Common Logical Fallacies

Why This Matters

On the AP English Language exam, you're not just being tested on whether you can identify rhetorical strategies—you're being asked to evaluate how effectively arguments work. Logical fallacies represent the breakdown points where reasoning fails, and recognizing them is essential for both the multiple-choice rhetorical analysis questions and the Argument essay. When you can spot a straw man or a false dichotomy, you can explain why an argument loses credibility, which is exactly what high-scoring analysis requires.

Understanding fallacies also makes you a stronger writer. The Argument FRQ asks you to construct a logically sound position, and readers will penalize reasoning that relies on emotional manipulation, oversimplification, or faulty causal claims. Think of fallacies as the rhetorical moves that backfire—they might seem persuasive at first glance, but they crumble under scrutiny. Don't just memorize these names; know what principle each fallacy violates and how it undermines the logos appeal.

---

Fallacies That Attack the Source Instead of the Argument

These fallacies redirect attention away from the actual claim being made and toward the person making it. They exploit the audience's tendency to conflate a speaker's character with the validity of their reasoning—a fundamental confusion between ethos and logos.

Ad Hominem

• Attacks the person rather than the argument—dismisses a claim by targeting the speaker's character, motives, or background instead of engaging with the evidence
• Undermines productive debate by shifting focus from logical reasoning to personal credibility, often through name-calling or questioning qualifications
• Appears frequently in political rhetoric and is a key example of how ethos can be weaponized to avoid addressing logos

Tu Quoque

• Deflects criticism by pointing out hypocrisy—argues that an opponent's behavior disqualifies them from making a valid point ("you do it too")
• Fails to address the argument's merit because a person's inconsistency doesn't make their claim false
• Derails constructive dialogue by turning discussions into mutual accusations rather than logical examination

---

Fallacies That Distort the Opposing Position

These fallacies misrepresent what an opponent actually argues, making it easier to "win" a debate without genuinely engaging with the strongest version of the counterargument. Strong argumentation requires accurately characterizing opposing views before refuting them.

Straw Man

• Misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack—creates a distorted, oversimplified version of the opponent's position
• Violates fair argumentation by refuting a claim the opponent never actually made, which undermines the writer's credibility
• Signals weak reasoning to careful readers who recognize the original argument wasn't addressed

False Equivalence

• Treats unequal positions as equally valid—asserts that two opposing arguments carry the same logical weight when they don't
• Oversimplifies complex issues by ignoring significant differences in evidence quality or reasoning strength
• Creates false balance in debates, often misleading audiences into thinking "both sides" deserve equal consideration regardless of merit

---

Fallacies That Limit Options Artificially

These fallacies force audiences into accepting a narrow range of choices or outcomes, ignoring the complexity and nuance that most issues actually contain. They exploit the human desire for clear, simple answers.

False Dichotomy

• Presents only two options when more exist—frames an issue as either/or when the reality includes middle ground or alternative solutions
• Manipulates through extreme framing—often positions one option as clearly unacceptable to push audiences toward the other
• Undermines logos by oversimplifying decision-making and ignoring legitimate alternatives

Slippery Slope

• Claims one action will inevitably trigger extreme consequences—argues that a small first step leads to a catastrophic chain of events
• Lacks causal evidence for the supposed progression; relies on fear rather than demonstrated logical connections
• Exploits pathos over logos by generating anxiety about hypothetical outcomes rather than addressing the immediate issue

---

Fallacies That Mishandle Evidence and Causation

These fallacies draw conclusions from insufficient, irrelevant, or misinterpreted evidence. They violate the fundamental requirement that claims be supported by adequate, representative, and logically connected proof.

Hasty Generalization

• Draws broad conclusions from insufficient evidence—makes sweeping claims based on a small or unrepresentative sample
• Leads to stereotypes and misconceptions by treating limited examples as universal truths
• Weakens credibility because careful readers recognize when evidence doesn't support the scope of the claim

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

• Confuses sequence with causation—assumes that because Event B followed Event A, A must have caused B ("after this, therefore because of this")
• Ignores alternative explanations and other factors that may have influenced the outcome
• Appears frequently in CED Topic 3.6 discussions of cause-effect development; recognizing this fallacy is essential for analyzing causal arguments

Red Herring

• Introduces irrelevant information to distract—shifts focus away from the main argument to avoid addressing difficult points
• Evades rather than engages with the central issue, often by raising tangentially related but ultimately off-topic concerns
• Disrupts logical progression and can confuse audiences about what's actually being argued

---

Fallacies That Substitute Popularity or Authority for Reasoning

These fallacies replace logical argumentation with appeals to what others believe or who endorses a claim. They exploit ethos and social pressure rather than building genuine logos.

Appeal to Authority

• Claims truth based on endorsement rather than evidence—argues something is correct simply because an authority figure says so
• Can be legitimate or fallacious depending on whether the authority has relevant expertise; citing a celebrity on medical issues differs from citing a doctor
• Shortcuts reasoning by asking audiences to trust credentials instead of evaluating the argument itself

Bandwagon Fallacy

• Argues that popularity equals validity—claims something is true or acceptable because many people believe it
• Relies on conformity pressure rather than logical reasoning, exploiting the human desire to belong
• Stifles critical thinking by discouraging independent evaluation of evidence

---

Fallacies That Create Circular or Self-Contained Arguments

These fallacies fail to advance reasoning because they assume what they're trying to prove. They give the appearance of argumentation without actually providing new support.

Circular Reasoning

• Uses the conclusion as a premise—the argument loops back on itself without providing independent evidence
• Fails to advance understanding because no new information supports the claim
• Often hidden in complex phrasing that obscures the logical circularity

Begging the Question

• Assumes the truth of what needs to be proven—the premises presuppose the conclusion is already valid
• Provides no independent support for the claim, making the argument logically empty
• Reinforces existing biases rather than persuading through genuine reasoning

No True Scotsman

• Redefines terms to exclude counterexamples—protects a generalization by arbitrarily changing the criteria when challenged
• Avoids engaging with contradictory evidence by dismissing it as not "really" belonging to the category
• Signals intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to revise claims based on new information

---

Fallacies That Manipulate Emotions Over Logic

These fallacies exploit the audience's feelings to bypass rational evaluation. While pathos is a legitimate rhetorical appeal, it becomes fallacious when it replaces rather than supports logical reasoning.

Appeal to Emotion

• Substitutes feelings for evidence—uses fear, pity, anger, or other emotions to persuade instead of logical argumentation
• Overshadows rational analysis by triggering emotional responses that short-circuit critical thinking
• Differs from legitimate pathos in that it provides no logical foundation—emotion becomes the only support

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two fallacies both involve attacking the speaker rather than the argument, and how do they differ in their specific approach?

2. A writer argues, "We can't allow any restrictions on social media because next thing you know, the government will be censoring all speech." Which fallacy is this, and what makes the reasoning flawed?

3. Compare and contrast straw man and false equivalence—both distort the argumentative landscape, but in what opposite ways?

4. If an FRQ passage contains the phrase "Studies show that most Americans agree..." as the primary support for a claim, which fallacy should you identify, and how would you explain its weakness in your analysis?

5. What distinguishes a legitimate appeal to authority from a fallacious one, and why does this distinction matter for evaluating the strength of an argument's logos?