All-Seeing AI

Logical fallacies

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is. Some are formal: the conclusion does not follow from the premises whatever they say. Most are informal: the problem lies in what the argument relies on, such as an irrelevant attack, a distorted version of the other side or a weak sample.

In-depth guides

Full reference list

309 fallacies by family, each with a one-line definition.

Informal fallacies 276

A priori argument
Starting with a pre-set belief and then searching for any reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it.
Ableism
Arguing that because someone is less capable than others, they naturally deserve less in life and may be freely victimized.
Accent
The emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.
Accident
A generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.
Actions have consequences
Falsely describing an imposed punishment or penalty as a 'consequence' of another's negative act.
Ad fidentia
Attacking the person's self-confidence in place of the argument or the evidence.
Ad hoc rescue
Making up excuses as to why a belief could still be true, despite evidence to the contrary.
Ad hominem abusive
Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Ad hominem circumstantial
Suggesting that the person making the argument is biased, and therefore the argument is invalid.
Ad hominem guilt by association
When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group.
Ad hominem
Attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Ad personam
A variant of ad hominem directed at a person's personal characteristics.
Affective fallacy
One's emotions, urges or 'feelings' are innate and in every case self-validating, autonomous, and above any challenge.
Alphabet soup
Inappropriately overusing acronyms, abbreviations and arcane insider 'shop talk' primarily to confuse or impress outsiders.
Alternative truth
Asserting that an alternative set of facts or reality exists alongside the actual facts.
Amazing familiarity
The argument contains information that seems impossible to have obtained—like it came from an omniscient author.
Ambiguity
An argument that is fallacious because it is ambiguous.
Ambiguous middle
A fallacy where the middle term in a syllogism is ambiguous.
Amphiboly
The structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.
Anangeon
An appeal to necessity; arguing that something must be accepted because it is necessary.
Anecdotal evidence
Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
Anecdotal fallacy
Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument.
Appeal to accomplishment
An assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
Appeal to age
The misconception that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man.
Appeal to anger
Using anger to persuade or manipulate an audience.
Appeal to anxiety
Using anxiety or worry to persuade an audience.
Appeal to authority
An assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
Appeal to celebrity
Accepting a claim because a celebrity or famous person endorses it.
Appeal to common belief
Claiming a proposition is true because many people believe it.
Appeal to common sense
Claiming something is true because it is supposedly common sense.
Appeal to complexity
Using the complexity of a topic to avoid engaging with it or to dismiss criticism.
Appeal to consequences
The conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action.
Appeal to emotion
Manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.
Appeal to equality
An assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality, where what exactly is 'equal' is not made clear.
Appeal to faith
Using faith as the basis for an argument or to dismiss counterarguments.
Appeal to fear
Generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.
Appeal to flattery
Using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.
Appeal to forgiveness
Using the concept of forgiveness to avoid addressing an argument or to dismiss wrongdoing.
Appeal to heaven
Claiming divine support for one's position without evidence.
Appeal to hypocrisy
Dismissing an argument because the opponent acts inconsistently with their argument.
Appeal to motive
Dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
Appeal to mystery
Using the mysterious or unknown nature of a subject to avoid engaging with it or to support a claim.
Appeal to nature
Judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.
Appeal to novelty
A proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
Appeal to pity
Generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.
Appeal to poverty
Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).
Appeal to pride
Using pride or self-esteem to persuade someone to accept a claim.
Appeal to ridicule
Mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the argument.
Appeal to sadness
Using sadness or grief to manipulate an audience into accepting a claim.
Appeal to shame
Using shame or embarrassment to persuade someone to accept or reject a claim.
Appeal to spite
Generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.
Appeal to the law
Assuming that because something is legal, it is morally right or good.
Appeal to the minority
Claiming that a position is correct because it is held by a minority.
Appeal to the stone
Dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
Appeal to tradition
A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
Appeal to urgency
Creating a false sense of urgency to pressure someone into accepting a claim without proper consideration.
Appeal to wealth
Supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).
Argument by gibberish
Using jargon or nonsense to confuse an audience into accepting a claim.
Argument by initial assertion
Starting an argument by asserting a conclusion as if it were already proven.
Argument from age
The misconception that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man.
Argument from design
Assuming that because something appears designed, it must have a designer.
Argument from envy
Dismissing someone's argument because they are allegedly motivated by envy.
Argument from ignorance
Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
Argument from incredulity
I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.
Argument from omniscience
Claiming to know what everyone thinks or believes.
Argument from outrage
Using outrage or indignation to support a claim rather than evidence.
Argument from pessimism
Assuming that because things are bad, they will always be bad or get worse.
Argument from repetition
Repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more and referencing that lack of objection as evidence of support.
Argument from silence
Assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.
