Logical Fallacies Examples

In everyday life, logical fallacies are displayed in a multitude of different ways. Logical fallacies are heard on televisions, radios or read in newspapers. Although, for the most part, they are seen in politics, advertisements, and campaigns. A fallacious statement is defined as an argument that is indicated to perceive an individual by being deceptive, misleading, or of false nature (Dictionary.com). Some logical fallacies are created intentionally as a delusion or misapprehension that produces an erroneous reasoning that renders arguments logically unsound (Dictionary.com). The University of Texas at El Paso defines that there are over fifty logical fallacies.

Some view logical fallacies as “wrong and, simply put, dishonest” and will argue that they are unambiguously colloquial. Although, some fallacious statements are meant to be perceived as comical (Grammar.about.com). Additionally, there are two types of fallacies. One being formal and the other informal. A formal fallacy is an argument that is concluded to be invalid due to the disfigurement in its mechanical

and logical structure. Formal fallacies may or may not be true. While, informal fallacies are consisted of doubtful and equivocal statements, and are concerned with the logical meaning of language. The word “informal” does not address the sentence as inferior or irregular. Harvey Bluedorn states, “It simply means that the focus is not on the structure of the argument, but on the meaning of the argument itself” (Triviumpursuit.com).
An example of an informal fallacy would be slippery slope.

Slippery slope is the fallacious form in which an event based strictly on hypothesis creates the presumption that a chain reaction will develop (Kyle T. Hillman). It simply believes that if the occurrence is to transpire, that it will create a domino effect that will inevitably follow another event, and another event, and another, eventually ending catastrophically. Although, it is only in theory. The problem with this fallacy is that it becomes rationale and avoids engaging oneself with the imminent controversy and using hypothesized contingency to foresee the result(s). Without actually having proof or presenting a clear examination that something will cause another to happen is simply an assumption. Therefore, the debate amongst the argument exist as corrupt by unsubstantiated speculations that present fear and anxiety. (Kyle T.

Hillman)
If a person was to view the argument over both the political and financial standpoint of legalizing marijuana, they are able to recognize that there are multitudes of conjectures that state what can and or will happen. One of the strongest points is that it will inevitably raise a substantial amount of revenue and become lucrative to our economy. On the contrary, it is presumed to be a “gate-way drug” that is habit-forming and may lead to the use of other addictive drugs. So to speak, if the United States of America was to legalize marijuana, it is plausible that the controversy would arise to decriminalization of much more perilous drugs. It is not only about what may be imminent, but also about what may seem unconventional and cause such a calamity that there is no recovery. Although, without any implementation it is only theoretical, and this is what we refer to as a ‘slippery slope’ (Kyle T. Hillman).
When groups of individuals assume that something is valid and that it must be the appropriate explanation simply because the majority of them believe it to be correct as well, is a bandwagon fallacy. It is also introduced as ‘argumentum ad populum’, which is Latin for "appeal to the people" (Grammar.about.com). ‘Argumentum ad populum’ determines that the belief may only true by popularity, and that the likelihood of it occurring is simply because others enjoy it as well.
If the majority of people rule that cannabis should be legalized because of the healing capabilities it possesses, and it is perused for that reason alone, then it would be recognized as a bandwagon inception. Although, not everyone believes it should be decriminalized simply because it is natural and capable of helping thousands of cancer patients (My own words). It has always been perceived as a drug and treated as an infringement forcing individuals to believe that it is harmful to us, stating there is a plethora of facts about this particular plant that we continue to not be mindful of and what it may do to our bodies and brains. Although, doctors and scientist are now saying otherwise, and that it can save lives. People believed it to be harmful, because the government said it was. This is an example of a bandwagon theory/belief (Kyle T. Hillman).
If an irrelevant statement in a topic draws away from what is initially presented, in order to be deceptive and create a diversion to draw an individual’s attention away from the original issue, it is referred to as a ‘red herring’. The phrase red herring allegedly derived from trying to distract hunting dogs by dragging across the ground a smelly, old, salt-cured herring on the trail that they were stalking their prey (Grammar.about.com). It is also an informal fallacy with the intent to distract an audience by adverting a topic to something different, or offering an unrelated remark that avoids the question that was originally asked, this, deliberately misleading them into turmoil. In Gordon Tait’s academic journal, he writes “a common strategy is to try and subtly change the direction of the debate by introducing a topic which appears to be relevant to the initial subject, but is actually irrelevant to any of the previously addressed premises or conclusions.” Whomever may convey such a fallacy intentionally is unequivocally attempting to establish a decoy.
People who are diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) are primarily known for displaying an exceptional amount of red herrings. They are notorious for being extremely inconsequential in the many random things they do, and the irrelevant comments they make that divert one topic to the next. They do not always intentionally exert an effort to make themselves seem irrational. On the contrary, most of their actions are considered as a sort of ‘red herring’.
The Lewinsky scandal was exactly that; a red herring. It was a political statement made against Bill Clinton back in the year 1998, as a sex scandal. It has been referred to as the “Lewinskygate”, “Monicagate”, and quite a few others (Mark B. Joslyn). In President Bill Clintons speech, he states “I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The complete statement was erroneous and meant to throw everyone off track.
It was during the 2000 presidential campaigns for election whenever an individual, accusing him of adultery, released the imperative news about President Bill Clinton’s sexual affair. They were endeavoring to belittle President Clinton and make him seem like someone that acted impetuously and made flagrant decisions, so others would not vote for him. This is also an example of what is known as the ‘straw man’ fallacy. It is a fallacy in which a man or woman deliberately puts their opponent down (Yourlogicalfallacyis.com). These sorts of fallacious arguments are viewed widely in political campaigns. They give a false account of someone’s statement to make it much easier for them to attack their competitor. (Yourlogicalfallacyis.com) They present insolent behavior rather than the honest and probable proclamations that someone else would expect. It is meant specifically to criticize the other candidate so that the presenter will look better in the eyes of the audience.
Another well-known fallacy in the United States government is ‘two wrongs do not equal a right’. Time after time, the United States of America is the nation that endeavors to maintain peace and prosperity in the world.