Ad hominem arguments, often referred to in daily life as “personal attacks,” distract from the main point of an argument by unfairly criticizing the person making it.
Is ad hominem a logical fallacy?: Ad hominem is the name of a logical fallacy, but the term can also refer to a general insult that’s not part of a logical argument.

A fallacious ad hominem argument shifts the focus away from the main topic by making irrelevant personal attacks.

Not all personal criticisms are ad hominem fallacies. In some contexts, critiques of an individual’s character are relevant to an argument.
What happens in the ad hominem persuasive technique?: Ad hominem is a persuasive technique that attempts to sway an audience’s opinion by criticizing an individual’s personal characteristics.

When used to sidestep the main topic of an argument, an ad hominem is an informal logical fallacy. The use of an ad hominem attack is often intended to manipulate. It can be an obstacle to productive debate.
What is the difference between circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question?: Although many sources use circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question interchangeably, others point out that there is a subtle difference between the two:

Begging the question fallacy occurs when you assume that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That’s why we should get a snake” begs the question “Are snakes really great pets?”

Circular reasoning fallacy, on the other hand, occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. For example, “People have free will because they can choose what to do.”

In other words, we could say begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
What is the difference between a complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy?: The complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy are similar in that they are both based on assumptions. However, there is a difference between them:

A complex question fallacy occurs when someone asks a question that presupposes the answer to another question that has not been established or accepted by the other person. For example, asking someone “Have you stopped cheating on tests?”, unless it has previously been established that the person is indeed cheating on tests, is a fallacy.

Begging the question fallacy occurs when we assume the very thing as a premise that we’re trying to prove in our conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is used to support the premises, and the premises prove the validity of the conclusion. For example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.”

In other words, begging the question is about drawing a conclusion based on an assumption, while a complex question involves asking a question that presupposes the answer to a prior question.
When is the appeal to authority a fallacy?: Fallacious appeals to authority make the mistake of relying excessively on the endorsements of experts. These authorities are typically credentialed or famous people, but, in many cases, they aren’t qualified to make definitive judgments about the issue at hand.

Non-fallacious appeals to authority cite legitimate experts on the topic of debate and include other supporting evidence or reasoning.
Why is the appeal to authority fallacy convincing?: Appeals to authority can be convincing because the people being cited aren’t present to explain the evidence. It can be difficult to critically evaluate whether the quoted experts have genuine expertise on the subject and whether their opinions are well-founded and unbiased.
How do I identify an appeal to authority fallacy?: Identifying an appeal to authority fallacy begins with paying attention to any quoted experts and asking the following questions:

Does the individual or group cited have expertise on the specific subject at hand?

Is there a consensus among the experts, or is there significant disagreement? If there is an alternative view held by some experts, can your opponent justify choosing one position over the other?

Can any evidence of bias be found that might cast doubt on the expert’s credibility?
Why is the red herring fallacy a problem?: The red herring fallacy hinders constructive dialogue and prevents meaningful progress in addressing the central issues of a discussion.

The intentional use of red herrings and other fallacies can mislead and manipulate the audience by drawing attention to unrelated topics or emotions, potentially swaying opinions without addressing the substance of the original argument.
How does the halo effect apply to marketing?: The halo effect is important in marketing because it means that an individual product characteristic can influence how consumers perceive the product’s other characteristics.

A product may be perceived as being high quality if the packaging looks expensive, for instance—even if this isn’t the case. Conversely, the halo effect can work in the other direction (the horn effect) and negatively impact sales if the packaging of a high-quality product looks too cheap.
What is the horn effect?: The horn effect is the halo effect in reverse. While the halo effect makes us more likely to make positive judgments about someone or something based on a single positive characteristic, the horn effect makes us more likely to make negative judgments based on a negative characteristic.

For instance, the horn effect might lead you to unconsciously decide against asking a new colleague for help because you formed a negative first impression of them based on the way they were dressed when you were introduced.
What are common types of cognitive bias?: The term cognitive bias describes a broad range of ways in which our experiences and beliefs affect our judgments and decisions. These include mental shortcuts or heuristics involving preconceptions that enable us to quickly process and understand new information.

But cognitive bias can cause us to misinterpret events and facts, and misread people’s intentions. It can also be a root cause of research bias.

Common forms of cognitive bias include:

Halo effect

Confirmation bias

Anchoring bias

Belief bias

Actor–observer bias

The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon

Framing effect

Availability heuristic
What is the observer-expectancy effect?: The observer-expectancy effect is a cognitive bias referring to the tendency of researchers inadvertently influencing their study participants. It can contain elements of the Pygmalion effect as well as the halo or horn effects. It is also related to the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies, which can have either a positive or negative impact.

