Specimen family
n = 20
Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They often arise from a misunderstanding or misuse of logic, leading to conclusions that are not logically sound. Recognizing these fallacies can help in evaluating arguments critically and avoiding faulty reasoning in your own thinking.

False Cause (Correlation Is Not Causation)
You treat sequence or correlation as proof that A made B happen - without ruling out rivals.
56 · Moderate
FC
Straw Man
You knock down a weaker, weirder version of someone's claim - and treat the win as if you answered the real one.
60 · Moderate
SM
Ad Hominem
You answer the person instead of the claim, and treat that answer as if the claim lost.
62 · Moderate
AdH
Slippery Slope
You treat a modest first step as the start of an inevitable slide to a extreme end - without showing the links.
59 · Moderate
SS
False Dichotomy
You frame a choice as either/or when real alternatives, blends, or partial paths still exist.
65 · Moderate
FD
Circular Reasoning
You assume the conclusion inside the premises - so the argument only restates what it claimed to prove.
55 · Mild
CR
Appeal to Emotion
You treat a strong feeling as proof - or use emotion to replace evidence in an argument.
68 · High
AE
Framing Effect
You react differently to the same information depending on how it is presented.
62 · Moderate
FE
Halo Effect
You let one positive trait influence your overall judgment of a person or thing.
70 · High
HE
Authority Bias
Status, title, or a lab coat can make a claim feel true - before you check whether the argument earns it.
68 · High
AB
Red Herring Fallacy
The reply is vivid, and it answers a question nobody asked, so the original question leaves the room.
56 · Moderate
RdH
Whataboutism (Tu Quoque)
A charge is met by a different charge, and the first one never gets an answer.
66 · High
Wht
No True Scotsman
A counterexample shows up, and the category quietly shrinks so the counterexample is no longer inside it.
62 · Moderate
NTS
Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
Under questioning, the bold claim hides behind a modest one. When the questions stop, the bold claim is back.
65 · Moderate
MtB
Moving the Goalposts
The evidence you asked for arrives, and the standard for proof moves so you still do not have to update.
64 · Moderate
MGp
Gish Gallop
A stack of weak points arrives faster than anyone can answer, and the unanswered stack is treated as a win.
59 · Moderate
Gsh
Anecdotal Evidence
One vivid story gets treated as if it were a rate, a study, or a reason to ignore the table.
62 · Moderate
AnE
Appeal to Nature
"It's natural" gets used as a verdict, as if nature had already done the ethics and the safety check.
58 · Moderate
ApN
Special Pleading
You keep the rule, and you quietly excuse the case you care about from having to follow it.
64 · Moderate
SPl
Nirvana Fallacy
A real option gets rejected because it is not the perfect option, so the comparison that matters never happens.
61 · Moderate
Nir