COMMON REASONING ERRORS
DISTINCTION WITHOUT A
CIRCULAR ARGUMENT
FAULTY AUTHORITY
Occurs when the person(s) cited
fails to meet all the three
requirements to be considered as
an authority.
Three Requirements:
1. The authority must exist.
2. The person cited as an
authority is, in fact, an
expert.
3. The expert must be
objective or disinterested.
POST HOC FALLACY
Causes come before their
effects, but time order is not
sufficient warrant to assert
cause-and-effect relations. To do
so is to commit the error known
by the Latin phrase “post hoc,
ergo propter hoc,” which means
“after this, therefore because of
it.”
Just because it comes after, it
does not mean that it happened
because of it.
BEGGING THE QUESTION EQUIVOCATION
DIFFERENCE
FALLACIES OF FAULTY AUTHORITY
APPEAL TO COMMON
APPEAL TO TRADITION FALLACY OF NOVELTY FAULTY ANALOGY
OPINION
Simply because many people Occurs when we argue by
Just because it has always been
believe something does not Just because something is the analogy using a flawed analogy,
believed or always been done a
make it true. latest does not necessarily make where the system and the
certain way does not make that
it the greatest. analogue are not alike in the
belief or that method justified.
Also known as ad populum. ways used to draw the inference.
FALLACIES OF CAUSE AND EFFECT
CONFUSION OF A
NEGLECT OF A COMMON CAUSAL
NECESSARY WITH A SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY
CAUSE OVERSIMPLIFICATION
SUFFICIENT CONDITION
We can have causally related
Real-world phenomena are
By taking correlation to imply chains of events. They are
complex and often brought about
causation, we commit the fallacy A condition A is necessary for B arranged until the first one goes,
by a convergence of a
called neglect of a common if you cannot have B without first and then it hits the second,
multiplicity of factors.
cause. Just because whenever having had A. In other words, A which hits the third, and so on.
we see A, we also see B does is necessary for B if A is required While such chains of cause-and-
This fallacy involves picking out
not mean that A causes B or that for even the possibility of B. A effect relations exist, the fallacy
one part of a complex causal
B causes A; there might be a doesn’t bring about B by itself, is where one asserts the
web and ignoring the web when
third thing, C, that causes both A but if there is no A, there is no B. existence of such a chain without
dealing with complex social
and B. giving full causal arguments for
issues.
each step in the chain.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
AD HOMINEM ATTACKING A STRAWMAN RED HERRING
Instead of attacking the argument, we instead focus on attacking the arguer. Arguments that do not address Arguments that change the
the actual argument made but conclusion.
To argue that we should not accept—or, indeed, even consider— the argument because of the source rather a weaker, easier-to-refute
of the argument. version. Arguing not by showing that the
argument is flawed, but by giving
Three General Categories: Two Main Varieties: a new argument.
1. Altering the scope of the
1. “You’re a jerk” version - there are horrible, immoral people in this world who do nothing to make the premises
world a better place and who often serve their own petty desires at the cost of the well-being of others. “Oh, so what you are saying
But if that person makes an argument, we need to analyze it objectively. We need to evaluate the is…”
validity of the argument and assess the likelihood of the premises’ truth. 2. Replacing all of the premises
wholesale
2. Form of guilt by association - we discount an argument not for objective reasons, but because the “The real reason…”
person offering it belongs to some identifiable group.
A common variation of this kind is to point out that the speaker is not among those who follow the
advice the speaker is giving. Known by its Latin name, “tu quoque,” the “but you do it, too.”

3. Focus on the motivations of the speaker - “Of course, you’d say that. You stand to profit if it’s
true.” Again, maybe that is correct, or maybe it isn’t, but the argument stands or falls on its own merits,
regardless of who, where, when, or why the argument is made.