25 TYPES of FALLACIES with examples

Logic deals with the validity of arguments, and can be deductive, from the general to the particular case, or inductive, from the particular to the general. According to Aristotle, who can be considered the founder of this discipline, formal logic deals with the validity, with the correctness of the arguments, not with their truth. If all men play soccer and I am a man, I play soccer: it is a correct reasoning from the logical-formal point of view, but not true as long as I do not play soccer: the truth of a conclusion is linked not only to logic, but also to the truth of the premises. If the premises are true and the reasoning is logical, the conclusions are also true.

Deductive logic, especially the syllogist, is extremely rigorous, but unsuitable for common discussions, where we use a more approximate procedure. This makes us often fall into fallacies, that is, arguments that seem logical - this is the reason for their effectiveness - but they contain serious errors, and in this article from Psychology-Online we will discover 25 types of fallacies with examples.

Index

1. Fallacy of mistake
2. Fallacy of amphibology or grammatical ambiguity
3. Fallacy of vagueness
4. Double-thinking fallacy
5. Accent fallacy
6. Composition fallacy
7. Fallacy of division
8. Undue generalization
9. Statistical generalization
10. Gambler's or gambler's fallacy
11. False cause
12. Fallacy of suppressed evidence
13. Pathetic fallacy
14. Petitio principii or simple circularity
15. Multiple (or complex) question fallacy
16. Ignoratio elenchi or fallacy of wrong conclusion
17. Non sequitur fallacy
18. Puppet theme
19. Change fallacy
20. Bounty fallacy
21. Control fallacy
22. Fairness fallacy
23. Ad baculum fallacy
24. Fallacy ad misericordiam
25. Fallacy ad populum

Occurs when the same expression is used with two or more meanings, one of them in the premise and the other in the conclusion.

• For example, in the phrase "logic is better than nothing, nothing is better than health", the conclusion depends on the meaning we want to give to the word "nothing".

It is a speech or an expression that contains a syntactic ambiguity And, therefore, it can be interpreted in different ways depending on the way it is read. In general, we speak of amphibolia, that is, of a structural ambiguity that does not reside in one or more words, but in the way in which the words are linked to each other. Often, we are faced with amphibologists when there are several quantifiers present in the same sentence.

• For example, the phrase "all boys love a girl" can mean that "there is a girl who all boys love" or "all boys love some girl".

We refer to that form of indeterminacy that does not manifest itself in the presence of multiple meanings, but in the absence of rigorous criteria for the correct use of a word.

• For example, in the phrase "refined palates prefer red wine, I have a refined palate, so I should drink wine," what is a refined palate and who has it? And what do you like red wine?

When each statement cancels the other, everything and nothing is said. We will better understand this type of fallacy with an example:

• Example of the double-thinking fallacy: "individuals are good and bad."

This type of fallacy tries to draw conclusions that are not due by the change of accent from one word to another.
For example, in the phrase "the queen can only be praised", there may be two different readings:

1. We are not free to criticize the queen when the accent is placed on the word queen.
2. We are really praising the queen if the accent is put on the word praised.

The next of the types of fallacies is the fallacy of composition. It is the case where overall quality is wrongly inferred of an object based on the quality of its components.

• Example: the Barcelona team is the winner because it is made up of players who are active in the nation.

It is the inverse of the previous one, and it occurs when the set has certain characteristics and the same characteristics are attributed to its component parts.

• For example, "Pau knows everything because he works at the university."

We fall into this kind of fallacy when we draw a conclusion about a whole class of objects from information about one or some of its components.

• For example: a man stole an apple. Therefore, all men are thieves. In doing so, an "undue generalization" was produced.

It is pseudoinductive reasoning that is based on a numerically insufficient sampling, while pretending to have a general conclusion.

• Example: "Of a group of 500 Spanish teenagers, 80% surf the Internet for more than three hours a day. So 80% of Spanish teenagers surf the Internet for more than three hours a day. "

In this type of fallacy, it is believed that probability of occurrence of an event It depends on how long it has been since it has been, although it does not. It has the following form: "Event X has not occurred for a long time, so it will occur soon."

• Therefore, an example might be "It has been a long time since the number 82 has been in the lottery; therefore number 82 will be out soon. "

This fallacy occurs when something is made to appear because of an event that is not, or when arbitrarily attributed a cause to an event without having considered the alternatives.

