How to Win Every Argument – Book Review

People don’t always argue logically — they often use fallacies (bad reasoning that sounds persuasive). This book exposes over 60 common fallacies, helping you:

Spot flaws in others’ arguments.
Defend your own ideas better.
Use (or resist) fallacies strategically.

🧠 What You Learn:

Logic ≠ Truth:
A well-formed argument can still be wrong. Fallacies distort reasoning to persuade unfairly.
Fallacies Are Tools:
They can be used, abused, or defended against — it’s about knowing when and how.
Language Can Be a Trap:
Ambiguity, loaded words, sarcasm, or emotional appeals often replace sound logic.
Emotion ≠ Argument:
Appeals to pity, fear, pride, or tradition manipulate feelings — not facts.
Not All Fallacies Are Obvious:
Many are disguised as common sense or popular opinion (“every schoolboy knows…”).

🛠️ How the Book Works:

Each chapter introduces a specific fallacy in alphabetical order. For each one, Pirie provides:

A humorous or real-life example
A clear definition
Advice on how to spot or use it effectively

🧠 Key Mindset Shifts:

Learn to question assumptions.
Understand that a good-sounding argument might be deeply flawed.
Be ready to think critically, not just react emotionally.
Recognize when you’re being persuaded unfairly.

✅ Practical Takeaways:

Don’t be tricked by clever but flawed arguments.
Use fallacies like red herrings or straw men carefully — but ethically.
Always ask: “Does this follow?”, “What’s being assumed?”, “What’s missing?”
Win debates not just with truth — but with structure, clarity, and awareness.

🔑 Bottom Line:

This book is less about being right — and more about winning wisely. It gives you the mental toolkit to argue smartly, spot manipulation, and think like a philosopher — or a seasoned debater.

About the Author – Madsen Pirie
Madsen Pirie is a British philosopher, economist, and writer best known for his work in logic, policy, and persuasive communication. He is the co-founder and president of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market think tank that has influenced UK policy for decades. Educated at the universities of Edinburgh, St Andrews, and Cambridge, Pirie combines academic depth with wit and clarity. His writing, especially in How to Win Every Argument, reflects a passion for empowering readers to think critically, debate effectively, and recognize flawed reasoning. He has authored numerous books on logic, economics, and policy reform with practical impact.

🌀 [Fallacy Name]

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A witty anecdote or example that shows the fallacy in action.

🧠 Key Insight / Mindset Shift

A realization about why this fallacy works and how it sneaks into thinking.

✅ Practical Tips / What Tim (Madsen Pirie) Suggests

How to spot the fallacy, use it (if needed), or defend against it.

🔑 Action Pointers

How to identify or counter this fallacy
How to (safely) use it in debates or discussions
How to protect your own thinking from it

Let’s Begin With the First Few Fallacies:

🌀 Abusive Analogy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

Imagine Smith suggests a sailing trip. Someone quips, “He knows as much about sailing as an Armenian bandleader!” Funny? Maybe. Fair? Not quite. This is abusive analogy—comparing someone to something negative just to mock, not argue.

🧠 Key Insight

You’re not arguing logically—you’re just creating a mental association meant to ridicule. It’s emotional manipulation disguised as wit.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This tactic is sneaky because it can be factually true but still irrelevant to the real issue.
It works by inviting the audience to do the mocking for you.

🔑 Action Pointers

🚫 Don’t be distracted by humor or comparisons—ask, “Does this analogy prove anything?”
🛡 Use when you’re trying to win a crowd, not a logic test.
🔍 Flip it: Call it out with, “That’s colorful, but what’s your actual point?”

🌀 Accent

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You can light your cigarette” can mean:

Light your own, not someone else’s.
Light a cigarette—not a curtain.
Light it—not stick it in your ear.
All just by changing which word is emphasized. The fallacy of Accent twists meaning via tone or stress.

🧠 Key Insight

What’s said can be less important than how it’s said. This fallacy turns tone into a hidden argument.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It’s most dangerous in speech or quotations where stress can shift meaning.
Also used to weasel out of responsibility (“I said we shouldn’t throw stones…not metal lumps!”)

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Be mindful of how things are emphasized—especially in politics or media.
💬 Quote exactly, and add “[emphasis added]” if you change stress in print.
🎭 Use it in storytelling or satire—but not in serious arguments.

🌀 Accident

📖 Mini-Story Recap

You say, “It’s always right to return what you borrow.” I ask: “Even if the person goes mad and wants his weapons back?” Boom—your rule falls. That’s the fallacy of Accident: using a rare exception to trash a valid rule.

🧠 Key Insight

Not every rule needs to work for every edge case. Exceptions don’t cancel good logic.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Accident is often used by idealists or radicals to sabotage rules.
It’s the favorite trick of someone who says: “But what if…?” about every point you make.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧱 When making a rule, add “other things being equal” to protect it.
🚫 Don’t reject good rules just because they don’t work in absurd edge cases.
🕵️‍♀️ Spot it when someone brings up freak scenarios to derail an otherwise reasonable argument.

🌀 Affirming the Consequent

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“If cats get bitten by rabid hedgehogs, they die. This cat is dead—so it must’ve been bitten by a rabid hedgehog!”
Sounds logical, right? But maybe it was run over or died of old age. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent—confusing effects for causes.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because B follows A doesn’t mean A caused B. There are often many possible causes for the same result.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Only affirm the first part (the “if” clause) to draw a valid conclusion. Don’t assume backward.
This fallacy masquerades as evidence—but can lead to false accusations or shaky assumptions.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚠️ Watch out for phrases like: “Since X happened, that must mean Y caused it.”
🕵️ Validate multiple causes, not just the one you’re looking for.
💬 In debates, challenge: “Could there be another explanation for that result?”

🌀 Amphiboly

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“The duchess has a fine yacht, but she has barnacles on her bottom.”
Wait—whose bottom are we talking about here? Welcome to amphiboly—the fallacy born from ambiguous grammar.

🧠 Key Insight

Sometimes the structure of a sentence lets us interpret it more than one way. It’s a loophole of language, not logic.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy is beloved by tabloids, lawyers, and oracles.
It’s not always intentional—but you can still exploit it for plausible deniability.

🔑 Action Pointers

✍️ Always clarify your sentence structure—especially in legal or persuasive writing.
🎭 Use it for clever double meanings in speeches or satire.
🧹 Clean up ambiguity: who is doing what to whom?

