http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/3912.jpg

->''I live by syllogisms: God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God. I don't know what I'd believe in if it wasn't for that.''
->-- '''StephenColbert''', ''TheColbertReport''

->''Logic, my dear Zoe, only allows one to be wrong with authority.''
->-- '''The Doctor''', ''DoctorWho''

Logic. Every story needs it, unless you just want a [[MindScrew series of unconnected images]] and [[GagSeries no plot to speak of]].

But the problem is, logic requires writers to think pretty hard about what they write, and not all writers have time (or intellect) for this. As such, they take shortcuts which at best can lead to {{Plot Hole}}s, and at worst undermines the entire story. Most {{Straw Vulcan}}s suffer from this, following the author's flawed view of what is logical. (For one thing, much of the time they say "logic" when they mean "rationality"; they aren't the same thing at all. But even when they get that much right, they still frequently fall into the errors listed below, or have their "logical" characters do so.)

Other times, writers deliberately invoke this, to make their characters more human, or to explain why they didn't take the best choice.

For examples of writers intentionally or unintentionally failing logic forever, see InsaneTrollLogic.

Not to be confused with LogicBomb.
----
!!Types of fallacies and examples
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma False dilemma]]''': Other names are the Either/Or Fallacy and the Black-And-White fallacy. As the alternate names indicate, this is portraying a problem as having only two solutions. For example, telling someone "either you stop eating ice cream or you will get fat" -- This ignores that there are other actions one can take besides stopping eating ice cream to avoid weight gain. Commonly invoked to set up a FriendOrIdolDecision or TheSadisticChoice. Subverted whenever a character [[TakeAThirdOption Takes A Third Option]].
** A common version of this is to assume that only the extreme ends of a scale are possible, without considering intermediate positions. For example "You're either with us or against us" or "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". See FalseDichotomy.
** Classic examples of this include such gems as "Do you like Kirk or Picard?" "Do you like drama or comedy?" and the particularly tenacious "Do you believe in science or faith?" These things and more are magnificent examples of attempts to force a person into choosing between two things that are entirely compatible.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_compromise Argument to moderation]]''': In some sense the opposite of a false dichotomy, assuming that the extreme ends of the spectrum are necessarily wrong and the best option must lie somewhere in the middle:
-->Bob wants to kill all puppies in the world.\\
Alice doesn't want to kill any puppies.\\
Therefore, we should compromise and kill 50% of all puppies.
** See GoldenMeanFallacy. Also known as "Regression to the Mythical Mean".
** This example of logic is used by HeroicSociopath Belkar Bitterleaf in [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html this strip]] of ''{{The Order of the Stick}}''
-->'''Belkar:''' See, now that's what being on a team is all about. You didn't want to kill any hobgoblins. I wanted to kill all the hobgoblins. So what did we do? We compromised, I killed ''one'' of the hobgoblins.
** ''SouthPark'' loves this one. In fact another name for this is the "South Park Fallacy".
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Begging the question]]''': "Proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly (few people are fooled by having your conclusion as your only premise, such as: "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill."). Such arguments are valid, and sound if the premises are true, but utterly vacuous. Be aware though, that "Begging the question" [[YouKeepUsingThatWord has come to mean]] "leading inevitably to the question" in popular use and for this reason, this fallacy is often referred to by its Latin name, ''petitio principii'' in more formal settings.
--> Alice says she didn't kill Bob.
--> Alice would never lie.
--> Thus, Alice didn't kill Bob (because she says she didn't.)
* '''Circular Reasoning''': Begging The Question used recursively. In many cases, the premises are all pushed into one sentence, or even, are simply implied. No matter how many steps there are in the argument it can be simplified to "It's true because it's true." It crops up a lot in political discussions.
-->I would support this bill if I thought it had enough support to pass\\
It doesn't currently have enough support to pass\\
Therefore, I will not support it, because it won't pass.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy Sharpshooter fallacy]]''': A way of fiddling statistics where you change the conditions until you "prove" what you want. The prototypical example is of a person shooting a gun at a wall, then painting a target around the bullet-hole, and claiming to have scored a bullseye.
** Anyone who claims to have found codes in TheBible or {{Shakespeare}} has more likely than not committed this one, since finding the codes involves trying every combination of letters until a message that suits your particular type of eschatology/authorship appears, and ignoring all the times that it does not.
*** This particular case was specifically shot down by a skeptic in a History Channel documentary about such Bible Codes - to prove that such a "spectacularly rare occurrence" actually was more likely than people were willing to admit, he applied the principles for finding codes to ''Moby-Dick'', and found "predictions" of the assassination of JFK. As with the metaphor of monkeys with typewriters, any sufficiently long stream of data, if looked over using enough different formulas, will produce a vague enough piece of text to correlate to some kind of event that occurred after that book was written.
*** Likewise, ''John Safran vs God'' lampooned these "codes" in a suitably hilarious fashion; "proving" that both the Bible and a federal 9/11 report predicted the rise and fall of {{Vanilla Ice}}, the latter retroactively.
** Likewise with all those claims of how various people's names are secret encodings of the {{Number of the Beast}}, 666. There are a lot of ways you can assign numbers to letters or words -- try enough of them, and you can probably make "666" somehow. [[http://www.openjs.com/scripts/666.php Here's]] a fun little program that will look for 666 in any string of letters.
*** Fun Fact: It can't come up with anything for "Satan," or "The Beast," with "the number of" being optional.
** Mentioned on ''{{NUMB3RS}}'', but the accusation proves to be invalid.
* '''[[http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts Moving The Goalposts]]''' (also called Raising The Bar) is closely related to the Sharpshooter Fallacy, but instead of you setting your goal wherever you want, you insist that your opponent must make a new argument, meeting a more restrictive set of requirements, each time he succeeds in proving his case.
** Are you listening, [[AceAttorney Judge From Ace Attorney Games]]?
** You'll find stories regarding moving the goalposts in military history, specifically making fun of supposedly superior new technology. This troper recalls hearing at least two stories where, in order to test out some new technology, war games were set up where the side representing the home team had said technology and the other side had what the enemy was expected to have. The "enemy" then proceeds to win the war games, completely legitimately, through cunning use of outdated or unorthodox technology and strategies. Rather than think, "Well, shit. Maybe we need to work on this some more," the commanders reset the games, declared the previous winning strategies against the rules, and tried again. This keeps going around in circles until finally the new technology renders the home team victorious.
*** This story is documented in the book "Blink."
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy Gambler's fallacy]]''': believing that dice/coins have memory: if a coin has just landed on heads four times in a row, surely it's much more likely to get tails this time, to even things out... or alternatively, heads is on a roll and will appear next time too. See also RandomNumberGod and YouFailStatisticsForever.
** In fact, if you toss a previously untested coin and (say) heads come up, there's a larger chance to get heads on a second roll, because the coin might be biased, although not very much larger, unless the coin is so warped that the imperfection is clearly visible.
