Common Logical Fallacies Students Must Avoid

It is significant to understand that academic writing is mainly built on clear reasoning, understanding along with logical structure and sound evidence. Still academic writers with good knowledge of writing fall into the trap of faulty thinking which is commonly known as logical fallacies. Because of these logical fallacies, it often leads to errors that can weaken the argument, confuse the reader and can also undermine the entire writing. It is significant for the students to learn how to spot these fallacies and once they learn spotting the fallacies, it becomes easy for them to avoid these. Some of the most common logical fallacies that students must take care of are discussed. 

• The Straw Man Fallacy: This usually happens when the writer misinterprets the argument of the opponent to make it easier to attack. The writer further attacks the simplified version instead of addressing the real claim. For instance, if it is argued that the tuition fees for university should be reduced, then the response from the straw man emphasises on claiming that the colleges should run for free and professors should also not be paid. This is not determined as the original argument. And this can be avoided by summarizing the opposing viewpoints accurately; quoting the sources carefully and also engaging with the strongest version of the opposing argument as it is not easy to dismiss it. 
• Ad Hominem Fallacy: This means “to the person”. It is significant for the writer to address the argument and instead of this, they emphasise on attacking the character, personal traits or motives of the individual to make the claim. For instance, the argument about climate policy is not credible as she is not a scientist. Here, the background the person does not invalidates the evidence or reasoning. This can be avoided by focusing on evaluating the ideas instead of evaluating individuals. Additionally, writers can also avoid it by critiquing the logic, assumption or data instead of emphasizing on personal attributes. 
• The False Dilemma Fallacy: This type of fallacy usually occurs when the writer presents a situation with only two possibilities, while in reality there are more options available. For instance, there are options that either the school bans the use of social media or the students will never learn how to focus. These types of issues mainly exist on spectrum with a lot of solutions in between. This can be effectively avoided by acknowledging complexity and nuance at the same time. In addition, it also offers a wide range of possibilities which explains why the alternatives can be ineffective.  
• The Slippery Slop Fallacy: This type of fallacy suggested that a small step inevitably leads to a chain of related events which further results in a major negative outcome without having any evidence for the specific progression. For instance, if the students are allowed to redo only one assignment, they also expect to redo other assignments as well due to which their academic standards start collapsing. This further assumes a dramatic escalation without having any justification. This can also be avoided if evidences are provided for casual connections. In addition to this, it is also important for the writer to avoid exaggerating predictions that lack support. 
• The Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when the writer focuses on drawing the conclusion broadly based on unrepresentative or insufficient evidences. For instance, some of my classmates have struggled with the use of new learning platform, so it must be designed poorly. However, this example talks only about some of the students and thus, this does not represent the entire population of the school. This can also be avoided by using adequate sample size when making any claims, avoiding conclusions that go beyond the evidences and also look for broader data or research that effectively supports the generalization. 
• The Circular Reasoning Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion written by the writer simply emphasises on restating the premise instead of proving it. The argument loops back on itself instead of offering actual evidence which is more important. For instance, the novel is popular because people like it. This example explains nothing but the claim and proof are mainly the same statement. This can also be avoided in a similar manner by supporting claims with the help of independent evidences and by asking themselves, if they actually provide a reason or just emphasise on repeating the idea. 
• The Appeal to Authority Fallacy: This emphasises on relying on the opinion of some famous personality or respected individual instead of having actual evidences, especially in case when the authority is not expert in the particular field. For instance, if a celebrity supports any specific diet, so it must be healthy. It is significant to understand that expertise matters and authority does not prove his claim. This can be avoided by checking the qualification of the actual source used. And by using various reliable, scholarly sources instead of relying largely on authoritative voice. 
• The Post Hoc Fallacy: This fallacy assumes that if one event occurred prior to another event, it caused it. This correlation does not automatically imply causation. For instance, As the school emphasized on installing new wi-fi routers, the exam scores improved. Thus, the routers lead to this improvement. It can also be said that many other factors could also be involved in this improvement. This can be avoided by looking for evidences of the direct causal relationship. In addition to this, the writer also emphasise on considering the alternative explanations or variables.
• The Bandwagon Fallacy: This type of fallacy mainly occurs especially when the writer argues that the claim is true as many people believe this to be true. For instance, most of the students think that the test was unfair, so it must have been unfair. Thus, the popularity does not have any equal accuracy. This can also be avoided by focusing on the evidences instead of majority opinion. In addition to this, this can also be avoided by evaluating the claims independently of the public trends. 

It results in strengthening the academic writing by understanding the logical fallacies which helps in becoming a critical reader along with a persuasive writer. This can be done by re-reading the argument to effectively ensure that they are mainly supported by solid evidences. Moreover, it is also important to ask peers to review their logic as the main part of the revision process. Challenging the assumptions and considering opposing perspectives carefully while practicing to analyse fallacies in debates, articles along with social media posts.