Logical Fallacies Mere Assertion Mere

Logical Fallacies

Mere Assertion

Mere assertion is the logical fallacy that occurs when the truth of a statement rests solely on the fact that the arguer claims, or asserts, that it is true. Statements voicing general preference or distaste are common examples of mere assertion, because they inherently imply that the statement is true simply because an individual said it.

Circular Reasoning

The circular reasoning fallacy occurs when a statement is supported by a more emphatic rendition of the same initial statement. It is similar to the mere assertion fallacy in that the truth of the statement is still based solely on the arguers insistence of its truth, however with circular reasoning, there is at least a pretense of evidence or explanation. Examples of circular reasoning include the statement that God is real because the Bible says he exists, and one knows that the Bible is accurate because God wrote it.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem argument is one that involves an attack on the person making an opposing argument, rather than an attack on the opposing argument itself. Ad hominem attacks are perhaps one of the most common logical fallacies in the public discourse, with individuals and groups frequently attempting to impugn the character of their opponents rather than rebut their positions.

Red Herring

The red herring fallacy is a technique by which the arguer raises a unconnected point, under the pretense that it is relevant, in order to distract the opponent. Popularized by mystery stories, in logic the red herring fallacy is a subset of the fallacy of distraction, and frequently occurs when someone proposes two statements, with one seemingly supporting the other but in reality serving to distract the opponent from the matter at hand.

Pseudo-questions

The pseudo-questions fallacy occurs when an arguer asks an opponent a question that presupposes facts that have yet to be established, such that any response on the opponent's part will implicitly agree with these presuppositions. In this case they are "pseudo" questions because although it appears as if answering them might further explicate the subject at hand, the real goal is to trick the opponent into accepting the presuppositions of the questions.

False Cause

The fallacy of false cause occurs when the arguer assumes that because B. occurred after a, then it necessarily means that a caused B, even though there might not be any actual connection between the two events. The false cause fallacy commonly occurs in arguments for the efficacy of prayer, which suppose that because a certain desirable thing happened (or an undesirable thing did not happen) after someone prayed, then it necessarily means that their prayer caused (or prevented) thus event.

Sweeping Generalization

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is simply an application of inductive logic without a sufficiently large sample size, because it occurs when one makes a claim about something based on insufficient evidence. This is related to the biased sample fallacy, which occurs when someone makes a claim based on a biased set of evidence, but the sweeping generalization fallacy can occur with or without intentional bias.

Slippery Slope