**[[http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0099.html A Darths & Droids strip]] covered this one, with one player having a carefully prepared 20-sided die that had previously rolled two ones -- the chances of rolling 3 ones in a row is only 1 in 8000, so surely another one is almost impossible, right?
--> Narrator: By [[http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0195.html now]], the die is rolled. It's a 1; [[YouShouldKnowThisAlready Qui-Gon dies]].
--> Pete: (the one who prepared the die)? "Awesome! That die will be even luckier next time!"
** Any ''{{Warhammer}}'' gamer or tabletop roleplayer will tell you that [[RandomNumberGod this is absolutely true]].
** Discussed at length in ''[[RosencrantzAndGuildensternAreDead Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead]]'', in which Rosencrantz flips a coin eighty-five times in a row and gets heads every time. Guildenstern suggests that it shouldn't be surprising since each coin has an equal chance of coming up heads as tails. Rosencrantz is not satisfied with this explanation, and neither is Guildenstern.
***And the reason Rosencrantz and Guildenstren are confused? If a coin ''does'' do something like that, then it is probable that there's a bias towards the result it's constantly getting (e.g. that die that always rolls ones? Use it when you want to ''fail'' rolls!)
*** The chance of this series happening (with unbiased coins) is one in 38 septillion (that's million million million million), in case you are wondering. But the odds of getting ''any'' particular ordered set of 85 results is the same 38 septillion.
** Psychologically this fallacy tends to come from the fact that the odds to replicate a pattern ''do'' go up cumulatively. The odds of rolling 20 on a d20 twice is 1/400. The odds of rolling the first is 1/20, and the odds of rolling the second is also 1/20. The fallacy occurs when someone attempts apply the full cumulative odds to the next roll. Similarly the odds of rolling a 5 and a 17 on a D20 in that order are also 1/400, so that number's pretty irrelevant.
*** Another factor is that many people confuse "a ''number'' of independent events" with "a ''series'' of independent events". Flipping a coin once gives me a 50% chance of getting heads. Flipping it a second time, I still have a 50% chance of getting heads. They're independent events, and there happens that there are two ("a number") of them. No matter what the number is, they remain separate independent events. But if I pick up the coin and say, ''before I flip it at all'', "I'm going to flip this coin twice. What are the chances of my flipping two heads in a row?" the answer is that I have a 25% chance. I am not looking at two independent events but a specific series of events -- a head and then another head. There are four ways the flips can come out: Heads-heads, heads-tails, tails-heads, and tails-tails. Only one of the four is the series specified. By specifying the series, I've changed the probability.
*** It should be noted that random number generators in video games are actually more prone to causing the the Gambler's Fallacy to ''come true''. Random numbers in computers are created by repeatedly dividing out a seed number by a cycle of values to produce long decimal values, so the results tend to come in patterns. If your sword has a 1 in 20 chance of getting a critical hit, it is far more likely that you will actually get one critical hit every 20 times than if you were using dice.
**** You can also write a "random number generator" that actually does use a shifting bias to do this. This troper has heard that some games use it in order to appear more "fair", but cannot name one.
***** City of Heroes utilises a system called [[http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Streakbreaker#The_Streak_Breaker the Streak Breaker]]. This mechanic in the attack calculations forces misses to instead hit, based on the current number of misses in a row versus your chance to hit.
*'''[[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc]]''' (After this, therefore because of this): One thing happens, then another thing happens. Therefore, the first thing ''caused'' the second thing.
**[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming Pastafarianism]] claims that pirates prevent global warming, as the number of pirates is decreasing while temperatures increase as a parody of this type of thinking to demonstrate the flaw in logic.
**[[http://www.xkcd.com/111/ This xkcd strip]] using the rise of both Firefox and Wicca to imply that Firefox causes witchcraft. It's addressed directly in [[http://www.xkcd.com/552/ this strip.]]
**One episode of ''JusticeLeague'' features a journalist claiming that since white-collar crime has risen since the League formed, the League clearly causes that crime. (In fact, given the League's style, it's entirely possible that the smarter criminals turn to white-collar rather than blue-collar crime to reduce the chances of Superman slapping them around Metropolis, but his logic still doesn't track.)
** In ''TheSimpsons'' episode "Much Apu About Nothing", an isolated bear attack leads the Mayor to fund a massive Bear Patrol scheme. Homer claims the lack of bears proves the Bear Patrol works, at which point Lisa points out that you might as well say that a rock keeps tigers away, since she's holding the rock, and she can't see any tigers. Homer's response? "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
**''Sesame Street'' had a Bert & Ernie sketch where Ernie held a banana in his ear, claiming it kept away alligators.
-->Bert: "But there aren't any alligators on Sesame Street!"
-->Ernie: "I know, it's working!"
** In an episode of ''{{Numb3rs}}'', Charlie tells Don about the ice cream-rape correlation. As the sales of ice cream goes up, so do the number of rapes. The key is both take place during summer.
** ''TheWestWing'' had an episode named after the Latin name for this fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. In the episode, some of the White House staffers think President Bartletts electoral problems with Texas stem from him making fun of their 'big hats'. Bartlett mentions the above stated phrase, correcting them that his problem with Texas is his immigration policy.
** Another prominent example often used in statistics classes: The declining number of storks is responsible for the declining birth rate. It should be noted that the stork population and the birth rate of humans are usually both being affected by some third factor.
** A particularly absurd (joke) example: the pretty-much-undefinable ''Column 8'' in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' once featured a letter correlating the difficulty of the newspaper's Sudoku with the ''price of petrol''.
* '''[[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc]]''': "With this, therefore because of this." A less well-known sibling fallacy to Post hoc, Cum hoc is saying that because A and B occur together, A causes B. The difference between Post hoc and Cum hoc is that Post Hoc has a clear temporal relationship -- A happens first, then B, while Cum hoc does not have that temporal relationship; the two things may occur at the same time.
**This fallacy often comes up in discussions of videogame-related violence; the claim is that violent video games cause or encourage violent behavior in real life. This claim typically ignores other possible sources of correlation, such as that violence-prone people tend to enjoy violent games, or that some violent people prefer non-social activities that include games... or even that video games are simply becoming ubiquitous enough that almost ''every'' child plays them, so naturally the violent ones did too.
*** This exact argument is used in an episode of ''LawAndOrder'': Some kids attacked a woman and killed her. The kids played a video game with a similar attack, therefore, the video game caused them to attack the woman.
**This fallacy was used by Frederic Wertham to establish the comics code. He noted that juvenile delinquents tended to read comic books, so comic books must cause juvenile delinquency. Of course, during this time period comic books were more popular in America than they had ever been before or since. The typical child read about 5 comics a week, and adults, many of whom had picked up the habit during WWII when comics were sent overseas to servicemen, were not far behind.
**This has also been used to argue that listening to country music causes higher suicide rates, since places with a higher percentage of country music listening tend to also have a higher percentage of suicide.
