A Comprehensive List of Informal Fallacies

This comprehensive list outlines informal fallacies that are periodically (and more often than not) committed in arguments. Much of these are seen in everyday life, and training yourself to spot these defects in argumentation will make you a much better critical thinker.

General Informal Fallacies: 

• Existential Fallacy - An argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion. 
• Appeal to the Stone - Dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity. 
• Argument from Ignorance - Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. Two types: 
• Type 1 Example: "No one has shown that ghosts aren't real, so they must be real."
• Type 2 Example: "No one has shown that ghosts are real, so they must not exist." 
• Although both types are technical informal fallacies, Type 1 bears a much more fallacious tone since it's assuming the existence of 'x' simply because of the lack of people who attempt to disprove 'x's existence. One can believe an infinite amount of things using the Type 1 argument from ignorance fallacy. Type 2 is much more acceptable position even though it is still fallacious. A much better option than Type 2 that won't put you into a fallacy is to instead still not believe in the existence of ghosts (which is denying the positive), but not to assert that they don't exist (which is affirming the negative); Instead, withhold judgement until further evidence presents itself either for or against the proposition. (In other words, one can be a non-believer in 'x' without that insinuating they think 'x' for a fact doesn't exist. This is a fundamental pillar of Epistemology. A detailed example of this can be found here.) 
• Argument from Incredulity - "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false."
• Argumentum ad hominem (or "to the person") 
• Type 1: Abusive, or ad hominem attack - Attacking the person's character instead of the person's argument.
• Example: "You're wrong because you SUCK." 
• Type 2: Tu quoque, (or "you too") - Assuming a claim is not true because the person arguing the claim acts or speaks through the same inconsistency of that claim.
• Example: "Jimbo says that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health but he smokes every other day. He's wrong." 
• One must duly note that although Jimbo is a damn hypocrite, his argument stands on its own merit, and it is not falsified simply because he's a hypocrite. Smoking is bad for one's health whether Jimbo smokes or not. 
• Type 3: Poisoning the Well - A preemptive strike to discredit one's argument through ridicule and shaming. 
• Example: "Jimbo is a fascist, so don't listen to what he says."
• Begging the Question - Providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise. (This can also be informally known as "circular reasoning") 
• Example: "God must exist because it says so in the bible. You should believe the bible because it was written by god."
• Using a conclusion as a premise to present another conclusion is circular because you can switch the sentences and it will still claim the same thing, essentially allowing you to go from premise 1 to 2 to 1 to 2 ad infinitum. With the the right conclusion and right premise masked as a conclusion (and it's not that hard to come up with) one can justify absolutely anything they want.
• (Shifting of) The Burden of Proof - Making a claim and stating that you need not prove your claim to be true, but that everyone else must prove your claim to be false. 
• Example: "Can you prove that God doesn't exist? No? Well then, I must be right." 
• Although the spirit of this fallacy stems from the argument from ignorance fallacy, this is a fallacy that is used in argumentation a lot to erroneously displace the demands that one has for making arguments. A rule of thumb to go by is: If you're affirming the positive, or making claim 'x', it is your job to prove or give evidence to the notion that claim 'x' is true, hence you have the burden of proof. It is not the job of everyone else to prove or give evidence to the notion that claim 'x' is false. 
• Correlation Proves Causation - A faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
• Example: "As ice cream consumption rose in the 1950's so did polio. Ice cream causes polio."
• One must note that in order to look for causation, one must first look at correlations. However, not all of these correlations will be the cause, such as the ice cream example stipulated above. It just so happens that people in the 1950's consumed a lot of ice cream during hot climates, and the polio virus spread more efficiently in said climates. 
• Decision-Point Fallacy - Arguing that because a line or distinction cannot be drawn at any point in a process, there are no differences or gradations in that process. 
• Example: "As Joe loses his hair, there is no point at which we can definitely say that Joe became bald precisely here. Therefore, Joe is not going bald."
• False Equivocation
• Example: "Nothing is better than an 'A' on an exam. However, a 'D' is better than nothing. Therefore, a "D' is better than an 'A'" 
• The person making the claim here is equivocating on the word "nothing." The word 'nothing' in the first sentence refers to all the possible grade values except 'A' (B+ B, C+ etc.), while the word 'nothing' in the second sentence refers to the direct negation of any of those grade values. Another way of phrasing it would be to say: "A 'D' is better than no grade at all." These fallacies are particularly tricky to spot since they're deceptive by nature, and can lead one to believe false conclusions without them noticing.
• Etymological Fallacy - The belief that the original or historical meaning of a word is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage. 
• Fallacy of Composition - Assuming that something that is true for part of a whole must be true of the whole. 
• Example: "Each brick in that building weighs less than 1 pound. Therefore, the entire building weighs less than 1 pound." 
• Fallacy of Division - Assuming that something that is true for the whole must be true of its parts. 
• Example: "She is a really beautiful girl. She must have a nice appendix." 
• False Dilemma - When two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• Example: "You either like the taste of cheese or hate it." 
• It can simply be the case that one has never tried cheese, so one cannot say that they like it or hate it. The third option is simply "I don't know." 
• Fallacy of Equivalence - Describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
• Example: "They are both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog." 
• Gambler's Fallacy - The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.
• Example: "This coin landed on heads 10 times in a row. The next flip will most definitely land on tails." 
• Regardless of the number of times it landed, it still has a 50% chance of landing on heads or tails. 
• Incomplete Comparison - In which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. 
• Inconsistent Comparison - Where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Example: "Eating McDonald's is not as bad as smoking cigarettes, so it's fine."
• While smoking cigarettes is unhealthy, so is eating McDonald's. The fact that smoking cigarettes is more dangerous to one's health than eating McDonald's doesn't mean McDonald's is not unhealthy.  
• Kettle Logic - Using jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. (Two or more propositions that cannot possibly be both true.) 
• Example: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." 
• Moral High Ground - In which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
• Example: "I'm against abortion because I care about the lives of people, unlike you." 
• Moralistic Fallacy - Assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. (Opposite of the Naturalistic Fallacy)
• Example: "Unfaithfulness is immoral, and so it is unnatural to feel desire for others when in a monogamous relationship."
• Shifting the Goalposts - Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• "Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the 'origin of life' argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases."- Bo Bennett
• This is informally known as "The god of the gaps." 
• Naturalistic Fallacy - The notion that what is found in nature is good.
• Example: "Veganism is folly because humans have eaten meat for thousands of years."
• Example: "Warfare must be allowed because human violence is instinctive." 
• Nirvana Fallacy - When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Example: "Using contraceptives as a way to prevent pregnancies is bad because contraceptives have side effects." 
• Post hoc Fallacy - X happened, then Y happened. Therefore, X caused Y. 
• Example: Bigfoot was seen in this part of the woods. Something smashed by tent. Therefore, Bigfoot smashed by tent." 
• Proving Too Much - Using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
• Example: "Domestic violence in families against spouses and children exist. Domestic violence is evil. Hence, marriage and parenthood is evil." 
• Red Herring -  Distracting an audience or person by deviating from the argument at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.
• Example: Question: "What should your administration do to limit the availability of assault weapons?" - Answer: "I believe that we should make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence that we have. But how do we do that? First of all we need better schools, to teach our children how to be productive members of society. Secondly, we need parents, to enforce strong family values on our children and to teach them that violence is not the answer."
• The person giving the answer doesn't answer the question of how he will limit the physical availability of assault weapons, but instead goes on to a similarly (but easier to argue for) related topic of teaching children strong family values. 
• This fallacy is used heavily by politicians to sway votes and avoid questions that will make them look bad. 
• Slippery Slope Fallacy - Asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen.
• Example: "We should not let our child go outside because then she will want to roam around the neighborhood. If she roams around the neighborhood she will get picked up by a stranger in a van, and will sell her in a sex slavery ring in some other country. Then the robber will bribe us into giving him all of our money, but then trick us into giving all our money without him giving back our child. Therefore, we should not let our child go outside." 
• Special Pleading - Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
• Example: Person 1 "Everything had to have a cause. The universe didn't just form out of nothing. God must have created the universe. Therefore, god exists." - Person 2 "Then who created god?" - Person 1 "He didn't have a cause and always existed." 

