Feelings and attacks
"This man's ideas are wrong! He's way too young to understand politics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhTAY0R_SE
Ad hominem (abusive) – Instead of addressing the argument, the speaker attacks the person’s age. The critique targets the individual rather than the claim.
“I saw a kid drop their ice cream. Kids are so clumsy.”
Hasty generalization.
The speaker generalizes about all kids based on a single example. One incident does not prove a universal claim.
“You either support the school’s after‑school club or you don’t care about helping younger students.”
Fallacy Explanation: False dilemma. The argument presents only two options, as if they exhaust all possibilities. It ignores that one could care about younger students yet not support the club for valid reasons.
“Ever since the school started serving more fruit at lunch, students have been getting better grades. Clearly, eating fruit improves your grades.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Just because one event follows another does not mean the first caused the second. Other factors could explain the grade improvement (teaching methods, study habits, etc.).
“Only a lazy student would skip homework. You don’t want to be lazy, right?”
Uses emotionally charged words to pressure the listener.
Makes students feel judged rather than considering the real reason.
So many people on tik tok are hating on his actions! He really messed up!
Appeal to popularity (ad populum) – The argument relies on the fact that many people believe something, as if popularity equal truth. The number of supporters is treated as evidence of correctness.
“If you eat candy, you’ll get cavities. So, kids who have healthy teeth must never eat candy.”
Oversimplification.
The speaker reduces a complex issue (dental health) to a single cause-effect relationship, ignoring other factors like brushing or genetics.
"Did you also copy your friend's homework this time"
Fallacy Explanation: Loaded question (complex question). The question presumes guilt (that the person at some point copied his friend's homework). Any direct answer (“I stopped last week” or “I never did”) implicitly admits to the presupposed wrongdoing — regardless of truth.
“Students who listen to music while doing homework score higher on tests. Listening to music must make you smarter.”
Correlation ≠ causation. Two things may occur together without one causing the other. Perhaps motivated students both listen to music and study more effectively, or another factor explains the correlation.
“Why do you always make a mess in the classroom?”
Presumes guilt in the question itself.
Forces the listener into a position where any answer seems like an admission.
“Are you really going to say no? Think of how disappointed all of us will be.”
Appeal to emotion (ad misericordiam) – The argument uses guilt and emotional pressure instead of rational reasons. It appeals to pity or sympathy rather than evidence.
“Three kids who joined the after-school chess club improved their grades a lot. I should join too, to improve my grades
Cherry picking / selective evidence.
The argument only looks at a few successful examples and ignores the many other kids who joined the chess club but didn’t improve academically. The fallacy is subtle because it uses real-sounding success stories to support the conclusion, making it seem logical, even though the evidence is incomplete and non-representative.
Your teacher is trustworthy, so you can trust everything she says.
Fallacy Explanation: Begging the question. The argument assumes as given what it tries to prove — that the makers are trustworthy. It does not offer independent reason for fairness, but depends on the very assumption that needs justification.
“A recent survey shows that 8 out of 10 students who eat breakfast score higher on math tests. Therefore, eating breakfast is the key reason these students do well in math.”
Misleading statistics / overgeneralization.
Statistikken ser på en correlation, men ignorerer andre faktorer: maybe these students also study more, have more sleep, or have supportive parents. Fallacien er subtil, fordi talene virker overbevisende og “scientific”, men konklusionen reducerer en kompleks virkelighed til én faktore Elever kan godt genkende tal som valide på overfladen, hvilket gør det til en perfekt udfordring i undervisning eller Jeopardy.
“The cafeteria is now offering a ‘protein-rich option’,” instead of saying “We replaced pizza with plain boiled chicken.”
Uses fancier or more positive words to make something unappealing sound good.
Tricky because it hides the reality behind language, but kids can easily relate: they notice the food is not what they wanted.
“With everything that has already stressed the class this year, voting against the new break schedule could easily make people feel even more unsettled — and no one wants to be the one who causes more tension in the group.”
Appeal to emotion (fear + guilt), disguised as concern for group wellbeing.
The argument does not give any actual reasons for or against the break schedule. Instead, it hints that disagreeing will emotionally harm the group (“unsettled”, “tension”), and suggests that voting no makes you responsible for stress. It replaces evidence with emotional consequences and pressure to conform.
“Making kids do extra homework at home is like making adults work overtime every night. If it’s unfair for adults, it must be unfair for children too.”
Weak analogy.
The argument assumes that children and adults are comparable in the context of work and responsibility. While it seems plausible on the surface (both involve extra effort), children and adults differ in cognitive development, legal obligations, and social context. The analogy is misleading because it treats two dissimilar situations as if they were equivalent.
“Either you want everyone to have fun at the school trip, or you’re the one making things boring for everyone else.”
False dichotomy with manipulative framing. The speaker frames the situation as having exactly two camps — “fun‑lovers” vs “spoilsports” — thereby pressuring agreement. It hides other possibilities (e.g., wanting a safe, well‑organised trip, or having concerns about fairness) and turns dissent into a social “betrayal.”
“Students who get more sleep perform better academically. Therefore, the only reason some students fail is that they don’t sleep enough.”
Causal oversimplification. While sleep affects performance, many other factors (study habits, stress, nutrition, teacher quality) also influence grades. The argument falsely reduces a complex outcome to a single cause.
“Math doesn’t want students to fail; it just wants them to succeed.”
Treats an abstract concept as if it has human intentions.
Makes it seem like failure or success is caused by the subject itself, not by effort or context.
“You know some classmates are counting on you to help with the group project. If you refuse to contribute your part, it could make the whole group fall behind, and nobody wants to be the one who lets everyone down.”
It uses guilt and fear of blame instead of reasoning why the person should contribute. The pressure comes from the implied social consequence (“you would let everyone down”), not from a logical argument about why the project is important.
“Every time our class council implements a new rule, it’s praised by the students who speak up in meetings. The rule must be popular with all students.”
Confirmation bias / biased generalization.
The argument generalizes about the entire student body based only on feedback from the vocal students in meetings. The subtlety comes from the evidence seeming credible—these are real students expressing real opinions—but it ignores the silent majority, whose views might differ. The argument looks rational and data-based, but it’s actually a fallacy because it extrapolates from an unrepresentative sample.
“Since real leaders always stand by their friends, and you say you care about friendship — you must support the new class‑council candidate.”
Fallacy Explanation: Hidden assumption / unexamined premise. The argument smuggles in the premise that “real leaders always stand by their friends” — a normative claim presented as fact. It then treats the listener’s value of friendship as sufficient evidence that supporting the candidate is the right move. The structure pretends to be logical (“you value X → X implies support”), but the hidden premise is dubious.
“The school newsletter reports that students who join the chess club score higher on logic tests. Therefore, joining the chess club makes students smarter.”
Just because two things happen together doesn’t mean one causes the other. Students in the chess club might already be more motivated, organized, or supported at home. The argument tricks you by making it look like the club causes higher scores, but it really only shows a connection, not a cause.
“Everyone who cares about our school’s reputation will support the new dress code.”
Combines loaded language with subtle social pressure.
Suggests that disagreement equals being a bad person, without stating it directly.
Very hard to spot because it appeals to emotions, social norms, and abstract ideas all at once.