**Since Type 2 diabetics are often overweight, it's commonly claimed by tabloid newspapers that "obesity causes [Type 2] diabetes" -- which has not been established by research, and ignores other possibilities, such as that Type 2 diabetes causes obesity, or (perhaps most likely) that ''both'' are caused by a genetic defect they have in common. After all, Type 1 diabetics are usually underweight, but nobody has ever suggested that "anorexia causes Type 1 diabetes".
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms Four terms fallacy]]''': Using a standard 3-step proof-of-concept to prove your theory, but including one unconnected tenet which breaks the line of reasoning. Results from equivocation. It's best explained by this example from ''LandOfTheBlind'':
-->A dry crust of bread is better than nothing\\
Nothing is better than a big, juicy steak.\\
Therefore, a dry crust of bread is better than a big, juicy steak.
::This uses two different meanings of the word "nothing"[=:=] the first line uses "nothing" to mean "a lack of food", while the second line uses "nothing" as "no such thing exists"
** An episode of ''YesMinister'' called this fallacy "The Politician's Syllogism", specifically the form: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this." The two different meanings of "something": "A solution to this problem" and "A thing" are mixed and said to be the same.
** The Stephen Sondheim musical ''AnyoneCanWhistle'' explains in "simple" terms what's wrong with leftists:
-->The opposite of left is right,\\
The opposite of right is wrong,\\
So anyone who's Left is wrong -- right?
** Real Life Example: In a museum, an employee sees a patron tapping on one of the replicas with his fist. Employee: "Sir, please don't touch that." Patron: "But it's a replica, isn't it?" Employee: "Yes, it is, but we still ask for you not to touch it." Patron: "Well, it's not under a glass case, which means it's not valuable. I have every right to touch it." Employer: "No, actually-" Patron: "Yes, If I see something that's not cased , it means I can touch it, AND I WILL TOUCH IT!" The four terms here are 1: "it is not in a glass case" 2: "I can (am physically able to) touch it", 3: "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and 4: "I will touch it". If 1 is true, then 2 is true; if 3 is true, then 4 is true. What's missing is the necessary step establishing either that 2 and 3 are the same, or, that if 2 is true, 3 is true as well.
** This fallacy, combined with Reification, is the reason that one of the classic "paradoxes" is not really a paradox at all, namely, "If God can do anything, can he make a stone so big he can't lift it?" The term used twice is the idea of "can do anything". In the first sense it is abstract, referring to a lack of limitations; in the second sense it is referring to the limitations of physical strength and the laws of physics.
***"If he is without limits, he should not be limited by his physical strength." Makes sense to me.
***God can't make a rock too heavy for him to lift, for the same reason that he can't make a square circle or a married bachelor. If something exists, He can affect it.
****The physically possible is still a limitation, of which he should not possess any if he can do anything. Of course, the logically possible is also a limitation, so if he can do anything, he should also be able to lift the rock he logically should not be able to.
*** Dealt with in ''{{Runaways}}'' - 'Could {{God}} make a sandwich so big He couldn't eat it?' 'Yes, and then He would eat it anyway.'
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatization Reification]]''' (no, not [[NeonGenesisEvangelion that kind]]): Sometimes related to the four terms fallacy, this is treating a abstract idea as a physical object. For example: "eating ice cream makes you happy. Therefore, eating more ice cream makes you more happy". This assumes that happiness is a thing that can be measured and which is a physical property of ice cream -- in fact happiness is an unmeasurable emotional response to ice cream, and would probably tail off at around the point that you started to get really sick and/or fat.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ad hominem fallacy]]''': Refuting an argument by attacking the person presenting it, rather than addressing the content of the argument itself. Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent ''in addition to presenting a valid counterargument''. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ''ad hominem''; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the 'Four Terms' fallacy, you stupid retard, therefore you're wrong" is not Ad Hominem. "Well, that is a very interesting argument, Jessica, and I'll bear it in mind, but considering you don't know the difference between chicken and tuna..." is. For example:
-->Bob thinks we shouldn't buy a pool, because it would be too expensive to maintain.
-->Bob once [[KickTheDog kicked a puppy]].
-->Why should we listen to someone who kicks puppies?
-->Therefore, we should buy a pool.
** This even applies when the ad hominem attack itself is ''related'' to the argument. Even if the supposition comes from a source that is known for fallibility, that does not logically make it untrue.
--->Bob thinks we shouldn't buy a pool, because it would be too expensive to maintain.
--->Bob once went bankrupt.
--->Why should we listen to economic advice from someone who went bankrupt?
--->Therefore, we should buy a pool.
***In fact, in some cases that fallibility may be a good reason to take advice from that person. I might well want to listen to economic advice from someone who went bankrupt. Maybe he went bankrupt ''because'' of the expense of maintaining a pool. Similarly, an admonition not to smoke would have more resonance coming from a smoker than from someone who never tried it themselves.
** Most people can recognize such a simplistic ad hominem attack as humorous, but that didn't stop DirecTv from flipping out at a spot by Time Warner asserting that "[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKkX1wvgBw DirecTv hates puppies]]"
** If you want to email JackThompson and argue against his beliefs about video games, mention that you're a gamer and that'll be all he needs to fire an ad hominem sniper rifle at you[[strike:r counterpoints]].
* '''Poisoning the Well''' is a variant of Ad Hominem where a person uses an Ad Hominem attack before the other person even speaks, in an attempt to get the audience to preemptively discredit what they are about to say.
** The movie ''{{Enemy of the State}}'' has the evil NSA officer order his minions to destroy Robert Clayton Dean's (WillSmith) reputation before Dean can go public with his proof of the officer's misconduct.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu Quoque]]:''' (literally "you, too!"), another variant of Ad Hominem, refers to the attempt to deny an argument by asserting that the person presenting the argument also suffers from the same flaw or has held an opposing view in the past.
-->'''Bob:''' "Smoking is a highly addictive habit and causes health problems. You should not smoke."
-->'''Alice:''' "But you yourself smoke! Therefore your argument is invalid."
--> (The fact that Bob smokes does not mean he is wrong.)

-->'''Bob:''' "This bill will be expensive and will not work, therefore you should vote against it."
-->'''Alice:''' "You supported the bill last month, so obviously you're wrong."
--> (Bob changed his mind in the meantime.)
** In some cases, Tu Quoque is a valid argument, but only when it is being used to question the speaker's reliability. It does not inherently invalidate the statement.
*** This is one of the reasons that the Nuremberg tribunal specifically forbade the defendants from bringing up Allied actions that could be considered war crimes (for instance, the bombing of Dresden).
