How everybody can win an argument: 3 common argument fallacies explained

You’ve likely argued with someone and felt like there’s something wrong with how they reason. You could not pinpoint what was wrong with their arguments, but you felt something was wrong. Take the wind out of your opponent sails by knowing these 3 fallacies:

Appeal to consequences fallacy

Someone will argue for how true or untrue something is by discussing how much they like or dislike the arising consequences.

If X, then Y will happen.
Y is a good outcome.
Therefore, X is true.

However, it’s easy to see the fallacy here: how much someone wants something to be true has nothing to do with whether it is actually true.

Affirming the consequent

Arguing: “because an outcome Y has happened, the cause X must be true”. The fallacy here is that there are many other explanations to why outcome Y occurred. Example: you see a friend of yours who acts happy. You assume he got a promotion, since that would make him happy. However, he could likewise have won the lottery or is just having a great day.

If X, then Y will happen

Y has happened

Therefore, X is true

Appeal to ignorance

You will recognize this one: the arguing person assumes something is true solely because there is no evidence it isn’t true.

If there is no evidence for X to be false

X must be true

This fallacy is so easy to use, yet hard to penetrate since it can be difficult to gather evidence which both parties deem to be definitive.

This post was created with Typeshare