🌀 Analogical Fallacy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“The body politic is like the human body—so it must need one brain to rule it.”
Or: “Babies are like the weather: unpredictable, wet, and full of wind.”
Analogies are fun…but false analogies are dangerous when they substitute metaphor for fact.

🧠 Key Insight

Analogies are great tools for explanation, not proof. Just because two things share some features doesn’t mean they share all.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Analogies are suggestive, not demonstrative.
Use them to illustrate, not conclude.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “How deep does this analogy go?” Stop when it stretches too far.
🤹 Twist your opponent’s analogy in a new (silly or sharp) direction to dismantle it.
✋ Avoid analogies in arguments where precision matters more than persuasion.

🌀 Antiquitam, Argumentum ad (“Appeal to Tradition”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“We’ve always done it this way.”
“That’s the way my grandfather did it. His father too.”
“So what if they all died poor and miserable?”
This is the appeal to antiquity: the belief that old = right.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because something has lasted long doesn’t mean it’s true or good. Survival is not proof of wisdom.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Beware of phrases like “time-honored,” “traditional values,” or “ancient wisdom.”
This fallacy is most common in conservative rhetoric or cultural defenses.

🔑 Action Pointers

⛏ Ask: “Is it good—or just old?”
📚 Use history for lessons, not excuses.
🧠 Acknowledge tradition—but test its logic, not just its legacy.

🌀 Apriorism

📖 Mini-Story Recap

Galileo points his telescope to show moons around Jupiter.
Church officials: “Don’t need to see. We already know there can’t be more than 7 heavenly bodies.”
This is apriorism—starting with beliefs so rigid that no fact can change them.

🧠 Key Insight

Truth should bend our beliefs, not the other way around. If you’re allergic to evidence, you’re not being rational.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy is common in ideologies—where beliefs are sacred, and facts are threats.
People use it to reinterpret reality to fit their theory (“If the medicine didn’t work, you need more of it!”).

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Check if you’re explaining away evidence instead of facing it.
🧰 Stay flexible: treat principles as guides, not iron chains.
🧠 Use facts to challenge, not confirm, your worldview.

🌀 Baculum, Argumentum ad (“Appeal to the Stick” or Threat)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

Imagine a mafia boss says, “Nice store you got here. Shame if something happened to it unless you agree with me.”
That’s the ad baculum — winning arguments not with logic, but with threats.

🧠 Key Insight

This fallacy abandons reasoning and replaces it with fear. You’re no longer persuading — you’re coercing.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It shows up when people say, “If you don’t agree, you’ll lose your job/friends/freedom.”
Common in politics, hostage negotiations, or abusive relationships.

🔑 Action Pointers

🚫 Don’t confuse “might makes right” with actual correctness.
🛡 Stay calm: “Are you trying to persuade me—or intimidate me?”
💬 If needed, call it out directly: “That’s a threat, not an argument.”

🌀 Bifurcation (“False Dilemma”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You’re either with us — or you’re against us.”
Really? What about neutral, partially with you, or not even caring?
This is the fallacy of bifurcation — reducing a complex world to black-and-white choices.

🧠 Key Insight

False dilemmas simplify reality to manipulate decisions. But truth often lies in the gray zone.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Politicians love this: “Choose security OR freedom.”
So do marketers: “Either buy this or live in shame!”

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Ask: “Are those really the only two options?”
🌈 Look for the middle path or third alternative.
⚔️ Use it in persuasion when you want to corner someone into action (“Do this, or the world collapses!”) — but use wisely.

🌀 Blinding with Science

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“The amotivational syndrome is driven by peer-conditioned cognitive dissonance within the epistemic matrix…”
Huh? Exactly. This is blinding with science — using technical jargon to confuse rather than clarify.

🧠 Key Insight

People respect science. But throwing big words around to dazzle or dodge is deceptive — and a fallacy.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used in pseudoscience, sales pitches, or bureaucratic nonsense.
Also seen in “scientific” arguments for things like astrology, where language sounds smart but means nothing.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧹 Strip the jargon: “What does that actually mean?”
🧠 Use clear, simple language to build trust.
🧥 If you need to use this fallacy, wear your white coat and throw in buzzwords like “quantum,” “data-driven,” or “neural pathways.”

🌀 The Bogus Dilemma

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A Greek mother warns: “If you tell the truth, men will hate you. If you lie, the gods will. Either way, you’re doomed.”
But what if there’s a third way—like partial truth, or silence? This is a bogus dilemma—a trick dilemma that pretends no other options exist.

🧠 Key Insight

Bogus dilemmas hide choices. They use false consequences or incomplete choices to box people in.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Fight it with:
- “Grasping the horns” (challenge the consequences),
- “Going between the horns” (offer a new option), or
- “Rebutting with a reverse dilemma” (flip it back).

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “Is that truly the only choice?”
💡 Create a third option to escape their trap.
💣 Use your own dilemma to counter theirs and retake control of the argument.

🌀 Circulus in Probando (“Circular Reasoning”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“We know God exists because the Bible says so.”
“How do we know the Bible is true?”
“Because it’s the word of God!”
That’s circular logic — where A proves B, and B proves A.

🧠 Key Insight

In a circle, you’re going nowhere. This fallacy gives no new evidence — it just loops back to itself.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used in religion, politics, or product reviews.
The trick lies in using your conclusion as your premise.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎣 Ask: “What proves that premise?” — if it leads back to the conclusion, it’s a loop.
🧠 Always seek independent support, not mutual back-scratching logic.
🧙‍♂️ If you want to use it, do so quickly and subtly — before your audience catches the tail you’re chasing.

🌀 The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A reporter asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
If you say “yes,” you admit you used to. Say “no,” and you admit you still do.
This trap is the complex question fallacy — a sneaky combo-question that assumes something unproven.

🧠 Key Insight

This fallacy smuggles in assumptions — making the listener guilty just by answering.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in courtrooms, media, and politics.
The trick lies in hiding multiple questions inside one.

🔑 Action Pointers

🛑 Stop the trap: “That question assumes facts not in evidence.”
🪓 Split it: “Let’s handle one issue at a time.”
🧠 Use it to frame your opponent as already guilty, but expect backlash if it’s obvious.

🌀 Composition

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“This orchestra must be great — it’s full of great musicians!”
But what if none of them play well together? The fallacy of composition assumes that what’s true of parts must be true of the whole.