*** This is a favorite tactic of politicians who want to discredit an opponent; they usually call it "flip-flopping" or "waffling" and use it to imply that the opponent can't make up their mind.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Reductio ad Hitlerem]]''' (also known as "Reductio Ad Nazium"): Hitler did it, therefore it's bad. Can be extended to other evil or unpopular people, such as Osama bin Laden. While persuasive, it's not always true, since while Hitler did a lot of evil things, he also was a massive advocate of animal rights (more so than Jewish, gay or Gypsy rights...), built motorways, painted pictures, hosted the Olympics, [[HitlerAteSugar ate sugar]] and breathed oxygen. Arguably the most extreme possible form of guilt by association, since everybody but ThoseWackyNazis hates Hitler. Related to GodwinsLaw and HitlerAteSugar.
**Classic example: ''"Y'know, Hitler was a vegetarian."'' And therefore vegetarians are as morally suspicious as a dude with a German accent in an ''IndianaJones'' film.
*** "Vegetarianism then: not all it's cracked up to be. In some extreme cases may cause genocide." -- Bill Bailey
*** Therefore, following all of the above: being an omnivore or being a vegan is fine, but anything in-between is evil.
**An anti-abortion [[JackChick Chick Tract]] claims abortion is wrong because Hitler killed Jewish babies, and therefore doctors who carry out abortions are as bad as Hitler.
** There's an interesting Inversion of this [[MemeticMutation making the rounds on the internet.]] Whenever some distressing news is revealed to the world, someone will inevitably use the clip from ''{{Downfall}}'' where Hitler has a VillainousBreakdown upon learning that Berlin will be overrun. The person making the video will often put their words into ''Hitler's'' mouth. Rather than declaring "Hitler would agree with you," they are implying "Hitler would agree with ''me.''"
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Association Fallacy]]''': Claiming a quality of one thing must be inherently a quality of another because they have something in common, e.g. "Water is a liquid. Water will put out most fires. Therefore, any liquid will put out most fires." [[http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/745115/ (Lucky idiot disproves this one.)]]
::One popular form is "guilt by association," linking a negative quality of one thing to another. If used to discredit a person's arguments, guilt by association also becomes an ad hominem fallacy.
** The debate over a recent ballot measure in Oregon that paid for children's health care by increasing the cigarette tax is an illustration of the guilt by association. The argument of many of the measure's supporters was essentially, "Big Tobacco opposes this measure. Big Tobacco is evil. Therefore, if you oppose this measure you are as evil as Big Tobacco."
**Recent conversation:
-->'''Speaker 1:''' "Judaism is weird. There are so many holidays on its calendar."
-->'''Speaker 2:''' "Well it depends on culture. The Mayans had a calendar so complicated only priests could understand it."
-->'''Speaker 1:''' "Didn't the Mayans SACRIFICE PEOPLE!!?"
::: (Both missing the point and wrong, not all cultures with complex calendars sacrifice people, and the Maya didn't sacrifice people)
** Stalin is sometimes used by religious conservatives to prove that Atheism is bad.
*** Hilariously inverted by author Richard Dawkins to argue that ''religion'' is bad by claiming that Stalin's atheism was religiously dogmatic, a rather shameless example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
:: The flip side of this is "honor by association," linking a positive quality of one thing to another.
** For example, one Usenet poster who claims that "dietary iron is the cause of all illness" (he's clearly never heard of anaemia) and that "therefore we should all become vegetarian" claims in his sig that "Jesus was a vegetarian". (Jesus was good; Jesus was vegetarian; therefore vegetarianism is good.) Of course, some posters have pointed out that this "reasoning" can be destroyed simply by deleting "Jesus" and substituting "Hitler", which by ''exactly the same argument'' that "proves" that vegetarianism is evil.
* '''NoTrueScotsman''': Similar to Moving The Goalposts, in that the opponents argument is disregarded because you've redefined the terms in your argument to match the conclusion you want. The classic example works by redefining the word "Scotsman" from "person from Scotland" to "person from Scotland who doesn't eat sugar with their porridge":
-->'''Alice''': No Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge.
-->'''Bob''': That's not true -- my Scottish uncle Scotty [=McScotscot=] from Glasgow puts sugar on his porridge all the time!
-->'''Alice''': But no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge!
**The game ''MetalWolfChaos'' features propaganda news reports that define a ''true'' American as "anyone who supports the idea of having the families and friends of terrorist sympathisers murdered in the streets" rather than "anyone who is a citizen or long-standing resident of America".
** This is the standard reaction to a mention of any unjust event involving or perpetrated by Christians in a discussion of the value of Christian morality which is itself an association fallacy.
*** It's worth noting that simply saying that something isn't really a member of a set isn't automatically this fallacy; No True Scotsman requires that the terms be redefined more narrowly ''after'' the counter-argument is presented. Also, if the group being referred to has clearly-defined or generally-accepted membership standards, pointing out that someone or something does not meet them is ''not'' NoTrueScotsman. In the example above, most of the things that are used to prove Christians are evil (Inquisition, hate, and other sorts of actions) are contrary to the teachings of Jesus (Thou shalt not murder, Love thy neighbor, et al), so if you define Christian as "someone who believes in Christ and attempts to follow his laws", rather than "anyone who claims to be a Christian no matter how they behave" you can use the "not a true Christian" argument without falling under "no true Scotsman".
*** However, because Christians can fall just about anywhere on the political spectrum (and usually still find Biblical justification for their views), it is common to hear this - for example, liberal Christians will sometimes claim that "no true Christian" would be opposed to gay marriage, because Jesus was all about love and compassion and human rights, whereas conservative Christians will claim that no true Christian could be in favour of gay marriage, because of God's wrath at the men of Sodom.
** Excessive use of this in the 2008 Presidential campaign led to ''TheDailyShow'' (fake news for fake Americans) producing a handy test: '[[http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=188637&title=quiz-are-you-a-real-american Are You A Real American?]]'
** See also instances of FanDumb redefining [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/True_fan "a true fan"]] from "someone who likes this work" to "someone who agrees with me."
*** In a line from the webcomic RPGWorld, the "player" of the [=RPG=] in the comic takes time out from playing to bash the game horribly on the Internet. After which he [[BreakingTheFourthWall turns to face the viewer]] and explains "You can tell I'm it's biggest fan, because I hate it the most." Ultimately, it's paradoxically true that only a rabidly, irrationally devoted fan of a work or genre will get that worked up about any percieved TheyChangedItNowItSucks.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_questions Many questions fallacy]]''': Phrasing your question in such a way that only one question is being asked directly, but other questions are implied. The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife?" -- If you answer "Yes" you are admitting that you ''used to'' beat her, but if you answer "No" you are admitting that you ''still'' beat her.
**One episode of ''TheSimpsons'' has the family being accused of being unpatriotic but, when given the chance to clarify, are asked loaded questions such as, "Which part of America do you hate the most?" There is no "correct answer", since naming any part allows the assumption that you hate the other parts too, just not as much.
***Another episode showed the Springfield Police Department official website, whose front page says "If you committed a crime and you wish to confess, click 'Yes'. Otherwise click 'No'". If you click 'No', the site assumes you committed a crime but ''don't'' wish to confess and dispatches a police car to your house.
