A form of deductive reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises). It was first formally defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and remains a cornerstone of classical logic.
syllogism
moves from general statements and and theories to specific logical conclusions.
deductive logic
moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.
inductive logic
A logical structure where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
valid argument
A valid argument that is also actually true in the real world.
sound argument
attacking a person rather than their argument
Ad Hominem
a fallacy where an opponent’s argument is distorted into a weaker version and then “defeated” to avoid addressing the actual point.
Straw Man
A conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise(s).
Non-Sequitor
Drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence
Hasty Generalization
Presenting only two options when more exist
False Dilemma (aka Either-Or Fallacy)
Arguing that one small step will lead to extreme consequences
Slippery Slope
Arguing something is true because everyone believes or does it
Bandwagon (Ad Populum)
creating support through fear alone
Appeal to Fear
using the opinion of an authority figure alone to back an argument
Appeal to Authority
a diversionary tactic that introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original issue
Red Herring
Assuming causation from correlation
False Cause
the logical connection—often an unstated assumption—that explains why the data supports the claim.
Warrant
(i.e. why the warrant should be accepted).
Backing
a logical fallacy in which the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion to be true (the reasoner begins with what they are trying to prove)
Circular Reasoning