Argument from verbosity
Overwhelming an opponent with excessive detail or jargon to 'win' an argument.
Argument to moderation
Assuming that the compromise or middle position between two extremes is always correct.
Argumentum ad baculum
An argument made through coercion or threats of force to support a position.
Argumentum ad captandum
An argument designed to appeal to the crowd or to win popular approval.
Argumentum ad populum
A proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.
Argumentum e contrario
An argument from the contrary; inferring the opposite from a statement.
Baconian fallacy
Supposing that historians can obtain the 'whole truth' via induction from individual pieces of historical evidence.
Balance fallacy
Presenting two sides of an issue as equally valid when they are not.
Bandwagon fallacy
The belief that an argument is true because many people believe it or because it is the popular thing to do.
Begging the question
Using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise.
Biased sample
The sample is unrepresentative of the population as a whole.
Big brain-little brain fallacy
Claiming intellectual superiority to dismiss an opponent's argument.
Big lie
A lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
Blind loyalty
An argument or action is right simply because a respected leader or source says it is right.
Blind men and an elephant
Drawing a conclusion from limited or partial evidence, like the blind men each feeling a different part of an elephant.
Blood is thicker than water
Giving undue preference to family or friends in arguments or decisions.
Bulverism
Inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result.
Burden of proof
Claiming that the burden of proof lies with the opponent rather than oneself.
Cartesian circle
A logical mistake in Descartes' reasoning where he uses God's existence to prove clear and distinct perceptions, and vice versa.
Category mistake
Assigning a property to something that cannot possibly have that property.
Cherry picking
Selecting 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.
Circular reasoning
The reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Circumstantial ad hominem
Stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.
Complex cause
The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.
Complex question
Two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.
Confabulation
Fabricating stories or memories without intent to deceive, often to fill gaps in memory.
Confirmation bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.
Conflation
Treating two distinct concepts as if they were one.
Continuum fallacy
Rejecting a claim because it is not as precise as it could be.
Control freak fallacy
Insisting on absolute control over a situation or process as a justification.
Converse accident
An exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.
Cost bias
Assuming that something is better simply because it costs more.
Courtier's reply
A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Assuming that because two events occur together, one must be the cause of the other.
Damning with faint praise
Praising something so weakly that it amounts to criticism.
Dangling comparative
A comparative statement that doesn't specify what is being compared to.
Data dredging
Searching through data to find patterns that can be presented as statistically significant.
Data mining
Searching through data to find patterns without a pre-specified hypothesis.
Definist fallacy
Defining a term in a way that supports one's conclusion.
Definitional retreat
Changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.
Denying the correlative
Denying a correlation where one exists.
Distinction without a difference
Making a distinction between two things that are not actually different in any meaningful way.
Double counting
Counting the same evidence twice as if it were two separate pieces of evidence.
Double standard
Applying different standards or rules to similar situations without justification.
Drawing the wrong conclusion
Making an inference that does not logically follow from the premises.
Dunning-Kruger effect
People with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability.
Ecological fallacy
Inferences about individuals based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group.
El Greco fallacy
Assuming that people with a particular attribute are experts in matters related to that attribute.
Equivocation
Using a word with multiple meanings in an argument, shifting between meanings.
Etymological fallacy
Assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.
Excusing
Attempting to excuse a wrong action by providing reasons that do not justify it.
Fact-to-fiction fallacy
Attempting to support a narrative or argument with facts that don't support the narrative or argument.
Failure bias
Focusing disproportionately on failures while ignoring successes.
Failure to elucidate
When the definition is made more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined.
Fake precision
Using implausibly precise statistics to give the appearance of truth and certainty.
Fallacies of definition
Errors in reasoning that arise from poorly defined terms.
Fallacy of accent
Changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.
Fallacy of composition
Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Fallacy of division
Assuming that something true of a composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
Fallacy of exclusion
Evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
False analogy
The two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
False attribution
Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
False authority
Using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea.
False cause
Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
False dilemma
Two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.
False effect
Claiming that the cause is true or false based on what we know about the effect in a claim of causality that has not been properly established.
False equivalence
Describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
False generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from premises that are too specific or limited.
False implication
Suggesting something is true without actually stating it.
False inference
Drawing a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence.
False premise
An argument based on a premise that is untrue or unsupported.
False-uniqueness effect
The tendency to underestimate the number of other people who share one's positive traits.
Fantasy projection
Confusing subjective experiences with objective reality, then demanding others accept the subjective as objective.
Far-fetched hypothesis