**This is an easy way to brand someone a traitor in ''{{Paranoia}}''- simply ask "Are you a happy communist?" If they say no, they're saying they're not happy, which is treason. But if they say yes, then they're saying they're a communist, which is also treason.
*** Just asking these questions is an example of a False Dichotomy in that you assume the answer can only be 'yes' or 'no', whereas a normal person would say "I've never beaten my wife, get away from my family."
**** It's a common cross-examination trick to do this, because the attorney conditions the witness to respond "Yes" or "No" to everything and then *Bam!* traps them with this and forces them to give a detailed answer. The delay as the person scrambles to shift back and think of the correct answer is what makes them look "shifty." It's the reason for the objection "Assumes a fact not in evidence."
*** There's ''another'' False Dichotomy in the assumption that "no" means you have at one time beaten your wife. Since the active verb here is "stopped" someone who has never started cannot stop, and should therefore answer "no" It's another Four Terms Fallacy, this time with the hidden term being the contraction of not having stopped and having started.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman Strawman]]''': Beloved of {{Author Tract}}s the world over, this fallacy involves misrepresenting your opponent's views, or only attacking their weakest arguments, and then claiming that because you beat this "straw man", you beat their entire argument. See TheWarOnStraw.
** One variant is sometimes known as a "RedHerring" argument. Whereas the StrawMan will extrapolate details into a second argument in order to apparently defeat the first, a Red Herring will establish a second argument to try to make everybody else involved forget all about the first one. It's named for an old method of training hound puppies to follow a scent trail, by using a a "red herring" (a type of smoked, dried fish with a distinct scent) to lay down a trail for them to practice on. Because this was the scent they were originally trained to follow, dragging a bundle containing red herring across a real scent trail could draw an adult pack off on a false trail.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Affirming the consequent]]''': Claiming that because the result of something is true, the original statement must also be true. For example:
-->If a car is a Ferrari, it is fast.
-->My car is fast.
-->Therefore it is a Ferrari.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent Denying the antecedent]]''': The opposite of the above, where you say that because the initial conditions did not happen, the result is impossible. Example:
-->If a person is wearing a hat, they have a head.
-->I am not wearing a hat.
-->Therefore I do not have a head.
** In American Dad, Stan sinks his entire savings to build a rocket for Steve to win a contest.
-->Stan: You gotta spend money to make money.
-->Francine: But you didn't make any money!
-->Stan: So logically, I didn't spend any money! [[NoFourthWall *waves at the camera*]] Goodnight everybody!
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy Sunk cost fallacy]]''': When somebody's sacrificed or invested a great deal in a cause or project, they tend to become irrationally dedicated to it. This applies even when the costs invested can't be recovered. More of a cognitive bias than anything. Example:
-->If I spend fifteen dollars on this contest, I can win the prize.
-->I can buy the prize elsewhere for five dollars.
-->I have already spent eight dollars on the contest. Since I don't want the money to be wasted, I will continue.
**A particularly tragic example of this -- with much higher stakes -- can be found in ''The OrderOfTheStick: Start of Darkness''.
*** And in fact, following his MyGodWhatHaveIDone moment in the main comic, Redcloak does it ''again''. He seems to like it.
**Tends to afflict professional sports teams as well. Team A signs Johnny Studmuffin to a 10-year, $200 million guaranteed contract. Turns out, Johnny's a bit of a malingerer and spends the first three years playing poorly for Team A. Many, many teams in this situation will continue to play Johnny, even after it's clear that he's a bad player, simply because they invested assloads of money in him. The reality is, Johnny's getting that $200 million no matter what, so the best move is to cut him and play the best players.
*** Professional sports are a curious example, because it takes a high degree of confidence to coach at that level, and so many, many coaches will keep playing Johnny in the belief that they can coax back the talent that made him rich. Similarly, in such a public-relations driven business, cutting ties with such an expensive failure reflects terribly on the team that signed him, while watching said player stink it up in the field draws the attention to him.
*** Not to mention [[ProfessionalWrestling fake sports companies]]. Far too often a "talent" is given a generous amount of screen time not because they're skilled, but because they've been signed to fixed-term, guaranteed-money contracts and the company feels that they have to get some use out of them, even if they pull down the show with them.
** In psychology this is generally related to cognitive dissonance theory, which is basically the idea that when people think of themselves one way, but act in another way they will try to rationalize it. Specifically people think they make good decisions, but when the decisions aren't paying off, they throw more effort after it to make the decisions good rather than admit they made a bad decision.
*** It's also known on social psychology as a great way to inspire obedience or adherence to a group. Cults are known for using this: How about you read a flyer? Sure, that cost nothing. Hey, why don't you answer this quiz on how happy you are with your life? Well... You've already read the flyer, that's not much more effort. How about going to a session? This technique is called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_in_the_door Foot In The Door]], or [[http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html The Camel's Nose.]]
** In business, this is known as "throwing good money after bad."
** In poker, the term is "pot committed". The best poker players can overcome the fact that they've put half of their money into the pot to get away from a hand that has little chance of winning (rather than throwing the other half in and busting out). This assumes, however, the the player still has a healthy amount of money in relation to the pot. If the pot has become very large in relation to the player's remaining money, putting the remainder of their money in with a hand that will lose most of the time can still, on average, be a profitable move, because one large win will compensate for many small losses.
** In movie production, it's a "Pay or Play" contract. An actor, in forethought, has a contract made that says either they play a certain role in a future film, and are paid accordingly, or they are paid anyway to ''not'' take the role. Best example would be Billy Dee Williams, as Harvey Dent in Tim Burton's first ''{{Batman}}'' film. He knew the character, as opposed to the producers (Burton has gone on record as ''bragging'' that he has never read a comic book), and knew what could come in sequels. Then comes [[BatmanForever the third movie]] and Williams gets paid-off so they can have [[LargeHam Tommy Lee Jones]] take the role.
** More serious in life or death matters. Dead troops are a sunk cost, but many nations across history have continued on losing military campaigns because their leadership could not face up to having wasted troops. As in gambling or business, the usual result is even more waste.
*** Used by proponents of continuing USA's presence in Iraq, usually with touching stories of dead soldiers' mothers saying "please, don't let my son's death be in vain". This exact example was brought up by [=McCain=] in at least one presidential election debate in 2008.
** This is often the reason people will spend lots of time on internet arguments, even after they're losing. Or as [[{{Dilbert}} Scott Adams]] put it, "Nothing makes [someone] argue harder than being proven wrong."
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_determinism Retrospective determinism]]''': Assuming that because something happened it was therefore bound to happen. Often brought up as justification for HitlersTimeTravelExemptionAct by saying that WorldWarII was inevitable.
** Extremely common for people who should know better, "If I (we) don't do/make/use it, someone else will". Most commonly used to justify a nation developing inhumane or destabilizing weapons. Also used by fans of fantasy fiction to claim that gunpowder is an inevitable invention when the idea of mixing up sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter (made from urine) in the proper proportions is anything but inevitable.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition Error of Composition]]''' -- claiming that because a statement is true of the parts, it must be true of the whole. Example:
-->Everything is made of atoms.