This is one of the reasons that experimental design is so important in the crafting of a research proposal, to reduce the risk that this effect will color the eventual results.
What is the Rosenthal effect?: The Rosenthal effect is another name for the Pygmalion effect. It describes how a teacher, leader, or coach can improve the performance of those they are leading by consistently having, and expressing, high expectations of them.

It is named after one of the researchers (Lenore Jacobson and Robert Rosenthal) who first described the effect. In short, it shows how low expectations of others can lead them to perform badly, while high expectations can lead to higher performance.
Why is affirming the consequent invalid?: Affirming the consequent is invalid because it assumes a specific cause for an outcome that can have multiple causes. Consider the formula for affirming the consequent:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

The above syllogism is fallacious because Q can be true for reasons other than P. The mistake lies in assuming a single cause for an effect or trait.

For example:

If a number is a perfect square, then it is positive.

The number 14 is positive.

Therefore, the number 14 is a perfect square.
How can affirming the consequent be avoided?: You can avoid committing the affirming the consequent fallacy by remembering that in hypothetical syllogisms, the antecedent should be affirmed instead.

The correct way to form a valid affirmative hypothetical syllogism is:

If P, then Q.

P.

Therefore, Q.

In this correct form of the syllogism, called modus ponens (or “affirming the antecedent”), the fact that the antecedent (P) is true logically requires that the consequent (Q) is also true.
What is the difference between affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent?: Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are both logical fallacies that occur in hypothetical syllogisms, but the two fallacies have different forms.

Affirming the consequent takes the following form:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

Affirming the consequent example

If it’s summer, then the temperature will be high.

The temperature is high.

Therefore, it is summer.

Denying the antecedent takes the following form:

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent example

If I study hard, then I’ll pass the exam.

I didn’t study hard.

Therefore, I won’t pass the exam.
What does post hoc ergo propter hoc mean?: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” It refers to the logical fallacy of assuming that because Event B follows Event A, Event A caused Event B. This error is often referred to as the post hoc fallacy.
Why is denying the antecedent a fallacy?: Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy because the absence of one potential cause doesn’t mean that no other causes exist.

Consider the following example:

If it’s raining (antecedent), then the ground is wet (consequent).

It’s not raining.

Therefore, the ground is not wet.

This argument is clearly faulty because the ground could be wet for many reasons other than rain (e.g., lawn sprinklers). In other words, the conclusion is not solely dependent on the premise.
Is denying the antecedent valid or invalid?: Denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form. In other words, it is a formal logical fallacy.

In logic, the term “invalid” describes a type of argument in which the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, even if all the premises are true. In the fallacy of denying the antecedent, it is possible that the expected outcome could occur without one specific cause being true.

Consider the following example:

If an animal is a bird, then it lays eggs.

This animal is not a bird.

Therefore, it does not lay eggs.

It is clear that this argument is invalid. The animal could be an insect or a reptile or many other animals. The conclusion is not guaranteed by the premises.
What is a real-life example of denying the antecedent?: A real-life example of denying the antecedent is the following argument:

If someone is a professor, then they have a PhD.

Maria is not a professor.

Therefore, Maria does not have a PhD.

This is an invalid argument because the fact that Maria is not a professor does not necessarily mean she does not have a PhD. Maria might be someone who has a PhD but chose a non-academic career path.
What are some examples of weasel words in commercials?: In commercials, weasel words like “up to,” “virtually,” and “helps” are often used. These words allow companies to make claims about their product without providing details that could later be challenged.

For instance, “This cream helps reduce the appearance of wrinkles” implies assistance without guaranteeing wrinkle elimination.

Use QuillBot’s Paraphrasing Tool to find ways to express your exact meaning and avoid ambiguous language.
What are some examples of weasel words?: Common weasel words include:

May

Tends to

Some

Often

Possibly

Virtually

Helps

Up to

Like

Reportedly

These words allow a speaker or writer to avoid making firm commitments or statements that might later be challenged.

Try QuillBot’s Paraphraser to vary your word choice to communicate clearly and directly.
Why should we avoid using weasel words?: Weasel words (i.e., words that are unhelpfully vague, such as “possibly” and “reportedly”) should be avoided because they can diminish the clarity and honesty of communication, leading to misunderstandings and a lack of trust. Avoiding these words can enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of your statements.

Try QuillBot’s Paraphraser to find the right words to communicate your message.

Get creative with full-sentence rewrites

Proofread your papers with one click

Avoid unintentional plagiarism

Paraphraser

Grammar Checker

Plagiarism Checker

Citation Generator

How can you avoid the base rate fallacy?

How can you avoid the base rate fallacy?: Reasoning