List of Logical Fallacies: 45 Common Fallacies Explained

Direct Answer

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument unsound, even if its conclusion happens to be true. Fallacies divide into two great families. Formal fallacies are errors of structure: the conclusion does not follow from the premises regardless of content, as in affirming the consequent ("If P then Q; Q; therefore P"). Informal fallacies are errors of content, relevance, or language: the structure may look acceptable, but the argument fails because it attacks the person instead of the claim, misuses evidence, or exploits ambiguity.

The informal fallacies themselves fall into recognizable families. Fallacies of relevance change the subject: the ad hominem attacks the person, the straw man distorts the position, the red herring abandons the topic, and the appeal to emotion substitutes feeling for evidence. Fallacies of weak induction misuse evidence: the hasty generalization leaps from a small sample, the anecdotal fallacy treats a story as data, the false cause mistakes correlation for causation, and the appeal to ignorance treats absence of disproof as proof. Fallacies of presumption assume what should be shown: circular reasoning hides the conclusion in the premises, the false dilemma limits the options, and burden of proof errors shift the demand for evidence. Fallacies of ambiguity exploit language: equivocation switches word meanings mid-argument.

Learning the taxonomy matters because naming a fallacy is the first step to countering it. When you can say "that is an appeal to authority, and here is why the authority is irrelevant," you move from vague unease to precise diagnosis. This index links every entry to a full guide with everyday examples, historical context, and practical rebuttal strategies.

The 45 Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance

• Ad hominem — attacking the person instead of the argument.
• Tu quoque — deflecting criticism with "you too."
• Appeal to hypocrisy — treating the critic's inconsistency as a refutation.
• Guilt by association — judging by the company one keeps.
• Straw man — attacking a distorted version of the position.
• Red herring — changing the subject.
• Genetic fallacy — judging a claim by its origin.
• Appeal to emotion — substituting feeling for evidence.
• Appeal to force — threatening instead of arguing.
• Argument from consequences — judging a claim by its outcomes.
• Thought-terminating cliché — ending discussion with a slogan.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

• Hasty generalization — concluding from a small sample.
• Anecdotal fallacy — treating a story as decisive evidence.
• Cherry picking — selecting only favorable evidence.
• Spotlight fallacy — generalizing from newsworthy cases.
• False cause — mistaking correlation for causation.
• Fallacy of the single cause — reducing complex outcomes to one factor.
• Slippery slope — asserting a chain of causes without evidence.
• Appeal to authority — substituting prestige for evidence.
• Appeal to ignorance — treating absence of disproof as proof.
• Argument from incredulity — rejecting claims because they seem unbelievable.
• Appeal to wealth — equating money with wisdom.
• Appeal to poverty — equating hardship with virtue.
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy — finding patterns in random data.
• Gambler's fallacy — expecting the past to change independent odds.
• Hot hand fallacy — expecting a streak to continue.
• Sunk cost fallacy — continuing because of past investment.
• Bandwagon fallacy — treating popularity as proof.
• Appeal to nature — equating natural with good.
• Appeal to tradition — treating age as proof.
• Appeal to novelty — treating newness as proof.
• Middle ground fallacy — assuming the compromise is correct.
• Fallacy of composition — assuming the whole inherits the parts' properties.
• Fallacy of division — assuming the parts inherit the whole's properties.

Fallacies of Presumption

• Circular reasoning — assuming what needs to be proven.
• Burden of proof — shifting the demand for evidence.
• Moving the goalposts — changing standards when they are met.
• No true Scotsman — redefining the group to dodge counterexamples.
• False dilemma — presenting only two options when more exist.
• Fallacy of relative privation — dismissing a problem because worse ones exist.

Formal Fallacies

• Affirming the consequent — inferring the antecedent from the consequent.
• Denying the antecedent — inferring the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.
• Formal vs informal fallacies — the structural distinction itself.

Reference

• Equivocation — switching word meanings mid-argument.
• List of logical fallacies — this index.

How to Use This Index

Each fallacy entry above links to a dedicated guide structured around five questions: What is it? Where does it come from? What are its variants? Where does it appear in media and politics? And how do you counter it? For systematic study, start with the formal/informal distinction, then work through the relevance family, the weak induction family, and the presumption family. For quick reference, keep this page as your index — when you encounter an argument that feels wrong, identify which fallacy it commits, then open the matching guide for the rebuttal.

Related Concepts

• Formal vs informal fallacies: the master distinction
• Critical thinking: the discipline that applies this taxonomy
• Cognitive bias: the psychological machinery behind many fallacies
• Burden of proof: the meta-rule governing all arguments
• Epistemology: the study of knowledge that fallacies violate

Further Learning

• Fallacies — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Fallacies — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• The Fallacy Files