-->Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
-->Therefore everything is invisible to the naked eye.
** ''WildWildWest''. Will Smith and Barry Sonnenfield were a great team with ''MenInBlack'', so any movie made by this pair will be a hit.
** CirqueDuSoleil and Criss Angel are both popular, so it was believed that a collaboration between the company and the magician on a Las Vegas magic show was money in the bank; instead, ''Criss Angel -- Believe'' is shaping up to be an embarrassing flop.
** Comedian Dave Attell uses this in his stand-up act.
--> Two smells together just reek. Even your most favorite smells. Like cotton candy, I love it! And scotch whiskey, yum-a-dumb-dumb. But cotton candy and scotch, that's a weird funk, it's like: "Oh MAN! Did someone just f*** a clown in here?
** Jim Gaffigan does too
--> Fruit, good. Cake, great. Fruitcake, nasty crap.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Error of Division]]''': Generalizing from a whole to the parts. Example:
-->This ensemble show is extremely popular\\
Therefore, any show starring any member of the ensemble should be popular.
**The supposed ''{{Seinfeld}}'' curse is a classic example disproving this fallacy.
** ''Trail of the PinkPanther'', ''Curse of the Pink Panther'', ''Son of the Pink Panther'': everyone likes a Pink Panther movie regardless of whether Inspector Clouseau (as played by PeterSellers) is actually in it, right?
** ''StarWars: The Clone Wars'': a Clone Wars movie? The Warsies will love it, even though it is not directed by Genndy Tartakovsky or GeorgeLucas and it's CGI.
** As of early 2009, Marvel seems to think ''[[IronMan Iron Man 2]]'' will be just as good without Terrence Howard. Or SamuelLJackson. Or potentially Jon Favreau.
*** As of mid 2009, Terrence Howard's not in it, but [[http://www.bamkapow.com/first-look-at-nick-fury-in-iron-man-2--3141-p.html Jackson]] and Favreau are.
** "Hey, ''MythBusters'' is popular, and it has explosions in just about every episode! Let's make a [[SmashLab show]] centered around StuffBlowingUp!"
** ''Joey'': A spin-off of ''Friends'' that flopped horribly. Apparently the developers fell afoul of this fallacy.
** Subverted in the ''[[{{MASH}} M*A*S*H]]'' episode "Rumor at the Top" in which the gang thought the Army was planning to send one of them to a new [=MASH=] being set up because the 4077th was so efficient. However, it turned out that the Army was planning no such thing as they realized that the 4077th only worked so well because of the combination of people.
* '''The Cab Driver's Fallacy''': Similar to the sunk-costs fallacy; having a particular goal in mind and refusing to give up on it, however impossible it seems, while also ignoring the possibility of doing even better. Named for the tendency of taxi drivers to have a specific amount they'll try and earn each day. On slow days they will keep going to reach the target, while on good days they will quit early as soon as the target is reached. They would do much better when they go home early on slow days and keep going past their target if it's busy.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy Perfect Solution Fallacy]]''': Arguing that a plan is no good because it won't completely solve the problem, even if it does make an improvement. For example,
-->Using reusable bags instead of paper or plastic will help the environment.
-->However, using them won't solve the problem completely.
--> Therefore, since it isn't the best possible single solution, it isn't worth doing at all.
** This is popular when answering a technical question on the internet: "There is no solution to your problem which I can guarantee to work in 100% of all cases. So I'm not going to bother telling you what will work in 99% of all cases."
** This is ''extremely'' popular with anti-vaccinationists. Their reasoning: a particular measles vaccine only protects 95% of the time, so they'd rather take their chances with a ''potentially fatal'' disease. [[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/vaccines_the_fallacy_of_the_perfect_solu.php Oh, how I wish I were making this up.]] This reasoning ignores that, due to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity herd immunity]], 95% of the time is more than enough.
** This has even happened with the U.S. Army. In a series of tests to find a replacement for the M-16 assault rifle, all of the competitors were disqualified for not producing a ''guaranteed'' first-round hit.
** Also very popular among people who oppose condom distribution. Since condoms don't prevent pregnancy 100% of the time, and since there are certain [=STDs=] that condoms are ineffective against, it is better to simply take condoms off the table entirely than let people know they are effective most of the time for preventing pregnancy and STD transmission.
*** And just as popular among people ''in favor'' of condom distribution. Since not everyone will practice sexual abstinence, it is better to disregard abstinence as an option and simply hand out condoms.
** Very popular among anyone crusading against a perceived social problem. Any effort to improve the problem will be met with howls of protest that it doesn't eliminate the problem completely, even if the problem is endemic to, say, being alive.
*** A particular example of this can be seen in the responses to a single case of HIV being reported in the American porn industry. Dozens of activists screaming that the industry's voluntary testing system was worthless, because it had not prevented someone from contracting HIV in the first place. Never mind that this system was what gave the porn industry an infection rate vastly, vastly lower than that of the general population.
** Also popular among people opposed to welfare. "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."
*** And just as popular among people ''in favor'' of welfare. "Not everyone in a free market society can/will pull themselves out of poverty, therefore we must have welfare."
** Note that this is not always a fallacy. If choosing an imperfect solution prevents one from choosing a better solution, one might reasonably object to the first imperfect solution.
***True. But that's not the same thing. The ''fallacy'' is in refusing to accept a reasonable solution because it is not a ''perfect ''solution. If there is a better (but inevitably still imperfect) solution available, it's reasonable to reject the first in favour of the second. The fallacy comes in if you then reject the second solution without a third, even better one to replace it. To go back to the "Painting your roof white" example, if you have only a certain amount of money to spend on reducing your heating and cooling costs, choosing to spend it on painting your roof white may make it impossible to also do other things that will have a greater effect, like improving your insulation or buying new, more energy-efficient windows. In that case, it is not fallacious to say "This solution is not good enough, therefore I won't choose it."
* '''[[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/undismid.html Undistributed Middle]]''': This fallacy occurs when the middle term of a standard three-step syllogism is not distributed in either premise. The picture at the top of this page is a case of undistributed middle. Using that image, "black and white" is the middle term: the term that appears in both premises; it is undistributed because neither premise refers to ''all'' things that are "black and white". Newspapers are black and white as well, and they are neither penguins nor old TV shows. "Things that are black and white" is the superset, and it contains many subsets that do not overlap at all. In casual use, undistributed middle can be hard to spot:
--> Conservatives always want to raise taxes.
--> Alice says that she's a Liberal, but she also says that the sales tax needs to be raised.
--> She's lying about being a Liberal; she's really a Conservative.
::The point is not how "Liberal" and "Conservative" are defined, it's that at no point is it established that ''only Conservatives'' can want to raise taxes.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example Proof By Example(s)]]''' or '''Inappropriate Generalization''': Taking one or more non-exhaustive examples from a group that have a property, and making a generalization that everything in that group has that property.
