An overview of 15 rhetorical fallacies, categorized in such a way to help students better understand simple steps for identifying flawed logic.

1. A F E W
R H E T O R I C A L
F A L L A C I E S
Week 3 Part 2
Jan. 30 to Feb. 5

2. I N S U F F I C I E N T O R S E L E C T I V E
E V I D E N C E
• “When I was in school, Ms. Gentry was a real monster.”
• “Playing violent video games lead to violence.”
Hasty Generalization: makes a conclusion based on
insufficient evidence
• “Because I said so.”
• “The antipathy the characters felt was due to their lack of interest.”
Begging the Question: restates the claim as evidence
• “The Times says he would make a terrible prime minister because of his past.”
• “So many people are saying it’s a great movie.”
Stacked Evidence: represents only one side

3. I R R E L E VA N T E V I D E N C E
• “I wasn’t there, so maybe it didn’t happen.”
• “I saw Dr. Abubakar smoking, so I don’t think she’d make a good PCP.”
Red Herring: uses misleading or unrelated evidence
• “Buying a teenager a car is like asking a tornado to hit your house.”
• “I don’t need to get cancer to know I don’t want it, so I don’t need to read that
book to know I don’t like it.”
Faulty Analogy: makes a comparison between two things that
shouldn’t be compared
• “Things didn’t go missing until after she was hired.”
• “I got sick because I went outside with wet hair.”
Post Hoc: claims that because B happened after A, A caused
B

4. E X A G G E R AT I O N S
• “You’re going to get lung cancer from smoking.”
• “Stop throwing out your clothes; you’re destroying the planet.”
Slippery Slope: exaggerates the potential consequences of an
action
• “Women are so emotional.”
• “Old people drive so slow.”
Overgeneralizations: implicates everyone in a particular group
• “He really is such a grammar Nazi.”
• “You need to eat all your food; there are children starving in other countries.”
Moral Equivalence: makes a moral comparison between two
things that shouldn’t be compared

5. M I S D I R E C T I O N
• “She doesn’t care about children; she swears on social media.”
• “Don’t buy a car from him; he lies on his taxes.”
Ad Hominem: attacks character rather than reasoning
• “You can lose weight from eating salads.”
• “I’m a nice person, so why am I single?”
Non Sequitur: makes a conclusion that does not logically
follow the premise
• “Children are dying!”
• “You should be angry about what’s happening!”
Sentimental Appeals: uses emotion to distract from facts

6. O V E R C O M P L I C AT I O N O R
O V E R S I M P L I F I C AT I O N
• “If you’re looking for a good car to purchase, this is the best-selling car on our lot.”
• “I have to have a Birkin bag! All my favorite influencers have one.”
Bandwagon Appeals: uses popular belief or action as evidence
• “How can you claim to love animals and still eat meat?”
• “If you love me so much, why are you still friends with her?”
False Dilemma: assumes only two possible choices
• “We don’t allow pets on our premises.” “So what you’re saying is you are against
cute and loveable things?”
• “He doesn’t care about your welfare; he voted against the healthcare bill.”
Strawman: misrepresents an opponent’s claim and attacks it on
those premises