🧠 Key Insight

Groups aren’t just sums of their parts — dynamics matter. Great parts can make a terrible whole.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Used in politics, business, and sports: “We hired top talent, so our team must be unstoppable!”
But teams need cohesion, not just stars.

🔑 Action Pointers

🤔 Ask: “Does this work together — or just individually?”
📢 Don’t assume a good trait in individuals guarantees success in the group.
🧩 Flip it: “If all these people are so talented, why’s the outcome so poor?”

🌀 Concealed Quantification

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Teenagers are rude.”
All of them? Most? A few? This fallacy hides how many — and lets you draw big conclusions from vague claims.

🧠 Key Insight

A missing “how many” is deadly in logic. Without clear quantity, you can manipulate interpretation.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Concealed quantification thrives in gossip, politics, and media.
Works by letting people assume “all” when you only mean “some.”

🔑 Action Pointers

❓ Ask: “How many, exactly?”
🚨 Be suspicious when someone uses generalities: “Bishops are fat,” “Mechanics are crooks.”
✍️ Be precise in your language — or risk creating this fallacy yourself.

🌀 Conclusion Which Denies Premises

📖 Mini-Story Recap

Dad says, “Nothing is certain in this world… that’s why I’m certain about this advice!”
Oops. He just made a conclusion that contradicts his own premise.

🧠 Key Insight

If your conclusion goes against your starting point, then something’s broken in the logic chain.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Classic in religious and metaphysical arguments: “Everything has a cause — except God.”
You can’t have it both ways — either the rule applies or it doesn’t.

🔑 Action Pointers

🛠 Check if the conclusion matches the starting premise.
❌ Don’t allow exceptions that contradict the rule you’re arguing.
🧱 Challenge inconsistencies: “Didn’t you just say the opposite a moment ago?”

🌀 Contradictory Premises

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Everything is mortal, and God is not mortal — so God is not everything.”
Wait… how can everything be mortal, yet something (God) not be? This is a fallacy built on contradictory starting points.

🧠 Key Insight

If your premises clash, then your whole argument collapses — no matter how smooth it sounds.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Contradictory premises are invalid by default.
Even if your logic is flawless, one lie ruins the whole cake.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔎 Ask: “Can both of those things be true at once?”
⚠️ Watch out when someone says “All X are Y” and then introduces an X that isn’t Y.
🧠 Remember: logic is a machine — if you feed it garbage, it produces garbage.

🌀 Crumenam, Argumentum ad (“Appeal to Wealth”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“He’s a millionaire — so he must be right.”
Really? That’s the fallacy of crumenam — assuming that wealth = wisdom.

🧠 Key Insight

Money measures success, not truth. Rich people can be wrong — loudly and expensively.

✅ Tim’s Tips

The fallacy often appears as: “If this product costs more, it must be better,” or “If this CEO says it, it must be true.”
It’s the reverse of the “appeal to poverty” fallacy.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “Is the speaker’s wealth relevant to the argument?”
⚖️ Don’t confuse economic power with intellectual authority.
🛍 Be wary of premium pricing being passed off as proof of quality.

🌀 Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“With This, Therefore Because of This”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“In cities where more ice cream is sold, crime also increases. So ice cream causes crime!”
Nope — both go up in summer. This is the cum hoc fallacy: confusing correlation with causation.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because two things happen together doesn’t mean one caused the other.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in news, health myths, and superstition.
Look for hidden third variables.

🔑 Action Pointers

❓ Ask: “Could something else be causing both?”
⚠️ Don’t assume cause without a controlled study.
🧩 Remember: coincidence isn’t connection.

🌀 Damning the Alternatives

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You can’t trust Lisa’s idea because it’s flawed. So mine must be right!”
This fallacy attacks other options without proving its own. A classic case of “I win because you lose.”

🧠 Key Insight

Rejecting all other options doesn’t automatically validate yours.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Seen in political debates, where each side attacks the other, ignoring their own weak plan.
It works by elimination, even when nothing left is truly better.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “How does your solution actually hold up?”
💬 Insist on positive proof, not just negative attacks.
🧠 Be cautious if someone wins an argument by default.

🌀 Definitional Retreat

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“All communists are evil!”
“But what about this kind one?”
“Oh… he’s not a real communist.”
That’s definitional retreat — changing your definition mid-argument to protect your claim.

🧠 Key Insight

When facts challenge a statement, this fallacy shifts definitions to avoid losing.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A survival move in ideological debates: keep redefining until only “ideal” examples fit.
It’s like moving the goalpost mid-game.

🔑 Action Pointers

🚨 Spot the shift: “That’s not the definition you started with.”
🛑 Don’t let someone exclude every counter-example by narrowing terms after the fact.
📏 Agree on definitions before debating them.

🌀 Denying the Antecedent

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“If it rains, the picnic is canceled.
It didn’t rain.
So the picnic wasn’t canceled.”
Not necessarily! The picnic could’ve been canceled for another reason. This is denying the antecedent — assuming that if the cause didn’t happen, the effect couldn’t either.

🧠 Key Insight

The absence of one cause doesn’t rule out other causes. Logic must account for alternatives.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It’s the reverse of “affirming the consequent.”
Valid logic requires that if A then B does not mean not A = not B.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚠️ Look for “If X, then Y… Not X, therefore not Y” — and challenge it.
🧠 Ask: “Could something else have caused this?”
🧰 Don’t base conclusions on what didn’t happen — prove what did.

✅ Next up:

Dicto Simpliciter
Division
Emotional Appeals
Equivocation
Every Schoolboy Knows

🌀 Dicto Simpliciter (“Sweeping Generalization”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Exercise is good. Therefore, old people with heart disease should exercise daily.”
That’s dicto simpliciter — applying a general rule blindly, without regard for exceptions.

🧠 Key Insight

Even good rules need context. Ignoring conditions leads to bad conclusions.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A general truth can be dangerous when used absolutely.
This fallacy assumes “what works for one works for all.”

🔑 Action Pointers

⚠️ Ask: “Does this apply in all cases, or just some?”
🛠 Challenge universal claims like “all,” “always,” “everyone.”
🎯 Think in terms of situational logic, not fixed formulas.

