These failures are of the worst kind, and the most difficult to detect

Failure of lack of causal connection

This is a family of logical fallacies where it is claimed that one thing caused another thing when there is no causal connection between them.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - together and therefore because

This is a fallacy similar to the 'after and therefore because' fallacy that will be described later. This is the fallacy of claiming that because two events happen together, there is a causal connection between them. This argument fails because it ignores other factors that could be the cause(s) of the event. "The rate of readers in the population has steadily decreased with the increase in the power of television. It is clear that watching TV hinders learning"

Non causa pro causa - there is no causal connection

In an argument there is no causal connection when something is presented as the cause of some event, but in fact it has not been proven at all that that event is the cause. For example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache went away. so that God is rifani"

Non sequitur - there is no logical connection

This fallacy is an argument in which the conclusion derived from the premises is not logically related to these premises. For example:
"Since it is clear that the Egyptians had to dig a lot to build the pyramids, it is clear that they were experts in the study of fossils"

Circular arguments 

This is a family of logical fallacies where the conclusion proves itself. They fail because the conclusion is not backed up by any information or logic, and the reason they are dangerous is that they use a logical pattern that seems very logical (for an article that explains How to make an argument sound convincing)

Tautology - Tautology

This is the simplest type of circular argument where the premise and conclusion are simply different versions of the same thing, so such a fallacy is relatively easy to spot.
To Dumga: the sergeant from the well-known joke that rages "why are the last ones always at the end", or the matchmaker who asks how it is that all the bachelors and bachelorettes are not married to each other.

Circulus in demonstrando - circular argument

This is a slightly more complex case where between the claim and the conclusion there are several additional steps that hide the fact that the starting point and the ending point are the same point. In a famous example from British history
"Homosexuals should not be allowed to hold government positions. Hence, any such official will lose his job if he is forced out of the closet. Hence, homosexuals will do everything to hide their secret, and whoever finds out, can blackmail them easily. And from this it follows that homosexuals should not be allowed to hold government positions"
Note that the above argument is completely circular. The premise is the same as the conclusion. What is sad is that the above quote was given as a reason for not accepting homosexuals into the ranks of the British intelligence organization.
Unfortunately, circular arguments are surprisingly common. If you've already come to a certain conclusion between yourself, it's easy to accidentally make it the premise when you try to explain it to other people.

Introducing a circular reservation as a condition - The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy 

This is an even more complex case of a circular argument, where the circularity does not arise from the argument itself but from the caveats that are inserted into it, and which states that only the assumption can become a conclusion.

The name of the example comes from the argument that Scots don't put sugar in their porridge, you try to refute the claim by saying that your good friend Angus actually likes sugar in his porridge. Or then I say: "Oh, yes, but no real Scotsman would put sugar in his porridge".
The more interesting example of the refutation comes from the story of the black swan - throughout history since Aristotle, logic textbooks have used the phrase "all swans are white, therefore if it is a swan, it means it is white". Ironically, it became clear in the 17th century that there was a species of black swan in Australia, so there were logicians who tried to save Aristotle's honor by saying that black swans are not really swans (they are) since a condition to be a swan is to be white. Which shows that logicians also make logical fallacies.

Reverse causation

This is a family of logical fallacies that exploit the difficulty of many people to understand the importance of the direction of causation. For many listeners it is difficult to distinguish between cause and effect, especially when there is often a mutual influence between them. For example, it is easy to get confused by the expressions "if you love me I will be nice to you" and "if I am nice to you you will love me". They are related to each other, and can cause each other, but that doesn't mean they are are the same to each other. 

Affirmation of the consequent - opposite proof

This is a logical fallacy of the form "A entails B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why this is a logical fallacy, see "what follows how - detail" earlier. Here is an example:
"If the universe was created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization around us. And we do see order, not chaos - so it is clear that the universe had a creator"

Converting a conditional - reversing the direction of the condition

This logical fallacy is an argument of the type "if A then B, therefore if B then A".
"If they further lower the level of education in Israel, the quality of the arguments seen online will decrease. So if we see the level of arguments on the net decrease over the next few years, it means that the level of education is still on a downward trend"

Converse accident / Generalization - deduction from the particular to the general

This is the opposite fallacy of inferring from the general to the particular. It is seen when a small and unrepresentative number of examples are used as a basis for a more general law. For example:
"Arie Deri is above the state's funds, he was a member of the Shas, and hence all members of the Shas are thieves"

---

Register now for the rhetoric and persuasion course

---