Logical Fallacies

• Logical reasoning, often referred to as "logical thinking" or "critical thinking," is the process of using sound and valid reasoning to draw conclusions, make decisions, solve problems, and evaluate arguments.
• Deductive reasoning involves using a given set of facts or data to deduce other facts by reasoning logically.
• Logical fallacy are errors in reasoning that invalidate an argument.
• False dilemma occurs when an arguer presents his/her argument as one of only two options despite the presence of multiple possibilities.
• Dina saw a cat when they went home.
• Along the way, they crashed into a tree.
• The black cat must be the reason why they met an accident.
• Appeal to ignorance occurs when something is instantly concluded to be true just because it is not proven to be false, and vice versa.
• Slippery slope occurs when a series of increasingly superficial and unacceptable consequences is drawn.
• Complex question occurs when two or more points are rolled into one and the reader is expected to accept or reject both at the same time, when one point may be satisfactory while the other is no.
• Appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum) occurs when a threat, instead of reasoning is used to argue.
• Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) occurs when the element of pity is used instead of logical reasoning.
• Bandwagon occurs when an argument is considered to be valid because it is what the majority thinks.
• Attacking the person (ad hominem) occurs when someone tries to refute an argument by attacking the character of a person instead of attacking the ideas of the argument.
• Accident occurs when a general rule is applied to a situation, even when it should be an exception.
• Denyying antecedent occurs when someone incorrectly claims that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false.
• Complex cause occurs when the explanation for an event is reduced to one thing when there are other factors which also contributed to the event.
• Anonymous to authority occurs when the authority in question is not mentioned or named.
• Appeal to consequences asserts that something must be true or false because of the desirable or undesirable outcomes that would result from accepting it, without considering the actual merits of the claim.
• Affirming the consequent occurs when someone incorrectly concludes that a statement is true because its consequent (the "then" part of an "if-then" statement) is true.
• Straw man occurs when the position of the opposition is twisted so that it is easier to refute.
• Inconsistency occurs when arguments contradict one another.
• Wrong direction occurs when the direction between cause and effect is reversed.
• Post hoc (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) implies that just because one thing happened after another, it must have been the cause, which may not be the case.
• False analogy occurs when a writer assumes that two concepts that are similar in some ways are also similar in other ways.
• Appeal to authority occurs when the argument quotes an expert who’s not qualified in the particular subject matter.
• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) occurs when unpleasant consequences of believing something are pointed out to show that the belief is false.