————————————————————————————————————————

Types of Faulty Generalization Fallacies: 

• No True Scotsman Fallacy - When a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
• Example: Person 1 "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." - Person 2 "But my uncle Angus like sugar with his porridge." - Person 1 "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." 
• Uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and one cannot say he isn't based on an arbitrary principle. 
• Cherry Picking - Act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. (In Psychology, this is called Confirmation Bias) 
• False Analogy - An argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
• Example: "Life is like water. It is dynamic and always changing."
• Hasty Generalization - Basing a broad conclusion on a small sample. 
• Example: "All these Jewish people in my town have so much money. They're the richest people on the planet." 

————————————————————————————————————————

Types of Red Herring Fallacies: 

• Appeal to Authority - Where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
• Example: "The Pope said sex before marriage is immoral. It must be true." 
• Appeal to Accomplishment - Where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
• Example: "She won the Nobel Peace Prize, and several other public awards. Everything she says is probably true." 
• Appeal to Emotion - Where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. 
• Appeal to Tradition - A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true or existed for a long time. 
• Example: "Of course acupuncture works, it has existed in our culture for thousands of years."
• Argumentum ad populum - Where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
• Example: "Christianity is true, I mean look at how many believers there are in the world. There are 2.2 billion believers in the world."
• Fallacy of Relative Privation - Dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
• Example: "Why are you worrying about that? There are children starving in Africa." 
• Genetic Fallacy - Arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin. 
• Example: "We should reject that proposal for solving the welfare scandal. It comes straight from the Democratic Party." 
• Straw Man Fallacy - An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. (Not to be confused with the Red Herring fallacy)
• Example: "She is for abortion because she likes killing babies, and that's completely immoral. I would never put myself in a position that says I hate human life." 
• It's much easier to deliver a straw man and deem a pro-choice advocate as a baby hater or baby killer than it is to address the arguments made by pro-choice advocates about the ethics of autonomy and bodily integrity. 
• Two Wrongs Make a Right - Occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
• Example: "All three of us were watching the child drown in the river, and the other two people didn't attempt to save him either, so I'm in the clear as well."
• It's still morally wrong to watch somebody drown and die when you have to power to easily prevent it from happening, no matter how many people are around the child.