🌀 Division

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“This football team is the best in the league. Therefore, each player must be the best in the league.”
Oops — this is the reverse of composition. Division assumes what’s true of the whole must be true of the parts.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because a team is great doesn’t mean every member is. Wholes and parts are not interchangeable.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in nationalism, stereotypes, and branding.
Just as not all members make a great whole, a great whole doesn’t mean flawless parts.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧩 Ask: “Does the part really share the quality of the whole?”
💬 Don’t assume everyone in a good company is brilliant, or every soldier in a winning army is a hero.
🧠 Keep “part vs. whole” logic straight.

🌀 Emotional Appeals

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Think of the children!”
“But is it logical?”
“Don’t you care?”
Emotional appeals skip reasoning and go straight to feelings. They play your heart to silence your head.

🧠 Key Insight

Feelings ≠ Facts. Emotions can support arguments, but can’t replace them.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used in advertising, propaganda, and guilt-trips.
Particularly effective when paired with imagery, victims, or tragedy.

🔑 Action Pointers

❤️ Acknowledge the emotion — then ask for the reasoning.
🧱 Use empathy, but don’t let it override evidence.
🛑 Spot the manipulation when emotion becomes the only weapon.

🌀 Equivocation

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.”
Wordplay alert! This is equivocation — using a word with multiple meanings to change the game mid-argument.

🧠 Key Insight

A word with two meanings lets someone slip between them without notice.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in philosophy, jokes, and legal loopholes.
Watch for ambiguous terms being used as if they meant the same thing each time.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧐 Ask: “Are we using the same meaning of the word here?”
🪤 Be wary of slippery terms like “freedom,” “rights,” “light,” “nature.”
✂️ If needed, clarify definitions early to stop equivocation cold.

🌀 Every Schoolboy Knows

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Every schoolboy knows the Romans were the first to build roads.”
Sure — but it’s not true. This fallacy invokes common knowledge that may be false or oversimplified.

🧠 Key Insight

Saying “everyone knows” avoids proof. It pressures agreement by invoking public consensus — real or not.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This is a bullying tactic in soft clothing — it dares you to seem ignorant.
Often used when the speaker has no evidence.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “Is that true — or just widely believed?”
🧠 Don’t confuse familiarity with accuracy.
💬 Flip it: “If it’s so obvious, you should have no problem showing the evidence.”

✅ Coming up next:

The Exception That Proves the Rule
Exclusive Premises
Existential Fallacy
Ex Post Facto Statistics
Extensional Pruning

🌀 The Exception That Proves the Rule

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“This parking sign says ‘No parking on Sundays.’ So it must be okay to park here the rest of the week.”
That’s “the exception proves the rule” — twisting one special case into evidence of a rule that might not even exist.

🧠 Key Insight

An exception only makes sense if a rule already exists — it doesn’t create one out of thin air.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy is often used backward — to claim a rule exists because there’s an exception.
It’s a linguistic leftover from old legal Latin, but misused constantly in modern speech.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚖️ Ask: “What rule is this exception supposed to prove?”
🧠 Remember: rules come before exceptions, not because of them.
🗣 If someone uses this, challenge them to state the actual rule they’re implying.

🌀 Exclusive Premises

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“No dogs are cats. No cats are fish. Therefore, no dogs are fish.”
That’s two negatives — and this conclusion doesn’t follow. This is the fallacy of exclusive premises.

🧠 Key Insight

Two all-negative statements can’t logically build a bridge to a conclusion. You need at least one positive link.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Formal logic requires that syllogisms include at least one affirmative premise.
Negatives alone leave the argument floating — nowhere to connect.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Look for arguments that are “All A are not B, and all B are not C…”
❌ If nothing is affirmed, nothing can be properly concluded.
📐 Use this when analyzing or constructing deductive reasoning (especially in debates).

🌀 Existential Fallacy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“All unicorns are horned creatures.
Therefore, some horned creatures are unicorns.”
Uh, wait — do unicorns even exist? This is the existential fallacy: assuming something exists just because we talk about it.

🧠 Key Insight

Talking about “all X” doesn’t mean X is real. Logic doesn’t create existence.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Especially dangerous in mysticism, abstract arguments, or legal assumptions.
Logical claims about a group require that the group actually exists.

🔑 Action Pointers

❓ Ask: “Do these things actually exist in the real world?”
🚫 Don’t leap from definitions to real-world claims.
🧠 Use it when others casually assume something is real just because it’s named.

🌀 Ex Post Facto Statistics

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“I told my client to buy that stock, and now it went up. My strategy works!”
Not so fast. This is ex post facto logic — using results to justify methods, when you might have cherry-picked data after the fact.

🧠 Key Insight

Good outcomes don’t prove good methods — especially when we only hear about successes after the event.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy often shows up in marketing, politics, and finance.
It’s the old “we won, so our plan must’ve been right!” even if the win was luck.

🔑 Action Pointers

📊 Ask: “How often does this method fail — and why don’t we hear about it?”
🕵️‍♂️ Be skeptical of after-the-fact storytelling that connects actions and outcomes.
🧮 Look for selection bias — how many losses were ignored?

🌀 Extensional Pruning

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“I believe in honesty… but not when it might hurt someone’s feelings.”
This is extensional pruning — trimming away inconvenient parts of your principle until the principle itself becomes meaningless.

🧠 Key Insight

It’s not a belief if you remove every situation where it’s hard to apply. That’s not a principle — it’s a decoration.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in people defending ideals they don’t actually follow.
The pruning happens when a principle is redefined into nothingness.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “Is this principle still meaningful after all these exceptions?”
🧠 A belief that never challenges you is probably not real.
🪓 Don’t let others cut away their beliefs until nothing remains.

✅ Coming up next:

False Conversion
False Precision
Gambler’s Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Half-Concealed Qualification

🌀 False Conversion

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“All pop stars are rich.
So all rich people must be pop stars!”
That’s false conversion — flipping a statement as if it’s reversible, when it logically isn’t.

🧠 Key Insight

“Some A are B” doesn’t mean “some B are A.” That’s like saying, “All cats are animals, so all animals are cats.”

✅ Tim’s Tips

It’s easy to fall into this trap when rewording statements carelessly.
This often happens in fast conversations where the reversal sounds right but isn’t.

🔑 Action Pointers

❗ Ask: “Can this be reversed logically — or is it a one-way street?”
🔁 Only reverse statements if the logic works both ways.
🧠 Break down premises with a diagram if needed to test conversions.

🌀 False Precision

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“On average, people spend 3.742 hours per week thinking about pizza.”
Wow — really? That’s false precision — giving overly specific numbers to make flimsy claims sound credible.

