The 17 types of logical and argumentative fallacies

Is it possible to have arguments that go against logic? It does not seem to be something completely possible, but that does not mean that it is impossible, because people can use their creativity to find any type of reasoning that justifies your beliefs, even though they are wrong or do not conform at all to any logical premise and evident.

This type of invention is known as a fallacy and it has a very strong significant power in the person who firmly believes in these beliefs, since you will always defend your point of view ignoring the opinion of others if they do not agree with is. For what reason? Simply because people with these fallacies only care about finding arguments that can justify them and persuade others that they are correct.

Has it ever happened to you? Have you come across a person who is so ingrained in her beliefs even though they are wrong? How is it possible to recognize a fallacy of a truth? In this article we will clarify all your doubts since we will talk about the types of logical and argumentative fallacies and how you can detect them.

What is a fallacy?

But first of all let's define what a fallacy is. In essence, it is a reasoning or an argument that does not have any validity, that it may be wrong or that it does not seem to fit completely with reality, but that it is strong enough to appear to have logic. For this to have this apparent validity, it is necessary for the person to be able to persuade others of it and to be able to be convinced of its veracity.

Many people use these fallacies to discredit someone else's opinion, to humiliate or to make others believe that they have great knowledge (even if they do not know anything about the subject that they are treating).

What is a logical and argumentative fallacy?

This type of fallacy is characterized by being an argument that in its appearance looks correct and even true., but that in reality it is not in practice, since the reasoning is incorrect because it does not necessarily correspond to the essence of what is being said.

For example: 'decent girls wear long skirts' (when the skirts have nothing to do with the decency of the person).

Therefore, it is used as a way to disqualify or mislead in an argumentative process, since it does not come from a logical cause, but rather from reasons that people strongly believe in their beliefs personal.

Types of logical and argumentative fallacies and how to identify them

There are many types of fallacies, so it is normal that you find in each part a different one than you have read elsewhere. Next we will show you the most common ones.

1. Non-formal fallacies

In these the reasoning error is linked to the content of the premises or the topics discussed. In such a way that an incorrect belief is attributed to some event and operation of the world, which allows to justify the conclusion obtained.

1.1. Ad hominem (fallacy of personal attack)

It is one of the most common types of non-formal fallacies of all, in which reasoning is used inconsistent, usually not concordant with the topic of discussion, to attack the opinion of the other person. The purpose of this fallacy is to reject, criticize or humiliate the position of the other, as its name indicates "against man."

For example: "Men, because they are men, cannot comment on pregnancy."

1.2. Fallacy of ignorance

Also called ad ignorantiam, it is another of the most common types of fallacies of all. It is that the person gives an argument that in essence seems logical but whose veracity cannot be verified at all, due to the lack of knowledge on the subject.

An example of this is the 'I have no proof, but no doubts' meme.

1.3. Ad verecundiam

Also known as the fallacy of appeal to authority, it consists of the misuse we make of authority to defend a position, as if the position of that person were enough to demonstrate the logic of the argument.

For example: "We must not question the president's speech, because what he and he says is true."

1.4. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Although it sounds a bit complex and more of a term of higher academic studies, this is based on the fallacy that it is law natural, obligatory and divine that an event occurs because another has occurred, since this is a consequence of it or has been caused for that. It is also called the fallacy of affirmation of the consequence or fallacy of correlation and causality.

An example of this is: "If your name is Jesus, it is because your family is a practicing Christian."

1.5. Fallacy of appeal to tradition

This more than a fallacy is almost an excuse to justify their behaviors or to criticize the position of anyone in a debate, adhering to the norms and customs of the society, culture or religion in which reside. So if that 'something' has been done in the same way for years, it is because it is correct and should not be changed. It is also known as an ad consequentiam argument.

1.6. Straw man fallacy

This is a way of creating the appearance that you have the strongest and most logical argument above anyone else's. So non-truthful reasoning is used, but with enough apparent sense to persuade others that they are wrong. One of the most widely used methods is mockery and negative comparison with previous antecedents.

For example, when a company needs to change its image or marketing, but the owners reject the suggestion as an attack on the essence of the company.

1. 7. Hasty generalization

This is also one of the most common to excuse the personal belief that one has about something or someone. In this fallacy, a general trait is attributed to certain elements, despite the fact that there is not enough evidence to To show that this is true, however, this conclusion is reached due to the own experiences that have been lived.

A very clear example of this is: "all women are sentimental" or "all men are equal."

2. Formal fallacies

These fallacies are not only related to the content of the premises, but to the link that exists between them.. This link generates in the person arguments that are not coherent with the existing relationship between them, instead of generating erroneous ideas in the concepts.

2.1. Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy also called a convero error is used to assert a second element in a sentence and therefore, giving as true the premise or previous antecedent, incorrectly, since it is not. For example: ‘The day is clear and therefore it’s hot’ (when it is not necessary to be hot when one day is clear)

2.2. Denial of antecedent

In this case, the opposite occurs due to what is known as an inverse error, where the person believes that by taking an action he will have the result he expects, because for him it is logical that this happens. The same happens if the action is not done, then there will be no such result. For example: "To be my friend, I will give you gifts." "If I don't give you gifts, you won't be my friend."

2.3. Undistributed middle term

This has to do with the middle term of a syllogism, which connects two premises or propositions but does not they arrive at a conclusion, or any coherent result, because the argument does not cover any premise per se herself.

For example, ‘all people from Asia are Chinese’ therefore those who come from Korea, Japan or the Philippines are considered as Chinese and not as Asian.

3. Other types of fallacies

In this category we will name other fallacies that are present in our daily lives.

3.1. Fallacy of false equivalence

Also called the fallacy of ambiguity, it occurs when an affirmation or negation is deliberately used with the intention of confusing, deceiving or minimizing an act. It usually applies when you want to say one thing, but you embellish it so much that you end up saying something entirely different.

For example, instead of 'telling lies' you are 'hiding irrelevant information'.

3.2. Ad populum (populist fallacy)

In these the fallacies are beliefs and opinions that are true, just because many people consider it true or correct. This type of fallacy is very common in product advertising, when companies state that "they are the number one brand because everyone consumes it."

3.3. Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion

This is commonly used to try to change a person's thinking, adding an irrelevant conclusion to a premise, even when the other person has a different opinion. It is also called the ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

For example: "If you are a man who does not agree with machismo, then you must affirm that women are superior."

3.4. Snowball fallacy

As its name implies, it is a false argument that takes more power as it spreads among people. It may start with a guess or a random fact, then come up with more elaborate and just as wrong ideas.

For example, "If you see a lot of comics, you will not do your homework and you will be an irresponsible boy, you will not be able to study a career, or have a stable job and that is why you will be unhappy."

3.5. Fallacy of the false dilemma

This is an argumentative fallacy that is used in discussions or debates, where we only choose between two options that are directly opposed to each other, without taking into account other alternatives.

A very classic example of this is "you have to choose between your mom and me."

3.6. Circular fallacy

We can say that in some way it is a vicious circle, they are arguments that their only function is to turn over and over again without reaching any conclusion or agreement. It is typical of people who do not admit that they are wrong and continue to defend their position for no reason.

3.7. Sunk cost fallacy

This is a persistent fallacy, characteristic of people who do not want to give up on something they have been working on for a long time or a belief that they have always had. Therefore, it is difficult for them to accept suggestions for changes or termination. This is normal behavior and perhaps the fallacy that we most tend to fall into due to the nature of not giving up.