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