Fallacies can be deceptive because they often seem logical or persuasive, but they are actually flawed or misleading in some way.

Sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious

Fallacy is a type of mistake in reasoning or argumentation that renders an argument invalid or unsound.

An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. 

• It refers to a type of logical fallacy where an argument attacks the character, personal attributes, or circumstances of an individual making an argument rather than addressing the substance or merits of their argument.
• In essence, it involves a diversionary tactic where the focus is shifted away from the argument itself and onto the person making the argument.

It's important to recognize ad hominem arguments in discussions and debates and to respond by focusing on the substance of the argument rather than engaging in personal attacks.

"Ad hominem" is a Latin phrase that translates to "to the person" in English

Double standards can manifest in various aspect of life: gender, age, ethnicity and race, social class, religions and beliefs, political affiliation,..

Double standards are generally seen as unfair and unjust because they often lead to discrimination, bias, and unequal treatment.

Used to describe a situation where different rules, principles, or expectations are applied to different groups or individuals, even when their circumstances or actions are similar. In other words, it involves treating one group or person more favorably or less favorably than another in similar situations, often due to bias, prejudice, or inconsistency in judgment.

ex: You meet a few people from a certain town who are unfriendly.
You conclude that all people from that town must be unfriendly.

Hasty generalizations can lead to unfair stereotypes, biased judgments, and incorrect conclusions because they do not account for the diversity and complexity within groups or situations.

Is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient or limited evidence. It involves making a general statement about a group, category, or situation based on a small or unrepresentative sample.

ex: People are like cars; both require regular maintenance to run smoothly.
=> Therefore, the conclusion that a well-maintained car and a healthy person will lead to success is not adequately supported.

To avoid the weak analogy fallacy, it's important to ensure that the comparison being made is relevant, valid, and strong enough to support the argument's conclusion.

Is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on an analogy that is not strong or relevant enough to support the conclusion being drawn.
In other words, it involves comparing two things that are not sufficiently similar in relevant aspects to justify the conclusion.

False dichotomies can be used to manipulate or limit choices in discussions, debates, or decision-making processes. They are a form of black-and-white thinking that fails to acknowledge the complexity of real-world situations. Recognizing and avoiding false dichotomies is essential for critical thinking and reasoned discourse because they can lead to incomplete or misleading conclusions.

ex: Either you support every government policy without question, or you're an anarchist who wants chaos and lawlessness.

Also known as a "false dilemma" or "false binary", is a logical fallacy in which a situation is presented as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or possibilities when, in fact, there are more alternatives or nuances to consider.
This fallacy oversimplifies complex issues, often to make one of the two options seem more favorable or to force a decision between the two presented choices.

ex: "The Bible is the word of God because God wrote it, and we know God exists because the Bible tells us so."

To avoid begging the question, arguments should provide independent evidence or reasons to support their conclusions, rather than relying on those conclusions as premises.

Is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than providing evidence or reasons to support the conclusion. In other words, it's a circular argument where the conclusion is restated in different words, but no new information or evidence is presented to support it.

This fallacy often goes unnoticed because it can be subtly disguised within a seemingly valid argument.

ex:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
=> In this example, the word "light" is used with two different meanings: in the first premise, it refers to weight, while in the second premise, it refers to the absence of darkness. This switch in meaning makes the argument seem valid, but it's actually flawed because of the ambiguity in the use of the word "light."

Equivocation can be used deliberately to deceive or mislead, or it can occur unintentionally when there is confusion about the meaning of a word or phrase. To avoid equivocation in arguments, it's essential to ensure that the key terms or phrases maintain consistent meanings throughout the argument.

Is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when a word or phrase is used in an argument in multiple senses or meanings, leading to a misleading or false conclusion. Essentially, equivocation involves a switch in the meaning of a key term within an argument, which makes the argument appear valid when it is not.