🧠 Key Insight

When rounding gives way to decimals, suspicion is justified. Numbers can be dressed up to look smarter than they are.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in marketing, fake science, and media soundbites.
The precision often comes from dodgy or narrow data.

🔑 Action Pointers

📉 Ask: “How was this figure calculated? Is the level of precision justified?”
🤔 Challenge needlessly detailed numbers meant to intimidate or distract.
💡 Round numbers = often more honest.

🌀 The Gambler’s Fallacy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“I’ve flipped heads five times in a row. So tails must be next!”
Not really — coins don’t have memory. The gambler’s fallacy assumes that past random outcomes affect future ones.

🧠 Key Insight

In true randomness, each event is independent. Previous streaks don’t change the odds.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in gambling, but also in dating, business, and sports (“We’ve lost five games — so we’re due for a win!”).
Fallacy arises when chance is mistaken for a trend.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎲 Remind yourself: “Probability resets with every flip/draw/spin.”
📊 Understand sample size vs. sequence — short-term patterns don’t prove anything.
🛑 Don’t bet on luck to “even out.”

🌀 Genetic Fallacy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“That idea came from a biased source — so it must be false.”
Hold on. This is the genetic fallacy — rejecting a claim based on where it came from, not whether it’s true.

🧠 Key Insight

The origin of an idea doesn’t determine its truth. Even liars tell the truth sometimes.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used to discredit: “It came from the media,” “It was written by a politician,” “It’s from Wikipedia!”
But bad sources can still produce valid points.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Evaluate what’s said, not just who said it.
🧠 Separate the message from the messenger.
💬 Flip it: “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

🌀 Half-Concealed Qualification

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“This is the best washing powder… for certain types of stains… when used properly… under lab conditions.”
This is half-concealed qualification — a bold claim quietly walked back mid-sentence with soft disclaimers.

🧠 Key Insight

Big promises followed by fine print? That’s a red flag. The claim is technically true, but practically useless.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy thrives in advertising, political promises, and corporate speak.
The bold claim grabs attention, the retreat dodges responsibility.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “What’s the catch?”
🎙 Read or listen for phrases like “in certain conditions,” “according to some,” “may help…”
⚖️ Hold speakers to what they implied, not what they hid.

✅ Coming up next:

Hedging
Hominem (Abusive), Argumentum ad
Hominem (Circumstantial), Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad
Ignoratio Elenchi

🌀 Hedging

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Our new energy drink gives you wings!*
(*In the metaphorical sense. Results may vary. Wings not included.)”
That’s hedging — boldly saying something… and then retreating behind a vague disclaimer.

🧠 Key Insight

Hedging is a safety net for overclaiming. It lets you sound bold while staying legally or logically safe.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in ads, political promises, and public speaking.
People hedge to avoid being wrong — but still want the credit of sounding right.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “What does this actually commit them to?”
🛑 Don’t be fooled by confident tones—listen for the backpedal.
🔍 Spot hidden phrases: “in most cases,” “it’s possible,” “may include…”

🌀 Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You’re an idiot — so your argument must be wrong.”
That’s abusive ad hominem: attacking the person, not the idea.

🧠 Key Insight

Insults are not arguments. You can dislike someone and they might still be right.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Most common when someone runs out of facts.
People use it to shut down credibility, not counter logic.

🔑 Action Pointers

🚫 Call it out: “That’s personal — not logical.”
🧠 Refocus: “Let’s deal with the argument, not the person.”
💬 Don’t respond in kind — respond with reason.

🌀 Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You only want tax cuts because you’re rich.”
This is circumstantial ad hominem — dismissing someone’s idea based on their situation or motive.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because someone benefits from a belief doesn’t make the belief invalid.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Circumstantial fallacies are softer, sneakier than abusive ones.
They attack why someone believes something, not whether it’s true.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Challenge ideas, not intentions.
🛑 Say: “Even if I benefit from it — does the logic hold up?”
💬 Flip it: “Can we talk about the argument, not my paycheck?”

🌀 Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (“Appeal to Ignorance”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“No one’s proven aliens don’t exist — so they must be real!”
This is the appeal to ignorance — using a lack of proof as proof.

🧠 Key Insight

Not knowing something doesn’t mean the opposite is true. It just means we don’t know.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Watch for phrases like: “There’s no evidence it’s false — so it must be true.”
This fallacy thrives in the unknown.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “Is this based on what we know, or what we don’t?”
🚫 Don’t confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
❓ Demand actual support — not just “no one’s disproven it.”

🌀 Ignoratio Elenchi (“Irrelevant Conclusion”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A politician asked if he accepted bribes. He replied, “I’ve always fought for education and community values!”
That’s ignoratio elenchi — answering a question with a totally unrelated point.

🧠 Key Insight

It’s a fancy distraction: a true statement that misses the point entirely.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used by politicians, salespeople, and dodgers of tough questions.
The key trick: change the subject slightly and make it sound like a win.

🔑 Action Pointers

❗ Say: “That may be true — but it’s not the question I asked.”
🧠 Keep your eye on the issue — don’t let the speaker shift the frame.
🎯 Re-anchor the conversation with: “Back to the real point…”

✅ Coming up next:

Illicit Process
Irrelevant Humour
Lapidem, Argumentum ad
Lazaram, Argumentum ad
Loaded Words

🌀 Illicit Process

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“All dogs are animals.
All cats are animals.
Therefore, all cats are dogs.”
Logical? Nope. That’s illicit process — a classic error in deductive reasoning where the conclusion doesn’t actually follow from the premises.

🧠 Key Insight

Just because two things share a category doesn’t mean they are interchangeable or directly related.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It often occurs in syllogisms when the middle term is misused.
The issue is not what’s said — but how the categories are connected.

🔑 Action Pointers

📐 Use a Venn diagram to visually test syllogisms.
❌ Don’t connect A to C just because they both connect to B.
🧠 Keep your premises and conclusions aligned logically, not just linguistically.

🌀 Irrelevant Humour

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A serious debate is interrupted: “Why did the philosopher cross the road? To question the chicken’s motives!”
Everyone laughs. Debate derailed.
That’s irrelevant humour — using jokes to distract, deflect, or de-escalate an argument.

🧠 Key Insight

Humor can disarm — but also disrupt. It sidesteps issues without resolving them.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It’s a great crowd-control tactic, often used in debates or politics.
It works by making the audience forget the original question.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎤 Ask: “Are we joking — or are we debating?”
💬 Redirect: “Funny, but let’s return to the point.”
⚠️ Use humor as a tool, not a smokescreen.

