Logical Fallacy Logical Fallacy Paper Name Class Date Professor Logical Fallacy A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. In other words it is a factual error or a failure to logically support the conclusion in an argument. An argument is a group of statements about a specific topic where a stand is taken applying premises needed to support their ultimate conclusion. A fallacy is a type of argument where the person uses bad arguments to support their conclusion but in order to be a fallacy it must be believed some of the time (Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1995). The different types of fallacies are mere assertion, circular reasoning, Ad hominem, red herring, pseudo-questions, false cause, sweeping generalizations, slippery slope, and equivocation or changing meanings. Mere Assertion Arguments by mere assertion simply mean a person uses a strong statement instead of any real fact to argue a point. Just because an argument is stated emphatically does not mean that statement is in fact true. In mere assertion even if there are facts to the contrary or that contradict the argument it will continue o be supported. Arguments by mere assertion are also considered rhetoric. Rhetoric is supporting the argument despite the fact there is no evidence the argument is true. It is a form of persuasion or blind faith in the mere assertion. Circular Reasoning Circular reasoning is a type of fallacy where the argument goes in circles while never actually being proved. Circular reasoning also known as begging the question involves the conclusion found in the premise. Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove (2009). For example the argument is the Bible is never wrong. Whatever the Bible says is a fact therefore the Bible is never wrong. The argument uses circular reasoning by circling back to the original argument without any fact everything in the Bible is in fact true. Ad hominem Ad hominem is a fallacy that simply means argument using personal attacks instead of using legitimate facts to prove the argument true. Ad hominem refers to using personal facts against other people in the argument to prove the point. Since the person cannot find a legitimate counter argument they will use slander and verbal attacks to win their argument. The ad hominem fallacy may use abusive words to win the argument or may attack their family, job, ethnicity, or personal beliefs, just to name a few. There are many different arguments involving the ad hominem from the circumstance fallacy to guilt by association (Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, 1995). In the ad hominem argument needling is also used to cause the other person to err causing the false argument to appear more legitimate. People using this type of argument have poor character and lack the intelligence to develop a sound and logical arg ...

1. Logical Fallacy
Logical Fallacy Paper
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Logical Fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. In other words it is
a factual error or a failure to logically support the conclusion in
an argument. An argument is a group of statements about a
specific topic where a stand is taken applying premises needed
to support their ultimate conclusion. A fallacy is a type of
argument where the person uses bad arguments to support their

2. conclusion but in order to be a fallacy it must be believed some
of the time (Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1995). The different
types of fallacies are mere assertion, circular reasoning, Ad
hominem, red herring, pseudo-questions, false cause, sweeping
generalizations, slippery slope, and equivocation or changing
meanings.
Mere Assertion
Arguments by mere assertion simply mean a person uses a
strong statement instead of any real fact to argue a point. Just
because an argument is stated emphatically does not mean that
statement is in fact true. In mere assertion even if there are
facts to the contrary or that contradict the argument it will
continue o be supported. Arguments by mere assertion are also
considered rhetoric. Rhetoric is supporting the argument despite
the fact there is no evidence the argument is true. It is a form of
persuasion or blind faith in the mere assertion.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is a type of fallacy where the argument
goes in circles while never actually being proved. Circular
reasoning also known as begging the question involves the
conclusion found in the premise. Having a right to X is the same
as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so
each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly
what it is trying to prove (2009). For example the argument is
the Bible is never wrong. Whatever the Bible says is a fact
therefore the Bible is never wrong. The argument uses circular
reasoning by circling back to the original argument without any
fact everything in the Bible is in fact true.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem is a fallacy that simply means argument using
personal attacks instead of using legitimate facts to prove the
argument true. Ad hominem refers to using personal facts
against other people in the argument to prove the point. Since
the person cannot find a legitimate counter argument they will
use slander and verbal attacks to win their argument. The ad
hominem fallacy may use abusive words to win the argument or

