Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Introduction to Argument Structure of a Logical Argument Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example: Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. Also it is important to note that an argument may use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true.
Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity. Examine your Premises Ad hominem Straw Man. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files. Fallacies. Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr.
Other sites that list and explain fallacies include: Constructing a Logical Argument Description of Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. Logical Fallacies. Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. Contents: Introduction This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones. Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset.
Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. So why learn logical fallacies at all? I can think of a couple of good reasons. Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Logic as a form of rhetoric Committing your very own logical fallacies Straw man.