🌀 Lapidem, Argumentum ad (“Appeal to the Stone”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“That’s nonsense!”
“But why?”
“Because it just is!”
That’s the ad lapidem — rejecting a claim by calling it absurd without any evidence or explanation.

🧠 Key Insight

Saying something is ridiculous doesn’t make it so. Without reasons, dismissal is just avoidance.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Used when people are too lazy or cornered to argue.
Named after kicking a stone to prove matter exists — pure denial, no logic.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “Why is it nonsense?” Force a reason, not a reaction.
💬 Call out the dodge: “You’re dismissing — not debating.”
🔄 Flip it: “If it’s so obviously wrong, prove it.”

🌀 Lazaram, Argumentum ad (“Appeal to Poverty”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Poor people are the real experts — they live in the ‘real world.’”
This is the appeal to poverty — assuming someone is more trustworthy or righteous because they’re poor.

🧠 Key Insight

Poverty is not proof of wisdom, just as wealth isn’t proof of truth (see Crumenam). Both are irrelevant to logic.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This fallacy is morally charged — it tries to equate struggle with superior insight.
Works by triggering sympathy and fairness instincts.

🔑 Action Pointers

👓 Focus on content, not the speaker’s background.
❌ Don’t assume hardship makes someone correct.
🛠 Evaluate ideas on merit — not emotional appeal.

🌀 Loaded Words

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Any intelligent person would agree with me.”
So… if you disagree, you’re stupid? That’s loaded language — framing your position in a way that pressures people to agree.

🧠 Key Insight

Words carry emotional and social weight. Loaded terms smuggle in assumptions and make dissent seem risky or foolish.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Loaded words work by attaching virtue, vice, or shame to positions.
You’re not just disagreeing — you’re being labeled.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “What does this label imply — and is it fair?”
🧠 Watch for words like “obviously,” “civilized,” “barbaric,” “sane,” “patriotic.”
💬 Deconstruct: “Let’s take away the adjectives and talk about the facts.”

✅ Next 5:

Many Questions
Moralistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy (again — he covers it twice)
Non Sequitur

🌀 Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Why did you lie to your boss and steal office supplies?”
Hold on! That question contains multiple accusations in one — and answers imply guilt for both.
This is the many questions fallacy — sneaking several assumptions into one sentence.

🧠 Key Insight

Bundled questions trap people. Answering them means accepting hidden claims.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A classic trick to control the narrative and force a bad answer.
Different from the “complex question” — this one piles unrelated issues into one.

🔑 Action Pointers

🪓 Dissect the question: “Let’s address those separately.”
❗ Refuse to answer compound assumptions as a single point.
🧠 Use it yourself only when you’re cornering someone in debate — but expect pushback.

🌀 Moralistic Fallacy

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Rape is evil. So it cannot occur in nature.”
Sorry — wishing something wasn’t true doesn’t make it false.
This is the moralistic fallacy — assuming reality conforms to what we think should be.

🧠 Key Insight

Morality ≠ reality. Just because something is wrong doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Opposite of the naturalistic fallacy.
Often used when people try to deny facts because they clash with values.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚠️ Separate what’s real from what’s right.
🧠 Say: “Even if something shouldn’t happen, does it actually?”
❌ Don’t deny uncomfortable truths to protect ideals — challenge them with the truth.

🌀 Naturalistic Fallacy (1)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Sex before marriage is natural — so it must be good.”
That’s the naturalistic fallacy — saying something is good because it’s natural.

🧠 Key Insight

Nature is neutral. Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean it’s moral or wise.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in health fads, diet claims, and social arguments.
Nature also has cancer, war, and parasites — “natural” isn’t always nice.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “What does ‘natural’ really mean here?”
💬 Challenge with examples of harmful natural things.
✅ Stick to reason, not romanticized nature.

🌀 Naturalistic Fallacy (2) (yes, he lists it twice with variations)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“In nature, animals eat raw meat — so we should too.”
That’s the second take of the naturalistic fallacy — assuming nature’s example sets the standard for behavior.

🧠 Key Insight

Appealing to what animals do or what “primitive humans did” ignores context, ethics, and logic.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A popular form in “paleo” arguments, libertarianism, or animal behavior justifications.
Nature has no moral compass — it only functions, not guides.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “Is that behavior wise for humans in society?”
🛑 Don’t confuse natural behavior with socially acceptable behavior.
🔁 Use logic, not instinct, for moral reasoning.

🌀 Non Sequitur (“It Does Not Follow”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“She drives a BMW. She must be intelligent.”
Wait — where’s the link? This is a non sequitur — a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premise.

🧠 Key Insight

Logic needs connection. Without it, you’re just making random guesses in fancy packaging.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This is the catch-all for any argument where the conclusion leaps beyond the evidence.
Often masked in confidence or association, not reasoning.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “What connects the evidence to the claim?”
💬 Point out the jump: “How exactly does that follow?”
🔍 Trace every conclusion back to its support — and reject it if the bridge is broken.

✅ Up next:

Numerically Quantified Statements
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Plurium Interrogationum (Complex Questions again)
Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

🌀 Numerically Quantified Statements

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Four out of five dentists recommend this toothpaste!”
Sounds scientific — but who are these dentists? Where’s the study?
This is the fallacy of numerically quantified statements — using specific numbers without proof or transparency to sound persuasive.

🧠 Key Insight

People trust numbers — even when they’re meaningless or made up.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Statistics without sources or methods are just rhetorical tricks.
This fallacy is rampant in ads, fake science, and political claims.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “What’s the sample size? Who conducted the study?”
❗ Don’t be impressed by specificity unless it’s verifiable.
🔍 Press for the method behind the math.

🌀 Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Lying is wrong because it’s immoral.”
Wait — aren’t those the same thing? That’s begging the question — assuming the truth of what you’re trying to prove.

🧠 Key Insight

This is circular reasoning wearing a suit. It starts with the conclusion baked into the premise.

✅ Tim’s Tips

One of the most subtle and dangerous fallacies — sounds reasonable, but proves nothing.
Often hides behind synonyms or reworded ideas.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Ask: “Is this premise just restating the conclusion?”
🧠 Break down the reasoning and look for loopbacks.
🧰 Use examples to force separation of evidence and claim.

