A structured reference for the fallacies used throughout Fallacy Finder.

Treats a result as proof of a particular cause, even though the same result could follow from other causes too.

Denying the Antecedent

Assumes that if a condition is absent, the outcome must also be absent, even though the outcome could still arise in other ways.

Four-Term Fallacy

Uses a syllogism with four terms instead of three, often because a key term shifts meaning.

Illicit Major

Draws a syllogistic conclusion that distributes the major term more broadly than the premises allow.

Illicit Minor

Draws a syllogistic conclusion that distributes the minor term more broadly than the premises allow.

Propositional Fallacies

A broader label for invalid moves in propositional logic where the conclusion does not validly follow from the premises.

Quantification Fallacies

Misuses words like all, some, or none so the conclusion goes beyond what the premises support.

Syllogistic Fallacies

Uses a broken syllogism or category relationship so the conclusion does not logically follow.

Undistributed Middle

Uses a shared middle term in a syllogism without properly connecting the categories, so the conclusion does not follow.

Group 2

Informal fallacies

These depend on weak support, misleading framing, bad evidence, or rhetorical shortcuts.

Ad Hominem

Attacks the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

Ambiguity

Relies on vague or slippery wording that can be taken in more than one way.

Anecdotal

Uses a personal story or isolated example as if it were enough to prove a broad claim.

Appeal to Authority

Treats a claim as true mainly because an authority figure or expert said it, without enough supporting evidence.

Appeal to Consequences

Treats desirable or undesirable consequences as proof that a claim itself is true or false.

Appeal to Emotion

Pushes the audience toward a conclusion by provoking emotion rather than giving solid reasons.

Appeal to Fear

Leans on fear or alarm to drive acceptance of a claim instead of supporting it with sound reasoning.

Appeal to Force

Uses threats, coercion, or the prospect of punishment in place of actual reasons.

Appeal to Ignorance

Claims something is true or false simply because it has not been proven otherwise.

Appeal to Nature

Assumes something is good, right, or safer simply because it is called natural.

Appeal to Pity

Treats sympathy or compassion as if it were evidence that a claim is true or justified.

Appeal to Probability

Assumes that because something could happen or seems likely, it therefore will happen.

Appeal to Ridicule

Mocks a position to make it seem false instead of actually refuting it.

Appeal to Tradition

Claims something is correct or preferable mainly because it has long been done that way.

Argument from Repetition

Repeats a claim so often that the repetition itself is used to make it feel true.

Argumentum ad Populum

Treats popularity or public approval as evidence that a claim is true.

Bad Reason Fallacy

Offers reasons that do not actually justify the conclusion being claimed.

Bandwagon

Urges acceptance of a claim because many people supposedly already accept it.

Begging the Question

Builds the conclusion into the premise, so the argument assumes what it is trying to prove.

Burden of Proof

Shifts responsibility for proving a claim onto other people instead of supporting it directly.

Cherry Picking

Selects only the evidence that supports a conclusion while ignoring relevant evidence that points the other way.

Circular Reasoning

Restates the conclusion in different words instead of supplying independent support for it.

Composition Fallacy

Assumes that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole.

Continuum Fallacy

Claims a distinction is meaningless just because the boundary between cases is gradual or fuzzy.

Division Fallacy

Assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of each part.

Equivocation

Switches the meaning of a key word or phrase in the middle of an argument.

Etymological Fallacy

Assumes a word’s current meaning or truth is determined by its historical origin.

Fallacy Fallacy

Assumes a claim must be false merely because the argument for it was weak or fallacious.

Fallacy of Composition and Division

Improperly transfers a property from parts to the whole, or from the whole to the parts.

Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context

Pulls words from their surrounding context so they appear to mean something different.

False Analogy

Treats two things as more alike than they really are, using a weak comparison to support the conclusion.

False Attribution

Assigns a statement, motive, source, or cause to the wrong person or factor.

False Cause

Treats two things as causally connected without enough evidence that one really caused the other.

False Cause & False Attribution

Treats two things as causally connected, or assigns credit or blame, without enough evidence.

False Dilemma

Frames a situation as if there were only two options when more possibilities exist.

False Equivalence

Treats two things as morally, logically, or practically equivalent when the differences matter.

Faulty Generalization

Draws a broad rule or conclusion from too little, too narrow, or unrepresentative evidence.

Furtive Fallacy

Assumes hidden intent, secret coordination, or deliberate design without sufficient evidence.

Gambler's Fallacy

Assumes past random outcomes make a different future outcome more likely, even when events are independent.

Genetic Fallacy

Judges a claim by where it came from rather than by the quality of the claim itself.

Guilt by Association

Dismisses a person or claim by linking it to someone or something disliked rather than addressing the reasoning itself.

Hasty Generalization

Jumps from a small or unrepresentative sample to a sweeping conclusion.

Ignoratio Elenchi

Presents reasons that may sound relevant but do not actually answer the point at issue.

Incomplete Comparison

Makes a comparison without stating what the thing is being compared against or by which standard.

Inflation of Conflict

Presents a disagreement as a dramatic clash when the actual gap may be smaller or more nuanced.

Kettle Logic

Uses mutually inconsistent defenses all at once, hoping one of them will stick.

Loaded Question

Asks a question that smuggles in an unproven assumption.

Middle Ground

Assumes the compromise position must be correct simply because it sits between two extremes.

Motte and Bailey

Retreats to a safer, easier claim when challenged, then returns to the stronger controversial claim once the pressure passes.

Moving the Goalposts

Changes the standard of proof or success after the original standard has been met.

Nirvana Fallacy

Rejects a realistic option because it is not perfect, comparing it unfairly to an idealized alternative.

No True Scotsman

Protects a general claim by redefining the group whenever a counterexample appears.

Personal Incredulity

Treats something as false simply because it seems hard to imagine, understand, or believe.

Poisoning the Well

Discredits a person in advance so that anything they say is dismissed before it is even considered.

Post Hoc

Assumes that because one thing happened after another, the first thing must have caused the second.

Proof by Verbosity

Uses a flood of words, complexity, or detail to create the impression of proof without actually proving the point.

Proving Too Much

Uses reasoning that, if accepted, would justify far more than the speaker likely intends.

Red Herring

Introduces a distraction that pulls attention away from the main issue.

Reification

Treats an abstract idea or label as if it were a concrete thing with independent existence.

Retrospective Determinism

Looks back at past events as if the outcome had been inevitable all along.

Shotgun Argumentation

Throws out many weak points at once so they become difficult to answer individually.

Slippery Slope

Claims a relatively small first step will inevitably trigger a chain of extreme consequences.

Special Pleading

Applies standards selectively, carving out an exception when the rule becomes inconvenient.

Strawman

Misrepresents an opposing view so it becomes easier to dismiss.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Keeps defending or continuing something mainly because time, money, or effort has already been spent on it.

Texas Sharpshooter

Cherry-picks a pattern or cluster after the fact while ignoring the larger body of evidence.

Tu Quoque