3. may attack their family, job, ethnicity, or personal beliefs, just
to name a few.
There are many different arguments involving the ad
hominem from the circumstance fallacy to guilt by association
(Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, 1995). In the ad hominem
argument needling is also used to cause the other person to err
causing the false argument to appear more legitimate. People
using this type of argument have poor character and lack the
intelligence to develop a sound and logical argument backed by
reason. A good example of an ad hominem is in a rape trial
when the defense attempts to smear the character of the victim
in order to argue for the bad actions of the rapist. For example
the argument could be because the rape victim often has one
night stands then she could not have been raped and must have
consented. The goal is to make the victim look bad so the
defendant is found not guilty.
Red Herring
A red herring is a fallacy where the arguer employs a
diversion in order to impress their argument onto another
person. The red herring is another topic that has nothing to do
with the topic being argued. The term red herring originated
from a practice used in fox hunting where hunters used red
herrings to distract the hound so they would not smell the fox.
Similar to the use of these red fish, the red herring fallacy is
designed to distract in order to provide an argument not based
on any true logic (Pope, 2003). For example if a student is
found cheating they may attempt to distract the teacher by
crying and saying they are going through a hard time at home.
The student’s story is designed to distract the teacher from
discussing the act of cheating.
Pseudo-questions
Pseudo-questions refer to a fallacy where the argument
makes no sense. Questions like “Can God turn a circle into a
square?” or can God defeat his own power?” These questions do
not make sense because God cannot defeat himself or turn a
circle into a square because then a circle would no longer be a

4. circle but a square. Pseudo-questions are logically contradictory
or the logic applied to the argument jus does not make any
sense. An example of a pseudo questions is my new student told
me today that I was there favorite professor. This cannot be true
because the student is new and does not know this professor or
other professors well enough to make a sound judgment.
False Cause
A fallacy occurs when sequential events are used as
evidence that the first caused the second. What this means is the
event occurred, the event happened after the event occurred, and
therefore the event caused the things that happened afterwards.
Some slogans will contain false cause fallacies, such as
sequence is not causation or correlation is not causation
(Philosophy Index, 2002). For example during the softball
season the team won every game until the pitcher changed their
socks, therefore, the pitcher will not change their socks again
until the season is over.
Sweeping Generalizations
Sweeping generalizations are a broad statement which
appear to be supported by evidence but is not. Sweeping
generalizations are statements made about an entire topic even
though the statement itself may be false (Bluedern, 2001). A
perfect example is the fallacy children should be seen but not be
heard. Children that play sports are seen and heard so this
argument cannot be factual. Even though the belief children
should be seen and not heard is a well recognized one does not
make it a logical argument especially when children are often
times seen and heard every day on televisions and other forms
of media.
Slippery Slope
The slippery slope argument finds if one event occurs it
must automatically be followed by another. What this means is
any of the normal steps that are taken between the event and
what is supposed to eventuate after skipped. A good example of
the slippery slope is “College is getting to expensive before you
know it they will be charging a million dollars for four years of

5. college. While college prices are on the rise they will not reach
the million dollar mark for a very long time. There is no reason
to believe that the main event will automatically be followed by
the believed event.
Equivocation or changing meanings
The fallacy of equivocation refers to shifting the meaning of
words in an argument in order to provide false logic. The
fallacy of equivocation uses a word that has more than one
meaning even though in the argument it should have one
specific meaning. For example in the fallacy of equivocation is
the statement “he is a cut above the rest.” In this case the word
cut is not used in its normal meaning. The equivocation fallacy
can occur on accident or on purpose but the end result is it can
create confusion on the real meaning behind the argument.
References
Bluedern H. (2001). Sweeping Generalizations. Retrieved
February 27, 2014 from
http://www.fallacydetective.com/news/read/sweeping-
generalization/
Eemeren, F & Grootendorst, R. (1995). The Pragma-Dialectical

6. Approach to Fallacies", in
Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Hans V.
Hansen & Robert C. Pinto, pp.
130-144
Logical fallacy. (2009). Begging the Question / Circular
Reasoning. Retrieved February 27, 2014
from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-
the-question/
Pope, K. (2003). Common Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 25
Types & Examples. Retrieved
February 27, 2014 from
http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
Philosophy Index. (2002). False Cause fallacy. Retrieved
February 27, 2014 from
http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-
cause.php