-->3 is a prime number, and it is odd.
-->13 is a prime number, and it is odd.
-->97 is a prime number, and it is odd.
-->Therefore, all prime numbers are odd.
** Note that it would be logical to prove that "at least three prime numbers are odd" by these three examples; it simply cannot be generalized to ''all'' prime numbers, since 2 is ''also'' a prime number, but is even.
** Also note that the generalization '''can''' be made if the list of examples is exhaustive, in which case it is known as "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion proof by exhaustion]]" or "proof by cases", and is not a fallacy anymore:
--->The sum of the angles of any acute triangle on a plane add up to 180°.
--->The sum of the angles of any right triangle on a plane add up to 180°.
--->The sum of the angles of any obtuse triangle on a plane add up to 180°.
--->All triangles on a plane are either acute, right, or obtuse, therefore the sum of the angles of ''any'' triangle on a plane add up to 180°.
--->(While triangles on the surface of a sphere, for example, do weird things, the surface of a sphere is not a plane; therefore, that case is not relevant to the proof.)
** It's also proper to ''disprove'' by example:
--->2 is a prime number, and it is even.
--->Therefore, not all prime numbers are odd.
** Usually, in mathematics, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewe%27s_number no matter how many examples you might have]], proof by example is not a [[PotHole good idea]].
* '''Proof By Obfuscation''': Making your argument as confusing as possible in hopes that people can't find the flaws in your logic, then claiming you're right since nobody refutes you.
**Taken to its (il)logical extreme with South Park's ChewbaccaDefense
** The converse of that is to ignore or discredit an opinion just because it is confusing or poorly communicated. Just because the poster committed Aggravated Assault on their spellchecker is not proof that their points are incorrect.
* '''Argumentum ad nauseam''', also known as '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion proof by assertion]]''': Repeating a statement until nobody cares to respond anymore, then claiming you're right since nobody contradicts you.
* '''The [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope Slippery Slope Fallacy]]''': Based on the idea that an object placed at the top of a slippery slope will slide all the way to the bottom if given even a small nudge, the Slippery Slope fallacy is arguing that even a small step taken in one direction will eventually lead to some drastic consequences. This "argument" usually ignores the individual connections between events in favour of simply linking one event inevitably to another. However, it is not a fallacy if one does establish the chain of logical implications (or quantifying the relevant probabilities).
** Used frequently by politicians, naturally. Especially shows up around election time where voting for an opponent will usually be portrayed as resulting in a {{dystopia}} of some sort, usually authoritarian in nature, but is also used to argue against such changes as universal health care in favour of StatusQuoIsGod.
** DarthWiki/TropersLaw is a reaction to a slippery slope argument commonly found on this very wiki. "If we do anything in a way similar to the way that Wikipedia does it, we will become as restrictive and bureaucratic as Wikipedia is."
** BillMaher rebutted this type of fallacious reasoning in a routine: "Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."
** The slippery slope fallacy is often combined with the strawman: Poster A explains why we should legalize Marijuana. Poster B claims that legalizing Marijuana will require us to legalize Heroin, and then post reasons why legalizing Heroin is a bad idea. If Poster B can show a proper logical chain, then this is an acceptable refutation, but rarely is that possible.
** If you give a mouse a cookie...
*** [[RobotChicken ...and that's why I had to kill daddy!]]
**One iaijutsu (a Japanese sword style) master wrote that students should never practice cutting objects with their swords. The reasoning was that tatami mats aren't realistic enough, so they should cut chickens. But chickens aren't realistic enough, either, so they should cut human cadavers. But cadavers aren't realistic enough, either, so they will end up [[WallBanger kidnapping people and chopping off their limbs to perfect their sword stroke]].
*** Practice murders were actually a significant problem in feudal Japan.
** Interestingly, this ''can be'' a valid argument in the case of a legal decision that will be establishing a legal precedent because of the nature of legal precedent.
** Eugene Volokh has written [[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm a paper about the slippery slope]] that analyzes examples where it can be valid.


A special subset of fallacies are appeals: claims that a position is right made by making a purely emotional argument.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature Appeal To Nature]]''': Claiming that something is good, or better than another thing, because it is natural, regardless of whether or not this is actually an advantage -- after all, snake venom is natural, but that doesn't make it good. For examples, see AllNaturalSnakeOil.
**''"Drink up, Socrates, it's all natural."''
**In ''{{Troll 2}}'', an evil witch is able to convince [[IdiotBall someone]] to drink a steaming green broth that has just turned someone else into green goo because "it is made from vegetable extracts".
**And let's not forget a similar scenario in the first episode of ''TheSarahJaneAdventures'', where aliens convince millions of people to drink a new energy soda that contains [[spoiler: alien parasites]] called "Bane" simply by claiming that Bane is "organic" (and by extension "healthy").
** And in the {{Discworld}} novel ''Discworld/CarpeJugulum'', King Verence is talked into drinking a potion after being told "It's got herbs in", on the assumption it must be healthy. He spends most of the remainder of the book foaming at the mouth and randomly attacking inanimate objects. This, however, turns out to be useful. It should be noted that said potion is what the Feegles, six-inch pictsies who can drink their weight in lamp oil with no ill effects, drink to get their spirits up before marching into battle.
*** Also, scumble is made from apples. Well, mostly apples.
** A famous example from mathematics is Giovanni Saccheri's attempt to prove the parallel postulate. In his book, ''Euclid Freed of Every Flaw'', Saccheri assumed the postulate was false and tried to derive a contradiction. Instead, he derived results that got stranger and stranger, finally concluding that they were "repugnant to the nature of straight lines". Saccheri didn't know it, but he was developing what we now call hyperbolic geometry -- a fruitful field of study that just doesn't work the same way Euclidean geometry does.
** ''{{Eureka}}'' had an episode where everyone was becoming dumber, and the supposedly-a-genius farmer didn't think the additives she were using were bad, since they were "organic"...In a town of super-geniuses, granted lacking in common sense sometimes, this seemed [[WallBanger rather glaring in its stupidity]]
** Parodied in a Fry and Laurie sketch where a doctor is offering his patient cigarettes as a cure. "They're herbal are they?" asks the patient. "Yes, a naturally-occurring herb called tobacco, I believe."
*** Another Fry and Laurie sketch had a bedtime drink containing "nature's own barbiturates and heroin".
** [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann Rep. Michelle Bachman of Minnesota]] has made several speeches that are notable for their sheer illogical vacuousness. In one example, she said that Global Warming can't be real because scientists claim that it is caused by carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide occurs in nature, and therefore, ''it is impossible for it to do harm'', therefore, Global Warming either can't be real, or if it is real, will only help us.
** Eric Schlosser mentions this in FastFoodNation: sometimes artificial things are better for you than natural ones. The example he uses is almond flavoring; extracted naturally, it contains trace amounts of cyanide.