Offering a bizarre hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations.
Faulty comparison
Comparing one thing to another that is really not related to make one thing look more or less desirable.
Faulty generalization
Making a broad claim based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
Feedback fallacy
Believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source is disinterested.
Furtive fallacy
Assuming that historical outcomes were the result of malice or conspiracy rather than incompetence or accident.
Gambler's fallacy
The belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed, future deviations in the opposite direction are more likely.
Garden of forking paths fallacy
Incorrect belief that a single experiment can not be subject to the multiple comparisons effect.
Gaslighting
Denying or invalidating a person's own knowledge and experiences by deliberately distorting known facts.
Genetic fallacy
Judging something good or bad based on where it comes from, or from whom it comes.
Gish gallop
Bombarding an opponent with many weak arguments to prevent rebuttal of all of them.
Greedy reductionism
Explaining a complex phenomenon in terms that are too simple to capture its essential features.
Guilt by association
Associating the opponent with an undesirable person or group to discredit their argument.
Half truth
Telling the strict truth but deliberately minimizing or omitting important key details to falsify the larger picture.
Hasty generalization
Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence.
Hedging
Using vague language to avoid committing to a position.
Hindsight bias
The tendency to see past events as having been more predictable than they actually were.
Historian's fallacy
Assuming that decision-makers of the past had identical information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.
Historical fallacy
Believing that certain results occurred only because a specific process was performed, though said process may actually be unrelated to the results.
Homunculus fallacy
Using a 'middle-man' for explanation; explaining a concept in terms of the concept itself without explaining its real nature.
Hyperbolic discounting
The tendency to prefer smaller payoffs now over larger payoffs later.
Hypnotic bait and switch
Stating several uncontroversially true statements, followed by a claim the arguer wants accepted as true.
If-by-whiskey
An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are emotionally sensitive and ambiguous.
Ignoratio elenchi
An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Illicit transference
A fallacy that occurs when a term is transferred from one context to another in an illegitimate way.
Incomplete comparison
Insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Incomplete evidence
Drawing a conclusion without considering all relevant evidence.
Inconsistency
Asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.
Indirect consequence
Claiming that an action should not be taken because of indirect negative consequences.
Inflation of conflict
Arguing that, if experts in a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point within that field, no conclusion can be reached.
Insignificant cause
One thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.
Intentional fallacy
Evaluating a work based on the author's stated or perceived intention rather than on its own merits.
Intentionality fallacy
The insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated.
Invincible ignorance
Where a person simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
Irrelevant conclusion
An argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.
Jingle-jangle fallacies
Using the same name for different things or different names for the same thing.
Joint effect
One thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.
Judgmental language
Using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
Jumping to conclusions
Reaching a conclusion before having all the relevant facts.
Junkyard tornado
An argument against the probability of complex structures arising by chance, often used in creationist arguments.
Just-world fallacy
The tendency to believe that the world is fundamentally fair and people get what they deserve.
Kettle logic
Using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Loaded question
Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty.
Loaded words
Using emotionally charged language to influence an audience rather than relying on the merits of an argument.
Loss aversion
The tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains.
Ludic fallacy
Failing to take into account that non-regulated random occurrences can affect the probability of an event.
Lump of labour fallacy
The misconception that there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy, which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
Lying with statistics
Using statistical methods to mislead or manipulate an audience.
Magical thinking
Making causal connections between two events not based on logic or evidence, but primarily based on superstition.
McNamara fallacy
Making a decision based solely on quantitative observations and discounting all qualitative factors.
Meaningless question
Asking a question that cannot be answered with any sort of rational meaning.
Middle ground
Assuming that the compromise or middle ground between two positions is always the truth.
Mind projection fallacy
Assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object rather than a personal perception.
Misleading vividness
A small number of dramatic and vivid events are taken to outweigh significant statistical evidence.
Missing data fallacy
Refusing to admit ignorance to the hypothesis but insisting that missing data validate the conclusion.
Moral licensing
When people allow themselves to do something bad after doing something good.
Moralistic fallacy
Inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact-value distinction.
Motte-and-bailey fallacy
Conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the 'motte') and one more controversial (the 'bailey').
Moving the goalposts
Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Multiple comparisons fallacy
Claiming that unexpected trends that occur through random chance alone in a data set with a large number of variables are meaningful.
Name calling
Using offensive or derogatory terms to attack an opponent rather than addressing their argument.
Naturalistic fallacy
Assuming that what is natural is inherently good or right, or deriving 'ought' from 'is'.
Nirvana fallacy
Solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
No true Scotsman
Redefining a term to exclude counterexamples after an initial claim is made.
Nominal fallacy
Assuming that because something has a name, it has been explained.