🌀 Plurium Interrogationum (Complex Questions Again)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Have you stopped cheating on your taxes and lying to your family?”
You’ve seen this before — complex questions bundle multiple assumptions into one.

🧠 Key Insight

Answering a complex question validates its hidden parts, even if you don’t mean to.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This version often appears in cross-examinations, media traps, and political debates.
The goal is to force you to admit something by answering a loaded compound.

🔑 Action Pointers

✂️ Deconstruct the question: “Which part should I answer first?”
🚫 Never accept a question’s framing if it contains unproven assumptions.
🎤 Control the frame before you answer.

🌀 Poisoning the Well

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Before my opponent speaks, just remember she’s been investigated for fraud.”
Now whatever she says — the damage is done.
This is poisoning the well — preemptively undermining someone’s credibility before they speak.

🧠 Key Insight

It’s argument sabotage — biasing the audience before hearing the other side.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used in debates to shape audience perception in advance.
It works through framing — not logic.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Spot the setup: “Let’s hear the argument, not just the accusation.”
🛡 Defend others (or yourself): “That’s character talk — what about the claim?”
🧼 Clean the “well” by returning to facts, not framing.

🌀 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“After This, Therefore Because of This”)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“I wore my lucky socks and we won! The socks worked!”
Nope — that’s post hoc reasoning: assuming that because one thing followed another, it must’ve caused it.

🧠 Key Insight

Timing ≠ causality. Just because A came before B doesn’t mean A caused B.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in superstition, politics, medicine, and more.
Can be used to claim credit or assign blame falsely.

🔑 Action Pointers

📆 Ask: “What else could’ve caused this outcome?”
🔬 Look for controlled experiments, not anecdotal timing.
🧠 Separate correlation from causation every time.

✅ Coming up next:

Quoting Out of Context
Red Herring
Reductio ad Absurdum (Used Fallaciously)
Reification
Selective Evidence

🌀 Quoting Out of Context

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A scientist says, “This chemical, in large doses, is deadly.”
A newspaper reports: “Scientist admits chemical is deadly.”
That’s quoting out of context — twisting meaning by snipping away the conditions.

🧠 Key Insight

Without full context, even truth becomes distortion. Words aren’t always weapons — until you sharpen them selectively.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Especially common in media, political spin, and courtrooms.
Works by removing qualifiers, conditions, or tone.

🔑 Action Pointers

📚 Ask: “What came before and after that quote?”
❌ Never trust a standalone quote without checking the source.
🛠 Use full context to either defend yourself or challenge others.

🌀 Red Herring

📖 Mini-Story Recap

Q: “Why is your budget full of errors?”
A: “We need to focus on the real problem: our broken school system.”
That’s a red herring — distracting from the issue with something emotionally charged or unrelated.

🧠 Key Insight

It’s not always irrelevant — just off-topic enough to drag attention away from the main point.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used in debates or interviews to dodge difficult questions.
Red herrings smell valid — but lead away from the truth trail.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Refocus: “That’s interesting, but back to the original question…”
🧠 Stay alert to shifts in topic or frame.
💬 Use sparingly if you need to change subject — but expect to be called out.

🌀 Reductio ad Absurdum (Used Fallaciously)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You want universal healthcare? Why not just have the government control our breathing too?”
That’s a misused reductio — taking an idea and exaggerating it to a ridiculous extreme.

🧠 Key Insight

Valid reductio is a tool of logic. But used fallaciously, it becomes a caricature, not a counterargument.

✅ Tim’s Tips

It’s a powerful rhetorical trick — push their point beyond reason and make it seem absurd.
But it’s dishonest when the exaggeration doesn’t follow the logic.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚖️ Ask: “Is this really a logical outcome — or a slippery slope?”
❌ Don’t let others mock a distorted version of your idea.
💬 Counter: “That’s not what I’m proposing — let’s deal with what I actually said.”

🌀 Reification

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Society says we must conform.”
But society doesn’t speak — people do. This is reification — treating an abstract idea like a real thing.

🧠 Key Insight

You can’t argue with “the system” or “history” — because they aren’t agents with thoughts or motives.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Shows up in phrases like “Science says…”, “The economy wants…”, or “Culture is angry.”
Used to personify vague concepts to make them seem authoritative.

🔑 Action Pointers

🎯 Ask: “Who exactly says this?”
⚠️ Don’t accept vague authority from abstract nouns.
🧠 Break abstractions down into actual decision-makers or agents.

🌀 Selective Evidence (Cherry Picking)

📖 Mini-Story Recap

A speaker says, “This therapy worked for Susan and Raj — so it must work for everyone!”
What about the 98 people it failed? That’s selective evidence — only showing what supports your claim, and ignoring the rest.

🧠 Key Insight

Partial truth = false impression. Leaving out inconvenient data is still misleading.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A favorite in sales, alternative medicine, testimonials, and politics.
Even real data can lie when presented one-sided.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔍 Ask: “Is this the full picture, or just a highlight reel?”
📊 Demand negative results and neutral data.
🧠 Think like a skeptic: “What’s missing from this argument?”

✅ Final batch coming up:

Self-Sealing Arguments
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Straw Man

🌀 Self-Sealing Arguments

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“All true patriots agree with this.”
What if someone disagrees?
“Well, then you’re not a true patriot.”
That’s a self-sealing argument — a claim that can’t be disproved, because any contradiction is dismissed as invalid by definition.

🧠 Key Insight

If no evidence can falsify your claim, it’s not an argument — it’s dogma.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Common in ideological, cultish, or conspiratorial thinking.
Self-sealing logic is immune to reason — and thus, not logic at all.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “What would it take to prove you wrong?”
❌ Reject definitions that change just to protect the belief.
💬 Point out: “This isn’t reasoning — it’s circular immunity.”

🌀 Shifting the Burden of Proof

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“I believe unicorns exist.”
“Prove it.”
“No, you prove they don’t!”
That’s shifting the burden of proof — demanding others disprove your unproven claim.

🧠 Key Insight

The person making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise, anything can be claimed with no effort.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used when people want to believe something irrational without defending it.
Reverses the standard: You make the claim, they must disprove it.

🔑 Action Pointers

⚖️ Say: “The burden of proof is on you.”
❌ Don’t accept arguments that start with “Well, you can’t disprove it!”
🧠 Default to skepticism for unsubstantiated claims.

🌀 Slippery Slope

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“If we allow kids to stay up late, next they’ll skip school, then they’ll become criminals!”
That’s a slippery slope — arguing that one step will lead to an inevitable chain of disaster.

