Logic
Logical Fallacies
Errors in reasoning — common patterns that lead to invalid conclusions
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Two main types: (1) Formal fallacies — errors in argument structure (invalid logic). (2) Informal fallacies — errors in argument content or context. Common informal fallacies: ad hominem (attacking person not argument), straw man (misrepresenting opponent), appeal to authority, slippery slope, false dichotomy, circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of). Identifying fallacies: critical thinking skill. But: not always conclusive; some "fallacies" valid in context.
- Two main typesFormal (invalid logic), informal (content errors)
- Ad hominemAttacking person, not argument
- Straw manMisrepresenting opponent's view
- Slippery slopeWithout justification, A leads to extreme B
- False dichotomyForcing choice between two options
- UseCritical thinking, debate analysis
Interactive visualization
Press play, or step through manually. The visualization is yours to drive — try it before reading on.
Watch the 60-second explainer
A condensed visual walkthrough — narrated, captioned, under a minute.
Why fallacies matter
- Critical thinking. Foundation of clear reasoning.
- Debate. Identifying weak arguments.
- Public discourse. Recognizing manipulation.
- Education. Reasoning skills.
- Science. Avoiding common errors.
- Law. Strong vs weak arguments.
- Personal life. Decision-making.
Common misconceptions
- Always invalid. Some fallacies valid in context.
- Identifying fallacy refutes argument. Argument may have merit despite.
- List of named fallacies. Limited list; many errors not named.
- Just verbal trickery. Real reasoning errors.
- Fallacy = error. Specific kinds of errors.
- Always intentional. Often unconscious.
Frequently asked questions
What's a logical fallacy?
Error in reasoning that undermines argument's validity. Two types. (1) Formal: invalid argument structure regardless of content. Affirming the consequent: "If P then Q. Q. Therefore P" — invalid. (2) Informal: errors in content, context, or relevance. Most "fallacies" people identify are informal. Important: distinguish bad arguments from valid arguments to wrong conclusions.
What's ad hominem?
"Against the person." Attacking the arguer rather than argument. Example: "You can't know about climate change because you're not a scientist." Doesn't address argument's merits. But: not always fallacious — credibility relevant in some contexts. "Ad hominem tu quoque" (you too): attacking with hypocrisy doesn't refute. Common in debates.
What's the straw man fallacy?
Misrepresenting opponent's argument to attack a weaker version. Example: opponent argues for some gun regulation; you argue against "banning all guns." Easier to defeat caricature than actual argument. Frequent in heated debates. Solution: actually engage with what opponent claims (steelman: strongest version of argument).
What's slippery slope?
Argument that A leads inevitably to extreme B without showing why. "Allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying animals." Without showing actual chain of consequences. Sometimes valid: if there's actual evidence of mechanism. Often: dismisses moderate change by associating with extreme. Need: argue actual likelihood of extreme outcome.
What's false dichotomy?
Presenting only two options when more exist. "You're either with us or against us." "Either we cut taxes or kill jobs." Real situation: more nuanced; multiple options. Forces false choice. Manipulative — backs people into unwanted corner. Solution: identify additional options; question framing.
What's appeal to authority?
Citing authority not as evidence but as definitive proof. "Einstein said X, so X is true." Authorities: relevant evidence; not proof. Can be wrong. Plus: authority on one topic not necessarily authority on related. Some uses: legitimate (medical doctor on medical matter). Some: fallacious (celebrity on physics). Distinguish: appropriate vs inappropriate authority appeals.
Are some fallacies valid sometimes?
Yes. Many "fallacies" are bad in some contexts but legitimate in others. Slippery slope: depends on whether actual chain exists. Ad hominem: relevance of credibility. Appeal to emotion: relevant in eulogies. Context matters. "Fallacy" labels: helpful diagnostic tools, not absolute condemnations. Charitable interpretation: try to identify charitable version.