• Example: "I should never have taken the test on Friday. Every time I do it on Friday they suspend me. In this case we have a false cause. "

In this case, the one who proposes a thesis silences a hidden premise, and a circular reasoning, for which the thesis seems true. But if the information contained in the premise comes up, they will invalidate the conclusion.

• Example: "Many cats are fine in the apartment. They are affectionate and love to be petted. So this cat will most likely make a good pet. "

The premises are true, pertinent, and the inductive probability is high. But if the author were silent about the fact that the cat in question lived much of his time in a cat shelter abandoned, where he became suspicious and aggressive, it is clear that the argument would be tainted by the fallacy of evidence suppressed.

An expression coined by the British poet John Ruskin consisting of attribute emotion and behavior human to things found in nature, that is, they are not human. It is the basis of some divination methods.

• A physical example could be: "Air hates to be compressed, so it counteracts the pressure that is imposed on it."

That is, the assumption of the truth of what is intended to be demonstrated. The argumentation is called "circular", since among the premises of an argumentation is the thesis that is to be upheld. Let's look at an example of this kind of fallacy:

• God created the world, so God exists.
• God exists, so God created the world.

The argument contains a premise and a conclusion, but they are not consistent. It is obvious that the conclusion is already contained in the first premise.

We talk about this kind of fallacy when something is taken for granted in the question that has yet to be proven. It is normally used as a verbal trap to fool fools.

• For example: "Did you stop robbing banks?": In this case, the question is an answer to a logically earlier question.

It manifests when the premises support a different conclusion from the one that appears in the formulation of the argument. For example example:

• The inflation rate is negative for the economy;
• today the inflation rate (on an annual basis) is 7%, while last month inflation gallops at a rate of 10%;
• so the economy is improving.

In this case, what really follows from the premises is that the inflation rate is going down. This is very different from what was stated in the conclusion, that is, that the economy is doing well. The premises do not support the conclusion.

This type of fallacy, also called a "red herring", consists of illicitly assume as a cause something that is not.

• For example: "The country is under the threat of terrorism. It is urgent to buy new increasingly powerful weapons. " The argument is fallacious, since terrorism is not necessarily fought through the acquisition of new weapons (existing ones can also be effective).

To deny a thesis without addressing it directly, an apparently similar thesis is refuted built ad hoc, less plausible. During the dispute, the ad hoc thesis is refuted, by logical consequence the thesis that was intended to attack also falls. But the argument used is a puppet: it is false, just as the ad hoc thesis is a puppet thesis.

Cognitive distortion through which it is assumed that others can and should change, to respond to your wants and needs. The usual strategies for trying to bring about the other's change include criticism and blaming. Known what are cognitive distortions, their types and examples.

This type of fallacy or cognitive distortion that consists of the expectation that the other will show gratitude for a generous action.

Cognitive distortion related to the evaluation of the control that the individual thinks they have over events. This fallacy has two variants:

• Subjects with external locus of control (hypocontrol fallacy) develop the conviction of having little or no control about the environment.
• Subjects with extreme internal locus of control present the opposite problem.

It is a type of cognitive distortion and consists of the conviction that evaluation systems themselves are intrinsically valid and, therefore, applicable to all and in all conditions. It is expressed in the conviction that everyone should have the same values.

Impose a thesis by threatening resort to force or exerting some form of pressure on the interlocutor. In some cases, the appeal is not intended to arouse emotions, but rather uses the emotion aroused to support a certain conclusion.

We talk about this kind of fallacy when we appeal to mercy or compassion.

• Example: "Agent, don't give me a ticket for crossing the speed limit, my father would kick me out of the house and my girlfriend would leave me."

Let's look at the last type of fallacy in this list of types of fallacies. The ad populum fallacy occurs when arguing for or against a thesis appealing to popular sentiments or to shared opinions rather than to reason.

This article is merely informative, in Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Types of fallacies with examples, we recommend that you enter our category of Cognitive psychology.

• Gutiérrez, G. TO. (2000). Introduction to logic. Pearson Education.
• Lekuona Ruiz de Luzuriaga, K. (2013). Formal and informal logic: fallacies and false arguments (didactic unit).
• Rizzotto, L. (2021). I failed: an introduction to the community inganni dell’argomentazione. Recovered from: https://www.psyjob.it/le-fallacie-una-introduzione-ai-piu-comuni-inganni-dellargomentazione.htm