All Fallacies

Dismisses a claim by insulting the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

Alters meaning by changing emphasis, stress, or selective quoting.

Attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument.

Exploits ambiguous grammar or structure to imply a misleading conclusion.

Treats a claim as true solely because an authority or expert said so.

Claims something is acceptable or correct because many people do it.

Dismisses critique by claiming the issue is too complex to resolve or understand.

Argues a claim is true or false based on desirable or undesirable outcomes.

Leans on feelings like fear, pity, or pride instead of reasons.

Uses frightening scenarios to secure agreement instead of offering evidence.

Misrepresents an argument so it is easier to attack.

Introduces an irrelevant point to divert attention from the issue.

Claims something is true or good because many people believe it.

Flatters the audience or decision maker to win approval instead of providing reasons.

Claims something is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true.

Dismisses a claim by attacking or speculating about the speaker’s motives instead of the evidence.

Claims something is good or true because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.

Argues something is better or truer because it is new or innovative.

Seeks agreement by invoking sympathy rather than offering relevant reasons.

Mocks a claim to make it seem absurd instead of addressing its merits.

Leverages resentment or bitterness to win agreement rather than reasoned support.

Claims something is correct or better because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Claims a view is correct because wealthy or successful people hold it, or because it leads to wealth.

Claims a view is correct because it is held by the poor or disadvantaged, or because it rejects wealth.

Rejects a criticism or claim by accusing the speaker of behaving inconsistently, instead of addressing the argument.

Treats being rich or poor as proof that a claim is right, combining appeals to wealth and poverty.

Overweights the opinion of authority figures, even outside their expertise or without evidence.

Ignores prior probabilities when evaluating new evidence, leading to mistaken conclusions.

Presents only favorable evidence while ignoring or hiding counter-evidence.

Selects only the data that support a claim while overlooking the full dataset.

Favors information that confirms existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting contrary evidence.

Assumes that because one event follows another, the first caused the second.

Draws a conclusion from a comparison between things that are not sufficiently alike in relevant aspects.

Rapidly floods the audience with many claims—true, half-true, or false—faster than they can be checked.

Believes past independent random events change the odds of future independent events.

Uses vague, feel-good phrases that carry positive connotations but little concrete content.

Discredits a claim or person by linking them to an unpopular group or individual, rather than addressing the argument.

Presents statements that are partially true but omit critical context, leading to a misleading conclusion.

Assumes a person with recent success has a higher chance of continued success in independent events.

Responds to a different issue than the one raised, leaving the original question unanswered.

Overestimates one’s influence over outcomes that are largely determined by chance or external factors.

Assumes trends within observed data automatically hold between or beyond the data points without justification.

Applies neat, game-like models to messy reality without accounting for real-world uncertainty and complexity.

Misses an underlying relationship because another variable hides or distorts it.

Uses a striking anecdote or vivid event to outweigh statistical evidence or broader trends.

Argues that because something ought to be a certain way, it therefore is that way.

Infers an ‘ought’ directly from an ‘is’, assuming what is natural defines what is morally right.

Underestimates time, costs, or risks of a task, even when past experiences suggest otherwise.

Preemptively discredits a person or source so that their future claims are rejected without consideration.

Confuses the probability of observing the evidence if someone is innocent with the probability of innocence given the evidence.

Mistakenly attributes a change after an extreme event to a specific cause, ignoring regression to the mean.

Treats an abstraction as if it were a concrete, living, or causal thing.

Unfairly blames a person or group for problems to deflect responsibility or simplify causes.

Distorts conclusions by using a non-random or non-representative selection of data or participants.

A trend appears in several groups of data but reverses or disappears when the groups are combined.

Overloads a discussion with tangents or detail to obscure weakness in the main argument.

Continues an endeavor because of past investment rather than future benefit.

Focuses on successes that survived a process while ignoring failures, leading to wrong conclusions.

Judges a claim true or false based solely on its source or origin rather than its merits.

Assumes that what is true of parts must be true of the whole.

Assumes what is true of a whole must be true of each part.

Assumes that if ‘If A then B’ is true, then ‘Not A’ implies ‘Not B’, which is invalid.

A syllogism error where the middle term is not distributed, leaving the major and minor terms possibly unrelated.

A syllogism error where the major term is undistributed in the premises but distributed in the conclusion.

A syllogism error where the minor term is undistributed in the premises but distributed in the conclusion.

Introduces a fourth term in a syllogism, breaking the required three-term structure and invalidating the inference.

Confuses possibility, probability, and necessity, or shifts between them illegitimately in an argument.

Illegitimately swaps universal and existential quantifiers, changing meaning and invalidating the inference.

Draws a causal conclusion without sufficient evidence, often from mere correlation or sequence.

Assumes that because two things occur together, one causes the other.

Attributes a relationship between two variables to causation when both are driven by an unconsidered third factor.

Mistakes the direction of cause and effect between two correlated variables.

Two variables correlate by coincidence or external patterns, but no causal link exists.

Relies on personal stories or isolated examples instead of representative evidence.

Draws conclusions from a sample that does not represent the population of interest.

Evidence is distorted because studies with positive or exciting results are more likely to be published than null or negative ones.

Infers individual-level conclusions from group-level data, ignoring within-group variation.

Uses a trite phrase to end discussion and discourage further thought.

A statement that seems profound but is either trivially true or meaningless upon scrutiny.

Uses coded language that seems innocuous to the general audience but carries targeted meanings for a specific group.

Expresses moral stances mainly to display virtue or gain approval, not to argue substance.

Presents two sides as equally valid despite a clear weight of evidence or expertise favoring one.

Removes quotes from context to misrepresent the speaker’s intent or conclusion.

Systematically makes someone doubt their perceptions or memory to gain advantage or control.

Reduces a complex issue to a single cause or factor, ignoring important nuance.

Deflects criticism by pointing to another issue or wrongdoing instead of addressing the original point.

Assumes that because something could happen, it will happen—or that probability alone justifies action.

Claims something is acceptable or correct because it is common or normal.

Claims a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes.

Presents only two options when more reasonable alternatives exist.

Uses its own conclusion as a premise instead of offering support.

Draws a broad conclusion from too little or unrepresentative evidence.

Assumes that because two things move together, one must cause the other.

Assumes that if a result occurs, the only cause must be a specific prior condition.

Shifts the meaning of a key term mid-argument to make a conclusion seem supported.

Redefines a group to exclude counterexamples and protect a generalisation.

Frames a question with a presupposition that forces an implicit agreement or admission.

Overwhelms with many rapid, weak points to exhaust responses.