The Critical Thinking Library

Misrepresenting someone's argument as a weaker, distorted version, then attacking that instead of what they actually said.

Assuming that because two things occur together, one must have caused the other.

Manipulating an emotional response — fear, pity, outrage — in place of a valid argument.

Concluding that a claim must be false simply because it was argued for badly.

Claiming a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of extreme consequences.

Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Deflecting criticism by pointing to the critic's own hypocrisy instead of answering it.

Treating something as false because you personally find it hard to understand or imagine.

Inventing an ad hoc exception to a rule the moment your claim is disproven.

Asking a question that smuggles in an unproven assumption, so any answer concedes it.

Insisting others disprove your claim rather than supporting it yourself.

Using a word or phrase with a double meaning to mislead or dodge.

Believing that past independent random events change the odds of future ones.

Treating the popularity of an idea as evidence that it's true.

Using an authority's say-so as proof — especially outside their expertise or against consensus.

Assuming what's true of the parts is true of the whole, or vice versa.

Defending a generalization by redefining it to exclude any counterexample.

Judging a claim as good or bad based on its origin rather than its merits.

Presenting only two options when more exist (false dichotomy).

Assuming the conclusion within the premises — circular reasoning.

Assuming that because something is 'natural' it must be good, safe, or right.

Using a personal story or isolated example in place of statistical evidence.

Cherry-picking a cluster of data to fit a conclusion drawn after the fact.

Assuming the truth must be a compromise between two opposing positions.

Drawing a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative examples.

Introducing an irrelevant point to divert attention from the real issue.

Treating two things as equivalent when they differ in important, relevant ways.

Presenting only the evidence that supports your view while ignoring what contradicts it.

Burying an opponent under a flood of weak claims faster than any can be answered.

A formal logic error: assuming that because a result occurred, a specific cause must be true.