Logical Fallacies denote errors made during an argumentative presentation. Fallacies, in an argument, illegitimate the entire discussion or the points used to present the case. They are identified by a lack of circumstantial evidence to support the basis of the argument. Logical fallacies only demonstrate weakness and ignorance. Arguments are supposed to be based on and won by the use of logic and facts. However, logical fallacies are used when one is unable to state any facts, making the whole argument unfair. The use of logical fallacies may cause the user of them to seem as if they are attempting to avoid the topic, resulting in an image of ignorance. Also, it shows that the user has an absence of facts to back up his/ her argument, which results in an image of weakness. The following are logical fallacies one should avoiding an argument and identify in arguments made by others moral equivalence, straw man, red herring, ad populum/bandwagon appeal, ad hominem, either/or, circular argument, begging the claim, genetic fallacy, post hoc ergo, hasty generalization, and slippery slope.
The first example of logical fallacies is Ad hominem fallacy, which states that when people enter into arguments, the first thing that comes to their minds is launching riddled attacks to the opposing side. When a claim (feeling, conviction, whatever) is being contended, the nature of the individual creating the claim is tended to rather than the argument used to legitimize the claim. We should not confound the characteristics of the individual creation a claim with the nature of the claim itself. They are assaulting the individual creating the claim probably ‘disproves’ the claim. Be that as it may, it doesn’t. The basic mastermind must concentrate on the avocation offered for the claim (the argument) and not on the individual who makes it. On the contrary, personal attacks have on merit in a fact-based analytical argument. This kind of attack defines ad hominem fallacies in logic. Instead of advancing a sound voice of reason, ad hominem fallacies replaces the entire case with an attacking persona that no close relationship to facts on the issue.
The second fallacy is the Appeal to Emotion. We commit the error of appeal to emotion when we attempt to persuade someone to accept a conclusion not by offering reasons, but by around their feelings. Typical kinds of emotions appealed to in such arguments are fear, compassion, resentment, anger, pride, and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with appealing to emotion, so long as the argument does not depend on such appeals, but offers strong reasons as well. Such appeals may be included for rhetorical effect, but they do not form part of the argument properly and can be left out of the analysis.
Third, Genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy founded on an altercation that where a person, thing or idea comes from is the determinant factor on how the person, thing or idea is supposed, act, sound or look like. In this case, people tend to make assumptions based on genes, like for a person, people tend to make assumptions that one is supposed to act or instead look like his or her parents. Also, as for animals, people expect a specific breed to produce one that looks like itself. As for an idea, people expect it to sound like something someone would say.