🧠 Key Insight

Not all changes lead to catastrophe. The slope might not even be slippery.

✅ Tim’s Tips

Often used to scare people into inaction.
Real slopes have friction, steps, and brakes — evaluate each link.

🔑 Action Pointers

🧠 Ask: “Is each step actually likely, or just dramatic?”
🧮 Demand evidence for the whole chain.
🚫 Reject fear-based arguments with no causal proof.

🌀 Special Pleading

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“Rules apply to everyone… except me, because my case is different.”
This is special pleading — applying double standards without justification.

🧠 Key Insight

If your claim needs an exemption, it’s probably not defensible on equal terms.

✅ Tim’s Tips

A cousin to hypocrisy — often disguised as “unique circumstances.”
The logic: “This rule works, except when it doesn’t for me.”

🔑 Action Pointers

⚖️ Ask: “What makes this case so different from others?”
❌ Don’t let someone dodge with emotion instead of reason.
📢 Insist on consistency — or no rule at all.

🌀 Straw Man

📖 Mini-Story Recap

“You want to reduce military spending? So you want our country defenseless?”
That’s the straw man — misrepresenting someone’s position so it’s easier to attack.

🧠 Key Insight

The straw man replaces the real argument with a weaker version, and then destroys it.

✅ Tim’s Tips

This is one of the most common debate tactics — and a major source of frustration.
Often used in politics, media debates, and hostile interviews.

🔑 Action Pointers

🔥 Call it out: “That’s not what I said. Let’s deal with my actual point.”
💬 Restate your argument clearly to take control of the frame.
🧠 Always check: “Am I attacking their idea, or my interpretation of it?”

🎉 You’re Done!

You’ve just mastered all the major logical fallacies from How to Win Every Argument — not just as definitions, but as practical thinking tools for:

✅ Spotting fallacies in debates, media, and politics
✅ Protecting your own arguments from collapse
✅ Using clever logic in persuasive, powerful ways
✅ Becoming immune to manipulative rhetoric

🧠 Logical Fallacy Cheat Sheet – Quick Definitions

Fallacy Name	Quick Definition
Abusive Analogy	Mocking with unfair comparisons instead of argument.
Accent	Changing meaning by stressing different words.
Accident	Misusing a rule by ignoring exceptions.
Affirming the Consequent	Assuming cause from effect (If A then B; B, so A).
Amphiboly	Ambiguous grammar creates double meaning.
Analogical Fallacy	Assuming two things are alike in all ways because they are alike in some.
Appeal to Antiquity	Arguing something is right because it’s traditional.
Apriorism	Ignoring facts because they don’t fit your belief.
Appeal to Force (Baculum)	Using threats instead of logic.
Bifurcation	Presenting only two choices when more exist.
Blinding with Science	Using jargon to confuse instead of explain.
Bogus Dilemma	Framing choices to trap you unfairly.
Circular Reasoning	The conclusion is just a restated premise.
Complex Question	Asking a question with hidden assumptions.
Composition	Assuming what’s true of parts is true of the whole.
Concealed Quantification	Being vague about how many (e.g., “most,” “some”).
Contradictory Premises	Using premises that can’t both be true.
Conclusion Denying Premises	Drawing a conclusion that contradicts the premises.
Crumenam (Appeal to Wealth)	Thinking rich people must be right.
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc	Assuming correlation means causation.
Damning the Alternatives	Disproving all options doesn’t prove yours.
Definitional Retreat	Changing your definition mid-argument to avoid being wrong.
Denying the Antecedent	If A then B; Not A, so not B — invalid logic.
Dicto Simpliciter	Applying a general rule too broadly.
Division	Assuming what’s true of the whole applies to each part.
Emotional Appeals	Using emotion to persuade instead of logic.
Equivocation	Switching between different meanings of a word.
Every Schoolboy Knows	Claiming something is obvious without proof.
Exception Proves the Rule	Using a rare exception to claim a general rule.
Exclusive Premises	Using two negative premises to draw a conclusion — invalid.
Existential Fallacy	Assuming something exists just because it’s mentioned.
Ex Post Facto Statistics	Using outcomes to justify actions — cherry-picking results.
Extensional Pruning	Adding so many exceptions a principle loses all meaning.
False Conversion	Reversing a statement when logic doesn’t allow it.
False Precision	Using overly specific data that’s not meaningful.
Gambler’s Fallacy	Believing past random events influence future ones.
Genetic Fallacy	Judging ideas based on their origin, not content.
Half-Concealed Qualification	Making bold claims, then quietly weakening them.
Hedging	Making vague or cautious claims to avoid being wrong.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)	Attacking the person, not the argument.
Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)	Dismissing arguments based on the speaker’s interests.
Appeal to Ignorance	Saying something is true because it hasn’t been disproven.
Irrelevant Conclusion	Offering a response that misses the real point.
Illicit Process	Misusing terms in a logical structure.
Irrelevant Humour	Using jokes to derail serious discussion.
Appeal to the Stone (Lapidem)	Dismissing arguments as absurd without reasoning.
Appeal to Poverty (Lazaram)	Thinking poor people are more truthful.
Loaded Words	Using emotional language to manipulate reaction.
Many Questions	Asking multi-layered questions with hidden traps.
Moralistic Fallacy	Believing what ought to be must be.
Naturalistic Fallacy (1 & 2)	Believing what is natural is automatically good or right.
Non Sequitur	Reaching a conclusion that doesn’t follow the premise.
Numerically Quantified Statement	Citing numbers without basis to seem scientific.
Begging the Question	Assuming what you’re trying to prove.
Poisoning the Well	Undermining someone before they speak.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc	Assuming later events were caused by earlier ones.
Quoting Out of Context	Misrepresenting meaning by removing supporting detail.
Red Herring	Distracting from the main issue with something unrelated.
Reductio ad Absurdum (Misused)	Mocking arguments by taking them to silly extremes.
Reification	Treating abstract ideas as if they are physical or living.
Selective Evidence	Presenting only data that supports your claim.
Self-Sealing Argument	Defining arguments so they can’t be disproved.
Shifting the Burden of Proof	Forcing others to disprove your claim.
Slippery Slope	Arguing that one small step will lead to disaster.
Special Pleading	Making exceptions for yourself without justification.
Straw Man	Misrepresenting someone’s position to easily defeat it.

Category: BOOK REVIEWS