Non causa pro causa
Identifying something as the cause of something else when it is not actually the cause.
Non-support
Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased.
Nutpicking fallacy
When someone presents an atypical or weak member of a group as if they are a typical or strong representative.
One-sided argument
Presenting only evidence that supports one's position while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Over-generalization
Drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of instances.
Over-precision
Presenting data with more precision than is justified by the measurement.
Overwhelming exception
Making a generalization that is accurate for the vast majority of cases, but which ignores a large enough subset of exceptions to make the overall statement inaccurate.
Package deal fallacy
Treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
Package-deal fallacy
Treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
Parade of horribles
A parade of worst-case scenarios used as an argument against a proposal.
Pathetic fallacy
Attributing human emotions to inanimate objects or nature.
Persuasive definition
Purporting to use the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.
Plain folks
Presenting oneself as an ordinary person to gain credibility.
Playing on emotion
Using emotional manipulation to persuade rather than providing evidence.
Poisoning the well
Presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything they say.
Pooh-pooh
Stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.
Post hoc
Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
Presentism
Present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically projected into the past.
Proof by assertion
A proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
Proof by verbosity
Overwhelming an opponent with excessive detail or jargon to 'win' an argument.
Proving too much
An argument that results in an overly generalized conclusion.
Psychologist's fallacy
An observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Quantifier shift
A fallacy involving confusing the order of quantifiers in a statement.
Question-begging analogy
Using an analogy that assumes the very thing that needs to be proven.
Quoting out of context
Selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning.
Rage-baiting
Deliberately provoking anger to distract from rational argument.
Rationalization
Creating logical excuses to justify behavior or beliefs that were actually arrived at through different means.
Red herring
Introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic.
Redefinition
Redefining a term in the middle of an argument to avoid a counterexample.
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Rejecting an argument because the person advancing it is associated with Hitler or the Nazis.
Referential fallacy
Assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to.
Regression fallacy
Assuming that something has caused a change when the change is merely due to statistical fluctuations.
Reification
Treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity.
Relativist fallacy
Rejecting a claim because of the belief that truth is relative to persons or groups.
Retrogressive causation
Invoking the cause to eliminate the effect, or calling on the source to relieve the effect of the source.
Retrospective determinism
Believing that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made the event inevitable.
Scapegoating
Unfairly blaming an unpopular person or group for a problem.
Scare tactics
Using fear or threats to manipulate an audience into accepting a claim.
Scope fallacy
A fallacy related to confusion about the scope of quantifiers or operators.
Secundum quid
A hasty generalization where an adequate remedy is ignored or where an unqualified statement is treated as qualified.
Selective attention
Focusing attention on certain aspects of the argument while ignoring or missing other parts.
Self-righteousness fallacy
Assuming that just because your intentions are good, you have the truth or facts on your side.
Self-sealing argument
An argument or position is self-sealing if no evidence can be brought against it no matter what.
Shifting the burden of proof
Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite.
Shoehorning
Force-fitting some current affair into one's personal, political, or religious agenda.
Slippery slope
Asserting that a small first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in significant negative consequences.
Slothful induction
The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Special pleading
Attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule without justifying the exemption.
Spin doctoring
Presenting information in a deceptive way that results in others interpreting it as you want.
Spotlight fallacy
Assuming that all members of a group are like the ones that receive the most attention or publicity.
Straw man
Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Style over substance
The manner in which an argument is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.
Subverted support
The phenomenon being explained doesn't actually exist.
Suggestive question
A question that implies a certain answer or contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed.
Sunday school answer
Offering a simplistic or conventional answer to a complex question.
Sunk cost fallacy
Refusal to leave a situation because you have already put large amounts of time or effort into it.
Suppressed correlative
Redefining two mutually exclusive options so that one encompasses the other.
Suppressed evidence
Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information that counts against one's claim.
Survivorship bias
Concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument while ignoring contradictory data.
Tone policing
Focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
Traitorous critic fallacy
A critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
Tu quoque
Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the arguer is not acting consistently with the claims.
Two wrongs make a right
Assuming that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
Unfalsifiability
Making a claim that cannot be proven false, thus placing the burden of proof on the skeptic.
Untestability
The theory which explains cannot be tested.
Weak analogy
An analogy used as an argument where the similarities between the two things are not substantial enough.
Wishful thinking
Arguing for a course of action according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence.
Wrong direction
The direction between cause and effect is reversed.
Zero-sum fallacy
Assuming that one person's gain is necessarily another person's loss.

