What are some examples of logical fallacies?

Question

I know this is such a typical cop-out on homework, but I dropped $20 at Barnes and Noble on publications, Ive been looking at editorials, and Im having a terrible time "getting it". Does anyone have any suggestions for examples of logical fallacies? Quotes? Even places where I could find examples would be fantastic. Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Loki is a trickster god in Norse mythology, who, legend has it, once made a bet with some dwarves. The price should Loki lose the wager, it was agreed, would be his head. Loki lost the bet, and in due time the dwarves came to collect the head which had become rightfully theirs. Loki had no problem with giving up his head, but he insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter; and, one could suppose, they are discussing the matter still. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As a result, Loki keeps his head indefinitely.

The fallacy's focus on over specification makes it in some ways the opposite of hasty generalization and could be considered an extreme form of equivocation.


No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

The truth of a proposition depends on its adequacy to its object ("Is the drawing a true likeness of Antony Flew?"). The truth of an object depends on its adequacy to its concept ("Is the figure drawn on the paper a true triangle?"). Problems arise when the definition of the concept has no generally accepted form, for example when it is vague or contested.

"A true Scotsman" (a concept) is not on the same level as "a true triangle" (a concept) never mind "the true Antony Flew" (a concrete existing object). The formal similarity, "true X", and the corresponding feeling that the concepts should be on the same level, in some sense must be on the same level (even perhaps all exist as objects), motivates the fallacy. It is short step from that feeling to treating one's own definition of a "true Scotsman" (who else's?) as having the same objectivity as that of a geometrical figure or an existing individual, and then attempting to make the world agree.

Some elements or actions are clearly contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian": Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction.

Alternatively, if a statement in the "no true Scotsman" form is not intended as an empirical argument, but as the conclusion to an argument about definition, then is not a fallacy. The statement "No true Marxist would support the Soviet invasion of Hungary because the basic goal of Marxism is the self-emancipation of the working class" may or may not be true, but it is not an instance of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. However, the first half of the statement could easily be made fallacious by slightly varying the context.

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" Communists, liberals or conservatives because they occasionally disagree on certain matters of policy. It comes in many other forms - "No decent person would" - it is argued "support hanging/watch pornography/smoke in public", etc. Often the speaker seems unaware that he/she is, in fact, coercively (re)defining, 'objectifying', what the phrase "decent person" means to include/exclude what he/she wants and NOT simply following what the phrase is already accepted as meaning. The argument shifts the debate from being about hanging/pornography/smoking and tries to make it seem that anyone disagreeing with the speaker is arguing for the "indecent".


Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.

Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation.

This logical fallacy is sometimes used in an attempt to confuse or distract someone else intentionally. This is known as a red herring. This phrase is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scent trail. The herring's strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one.

A satirical type of red herring is the "Chewbacca Defense". This term is sometimes used in Internet discussion forums
examples: Baseball player Mark McGwire just retired. Clearly, he will end up in the Hall of Fame. After all, he's such a nice guy, and he gives a lot of money to all sorts of charities. (Friendliness and charity are not qualifications for induction into the Hall of Fame, therefore they do not support the conclusion.)
The premier's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying the woman to keep quiet. The media should investigate that! (This is an example of a red herring, as the speaker attempts to distract from tax policy with the unrelated matter of the alleged affair. Note, however, that if the topic is the public integrity of the premier, instead of only his policy, this argument may be perfectly valid.

Answer 2

A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning.

1. Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

Example: You are so stupid you argument couldn't possibly be true.

2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
7.Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
8.Circular Argument - see Begging the Question
9.Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
10.Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
11.False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
12.Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
13.Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
14. Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
15. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
16.Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
17.Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
18.Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

1. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
2. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

Answer 3

Common examples
Ad baculum
Ad hoc
Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to authority
Appeal to fear
Appeal to pity
Appeal to probability
Appeal to tradition
Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance
Begging the question
Biased sample
Correlation implies causation or
*** hoc ergo propter hoc
Denying the antecedent
Equivocation
False dilemma
Hasty generalization
Ignoratio elenchi
Loki's Wager
No true scotsman
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Slippery slope
Straw man
Undistributed middle