Why logic is flawed

Identify the conclusion Quick guide. Identify the conclusion Learn more. Identify the conclusion Examples. Identify an entailment Quick guide. Identify an entailment Learn more. Strongly supported inferences Quick guide.

Strongly supported inferences Learn more. Identify the technique Quick guide. Identify the technique Learn more. Identify the role Quick guide. Identify the role learn more. Identify the principle Quick guide. Identify the principle Learn more. Match structure Quick guide. This assumes that there are only two possible answers to a given questions, which is usually a false assumption. It also assumes that if one of the possible answers is false, that the other one must therefore be true.

This assumes that being neutral, a third option, does not exist, and thus creates a false dichotomy. For instance, we tend to demand evidence for efficacy and safety for most prescription drugs, but do not apply the same rules to many CAMs. A logical relationship is implied where there is none. This argument assumes that because there is a temporal relationship between two random events, that the first event caused the second event.

This is similar to the false logic Wakefield used in his study to link MMR vaccines and autism — he suggests that because the MMR vaccines were given first and then autistic symptoms appeared, they must have caused the autistic symptoms never mind that he completely fabricated the results! This is when a person introduces new elements to an argument in order to fix them.

This type of reasoning usually occurs in order to dismiss negative results. This introduces a new element: that only true believers in pink fluffy flying elephants are able to perceive them. This assumes that Eastern medicine where medicine is a science by definition is somehow fundamentally different at a basic scientific level to Western science, and therefore Western science cannot prove or disprove the efficacy of Eastern medicine.

Unfortunately, science is science where ever you are in the world. The person creates this argument and argues against the straw man rather than the argument their opponent really holds. Would you put an old lady with dementia, dieing of cancer in distress by taking her homeopathic medication away??

The real issue here is that medications without evidence are being sold to start off with. However, this person uses a straw man argument the old lady to make it easy to argue in favour of selling medications with no evidence, such a homeopathy, in pharmacies. This type of argument uses circular reasoning — that is, the premise is the conclusion without any further information. This type of argument may be difficult to spot at first, but when the premise, argument and final conclusions are broken down, it usually becomes apparent.

By definition, a first line medication is the medication which is considered the best available option; therefore this statement is a tautology.

The analogy is the image of a football going into a goal during the footy — new evidence may meet the criteria required as proof of a concept GOAL! This is a word tactic commonly used by anti-vaccination proponents; for example they claimed that thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative, caused autism. It attempts to justify that two wrongs make a right — in other words, just because someone else does something wrong, their action is therefore justified. However, this should not be taken as proof that a given CAM is ineffective or harmful.

This site was designed with the. Cherry Picking This is a type of bias where the person making the argument only chooses to examine evidence which supports their hypothesis, and ignores other forms of evidence which contradict it.

Ad hominem This type of argument tends to attack the person rather than addressing the argument itself. Argument from Antiquity This is similar to an argument from authority and is commonly used in health literature.

Argument from Personal Incredulity This is an argument where the person claims that something is impossible or cannot be true just because the person cannot explain or understand it. Begging the Question This is where a proposition which requires proof, is assumed without the necessary proof stated.

Confusing Association with Causation This is assuming that just because two things occur together, that one causes the other. Confusing currently unexplainable with unexplainable Just because a phenomena is not currently explainable with current scientific knowledge and technologies, does not mean it will never be explainable or that it should be explained with unscientific explanations i.

False Continuum This is where it is assumed that there is no difference between two extremes which lie on a continuum or that the differences between the two are meaningless. Next thing you know, I'll end up alone and jobless, living in your basement when I'm 30!

So if you miss basketball practice today, you won't be a starter in Friday's game. Then you won't be the first freshman to start on the varsity basketball team at our school. People who goof off drop out of school and end up penniless. Circular arguments occur when a person's argument repeats what they already assumed before without arriving at a new conclusion.

For example, if someone says, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable," that's a circular argument. Circular arguments often use a claim as both a premise and a conclusion.

This fallacy only appears to be an argument when in fact it's just restating one's assumptions. A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true.

Hasty generalizations are common in arguments because there's a wide range of what's acceptable for "sufficient" evidence. The rules for evidence can change based on the claim you're making and the environment where you are making it — whether it's rooted in philosophy, the sciences, a political debate, or discussing house rules for using the kitchen. A red herring is an argument that uses confusion or distraction to shift attention away from a topic and toward a false conclusion.

Red herrings usually contain an unimportant fact, idea, or event that has little relevance to the real issue. Red herrings are a common diversionary tactic when someone wants to shift the focus of an argument to something easier or safer to address. But red herrings can also be unintentional. Now she's shopping for new patio furniture and not asking me about the garage.

An appeal to hypocrisy — also known as the tu quoque fallacy — focuses on the hypocrisy of an opponent. The tu quoque fallacy deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame. The fallacy usually occurs when the arguer uses apparent hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue. It was dumb then and it's dumb now.

That's why I forbid you to smoke, chew, vape, use nicotine gum, or do whatever you kids do with tobacco these days. Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes. One example is the false cause fallacy, which is when you draw a conclusion about what the cause was without enough evidence to do so.

Another is the post hoc fallacy, which is when you mistake something for the cause because it came first — not because it actually caused the effect. Crows must be the creators of the universe. A sunk cost fallacy is when someone continues doing something because of the effort they already put in it, regardless of whether the additional costs outweigh the potential benefits. For example: Imagine that after watching the first six episodes of a TV show, you decide the show isn't for you. Those six episodes are your "sunk cost.

No marriage. No kids. No steady job. But I've been with him for seven years, so I'd better stay with him. This is so tough, and it's not nearly as fun as I thought it would be, but I don't know.