Formal fallacies 10

Appeal to possibility
Assuming that because something is possible, it is therefore true or likely.
Appeal to probability
Taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).
Argument from fallacy
The assumption that, if a particular argument for a conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.
Base rate fallacy
Making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
Conjunction fallacy
The assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
False conversion
The formal fallacy where the subject and predicate terms of the proposition are switched in the conclusion.
Masked-man fallacy
The substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
A categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but both premises are affirmative.
Non sequitur
Where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
Prosecutor's fallacy
A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.

Probabilistic fallacies 5

Fallacy of the sheep
A probabilistic fallacy related to misunderstanding of statistical independence.
Hot hand fallacy
The fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
Independence fallacy
A fallacy involving incorrect assumptions about statistical independence of events.
Lottery fallacy
The fallacy that because a particular event has a very low probability, it won't happen to oneself.
Over-extrapolation
Drawing conclusions beyond what the data supports.

Propositional fallacies 6

Affirming a disjunct
Concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.
Affirming the consequent
The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
Commutation of a conditional
A fallacy of switching the antecedent and consequent in a conditional statement.
Denying a conjunct
It suggests assumption that if two conditions are exclusive then one of them must be true.
Denying the antecedent
The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
Improper transposition
A fallacy that occurs when the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement are improperly transposed.

Quantification fallacies 4

Existential fallacy
An argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.
Illicit contraposition
A fallacy involving improper contraposition of a statement.
Illicit conversion
The formal fallacy where the subject and the predicate terms of the proposition are switched in the conclusion.
Some are-some are not
A fallacy involving confusion between 'some are' and 'some are not' statements.

Syllogistic fallacies 7

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
A categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
Fallacy of exclusive premises
A categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
Fallacy of four terms
A categorical syllogism that has four terms rather than the requisite three.
Illicit major
A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
Illicit minor
A categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
Illicit process
A general term for either illicit major or illicit minor in a categorical syllogism.
Undistributed middle
Two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property.

The one-line definitions in the reference list are adapted from Wikipedia's List of fallacies and related articles, available under CC BY-SA 4.0. The in-depth guides are our own.