What are Logical Fallacies? How to avoid it?

A defect in thinking is known as a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are mental tricks or illusions that politicians and the media frequently employ to deceive the public. Today at DigitalGyan, we will talk about it in complete detail.

A formal fallacy, also known as a deductive fallacy, logical fallacy, or non sequitur in philosophy, is a logical pattern of reasoning that is rendered incorrect by a mistake in its logical structure that can be elegantly articulated in a standard logic system, such as propositional logic.

It is defined as a faulty deductive argument. Even if the premises of the argument are correct, the conclusion is incorrect. As a result, a formal fallacy occurs when deduction goes awry and the process is no longer rational.

What are the 10 Types of Logical Fallacies?

The following is a list of the 10 most common logical fallacies seen in argument and discussion:

  1. Ad Hominem
  2. Strawman Argument
  3. Appeal to Ignorance
  4. False Dilemma
  5. Slippery Slope Fallacy
  6. Circular Argument
  7. Hasty Generalization
  8. Red Herring Fallacy
  9. Causal Fallacy
  10. Bandwagon Fallacy

What is Fallacy and its kind?

A logical fallacy is a type of logical mistake that is so widespread that it has a fancy name. It’s a precious talent to be able to notice and detect fallacies. It can help you save time, money, and dignity. There are two basic kinds of logical fallacies, which are further subdivided into a variety of varieties of fallacies, each with its own unique method of persuading you to agree.

A Formal Fallacy is a grammatical error that occurs when you state something incorrectly. The thoughts are arranged wrongly in some way. Their format is incorrect, resulting in a jumble of noise and gibberish.

An Informal Fallacy is a grammatical inaccuracy in what you’re saying, or in your argument’s content. Although the thoughts are well-organized, what you expressed is incorrect. The material is incorrect or out of whack.

Some Examples of Logical Fallacy and avoiding mistakes

The Sunk Cost Fallacy – Example

Let’s suppose you’ve made the decision to create a book. You put in many hours researching, drafting a plan, and writing the first ten chapters. This book has taken months, if not years, of your life to write.

However, your interests may change with time, and you may decide that you no longer want to be an author. You could feel compelled to complete the book because you’re so close to finishing it or because you’ve already invested so much time and effort into it.

Instead, you should abandon that endeavour and concentrate on what is ahead. Perhaps you’re looking for a new career, learning a new skill, or relocating to a new city. If you kept working on your failed project, any of these ongoing and important endeavours would suffer.

So, how can you tell the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and completing a tough task? It’s a good idea to consider whether the experience will benefit you in the long run – if so, it’s a good idea to stick with it.

Let’s imagine you’ve completed three years of a four-year college or university degree programme. However, your interests have shifted, and you now wish to pursue a career that does not need a bachelor’s degree.

Nonetheless, finishing the program may make sense, since a college diploma normally only benefits future job choices – not to mention the life experience you’ll gather along the way.

The Straw Man Fallacy – Example

Perhaps you’re talking about education with someone who thinks for-profit colleges are bad for the educational system because they exploit students, don’t provide them with a good education, and waste their money.

You try to undermine the person’s argument by saying, “See, they’re against higher education and don’t think people should go to college!” Instead of responding with appropriate counterpoints (such as concrete examples of for-profit colleges that benefit their students), you try to undermine the person’s argument by saying, “See, they’re against higher education and don’t think people should go to college!”

In reality, the guy has a far more complex position, but you’ve dismissed it and responded with a broad straw man fallacy.

Perhaps you’re attempting to find a solution to the high number of persons in your community who are homeless. Set up temporary (or permanent) small dwellings for the homeless, allocate resources for garbage cleanup, and provide medical treatment during the epidemic, for example.

Your opponent, on the other hand, could misunderstand your reasoning and believe that by offering so many services to the homeless, you’re attempting to invite them to your town.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy – Definition and Example

The slippery slope fallacy describes arguments that swiftly get more dramatic and out of hand. Particularly when the more dramatic implications are neither realistic nor likely to occur.

These kinds of arguments are common when someone wants to stress how horrible a result might be — for example, when a teenager is arguing about why they need a cell phone right now.

The term makes sense when you think about it: it’s difficult to slow down and return to fair discourse after you’ve started down that slippery slope of dramatization and exaggeration.


Perhaps your adolescent wants to purchase a vehicle. They’ve been saving for a long time and now have the funds. But you don’t want them to drive a truck for a variety of reasons, including concerns about gas consumption, parking in a city, or the possibility that they’ll take it off-roading and get harmed.

These are all logical reasons why you wouldn’t want your child to drive a truck, and they may easily arise as a result of that purchase. But what if, instead of making these rational reasons, you allowed your emotions to take over and said, “You can’t buy a truck because then all your friends will want trucks, and their entire families will want trucks, and they’ll start driving all over the place and over-polluting the world!”

You can see how quickly things got out of hand, can’t you? And, while the arguer makes a valid point about emissions in general, it’s unlikely to be a realistic conclusion in this case (and it’s unlikely to be a successful argument to persuade your adolescent not to purchase a truck).

Keep Visiting DigitalGyan for more Information and Knowledge

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please turn off Ad Blockers to continue.