* '''Appeal To Inherent Nature''': If something is naturally predisposed to a certain act or state, it must be accepted. Snakes bite, bears maul, poisons kill, babies scream and shit themselves, sociopaths torture and Nazis commit genocide; but those are their natures so we should not hold it against them.
** This one is OlderThanDirt. In the form of ''The Tale of the Scorpion and the Turtle'', it dates back to an ancient Sanskrit collection of folklore that was first translated into English in 1570.
-->A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on his back across a river. "Are you mad?" exclaimed the turtle. "You'll sting me while I'm swimming and I'll drown."\\
"My dear turtle," laughed the scorpion, "if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you. Now where is the sense in that?"\\
"You're right!" cried the turtle. "Hop on!" The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle resignedly said, "Do you mind if I ask you something? You said there'd be no sense in your stinging me. Why did you do it?"\\
"It has nothing to do with sense," the drowning scorpion sadly replied. "It's just my nature."
** RealLife: Often used by people who want to excuse their own bad behavior rather than admit that maybe they crossed a line somewhere. "It's just the way I am." Not a 100% fallacious argument in that it's got some basis in fact when taken on the level of a single person, but fallacious enough that it usually comes off as lame and immature when people use it.
*** In a crossover between media and real life, this fallacy often shows up on reality shows, with at least one contestant each season declaring proudly "That's just who I am." when called out for acting like a bigot, an asshat or a bitch.
** When John Crichton, in ''{{Farscape}}'', comes off to Aeryn as being unnaturally sex-obsessed, he says, [[AllMenArePerverts "I'm a guy!"]]
** This is also a trope in certain religious/spiritual teachings, where it is assumed that value is subjective and not inherent to the thing in question.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty Appeal To Novelty]]''': Arguing that one thing is automatically better than another because it is newer. See NewAndImproved.
** British Television Quiz QI is extremely guilty of this trope. The entire premise of the show is turning "popular" knowledge on its head or proving old preconceptions wrong. As a result, lots of people believe the alternative, not for the inherent value of the statement, but because it's different.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition Appeal To Tradition]]''': The opposite of appeal to novelty, where the ''older'' position is right. See TheyChangedItNowItSucks.
** The short story "The Lottery" uses this.
** Illustrated in ''TheSimpsons'' episode "Wacking Day", where snakes are herded to the town square and beaten to death with clubs. Lisa and Barry White are the only characters who are initially disgusted with the idea.
** In a similar vein, [[WeirdAl Weird Al's]] song ''Weasel Stomping Day'' is about a fictional holiday where people spread mayonnaise on their lawns, put on viking helmets and hiking boots in order to crush weasels to death. Complete with tongue-in-cheek lyrics such as "It's tradition that makes it okay" in order to mock the idea that an abhorrent act is acceptable if it is 'traditional'.
** Often used in political debates, especially about social issues. E.g. Same Sex marriage opponents often scream "but marriage between a man and a woman is TRADITION!!!! Therefore, gay people must never marry!!!"
*'''[[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Appeal To Authority]]''' (Also called Irrelevant Authority, Inappropriate Authority, or Questionable Authority.): "I'm right because this expert says the same thing." This one can be tricky, because citing experts isn't always fallacious. Generally speaking, there are six main criteria concerning the authority that must all be satisfied for this to not be fallacious:
## The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
## The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
## There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
## The person in question is not significantly biased.
## The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
## The authority in question must be identified.
:: Citing Albert Einstein as an authority on a question of Relativity may not be fallacious. Citing him as an authority on a question of marine biology ''is''.
**In ''LeftBehind'', the entire world believes a {{Technobabble}} nuclear physics explanation of the Rapture because a ''botanist'' and the ''president of Romania'' (note: not a nuclear scientist) say it's so. Later on in the book, the pseudo-religious explanation of the Rapture is accepted because it's espoused by an ''airline pilot''. Because moderately distinguished airline pilots are noted for their theological expertise. This example fails to meet criteria numbers 1, 2, and 3 at least. 4 is questionable.
**In ''TheSimpsons'' episode "The Monkey Suit", creationists seeking to ban the teaching of evolution succeed by getting a scientist to testify in court that evolution is a myth -- a scientist with a degree in "Truthology" from "Christian Tech". This one fails 1,3,4, and 5.
** Likewise, in one episode of ''{{Dinosaurs}}'', in a trial for the heretical view that the earth is round, the "expert" who testifies that the world is flat's stated qualifications are that he is ''wearing a white lab coat'' and his "proof" that the world is flat is the existence of a flat-earth "globe". If a man in a white lab coat has a flat-earth globe, ''he can't possibly be wrong''. This one fails all of them except number 6.
** Similarly, a combination of this and Appeal To Popularity (below) is used whenever people talk about however many scientists oppose or support the theory of climate change. What very few claims of this type state is how many of said scientists are ''climatologists'', and even then, it doesn't state how many have actually done any accurate work studying climate change. Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the problem that climatologists can be well-studied, have done a host of research, and still be wrong. Science is not decided by how many people agree, but by the one person who is right. This one almost always fails 1,2, 3 and 4, and often fails 6, as well.
** Far too many people thought that the Large Hadron Collider would annihilate the earth because a ''botanist'' said it would. 1, 2, and 3 fail again.
** "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Trident Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum." Fails on number 6 -- the dentists are never identified.
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_crumenam Appeal To Wealth]]''': Claiming that the position is correct because the rich or famous support it. This is the basis behind {{Celebrity Endorsement}}s, especially when the celebrity's area of expertise is not relevant to the issue. See ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney.
** Today a lot of people take advice about all sorts of things from showbiz celebrities.
** A lot of people today embrace the inverse: if someone from Hollywood said it, it must be bullshit. That is equally fallacious.
** [[LampshadeHanging Lampshaded]] all to hell and back by a Sprite commercial that had NBA player Grant Hill doing the standard "Sprite is what I drink when my thirst really needs quenching" shtick while pictures of him holding fistfuls of cash appeared in the corner, with accompanying cash register sounds. The final screen said, "Drink Sprite because you like it. Not because an athlete says he does." This was used to wind down the "Grant Hill Drinks Sprite" ad campaign and kickoff the "Image is Nothing. Thirst Is Everything. Obey Your Thirst." campaign
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Appeal To Popularity]]''': Many people believe it, therefore it must be right. See QualityByPopularVote. This fallacy can be completely inverted while remaining the same, if the argument made is that "No one likes it, therefore it must be wrong."
** Basically, even if they are right in that particular instance, fifty-million Elvis fans can, in fact, be wrong.
** As can two hundred lemmings.
*** Another prime example, as well as an ''Appeal to Authority''. If everyone, including random authorities say lemmings commit mass suicide.... The truth: [[http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s979473.htm Stoats]].
**** Not to mention that a famous lemmings-jumping-off-a-cliff video, as filmed by Disney, had people off-camera herding the lemmings over said cliff.
*** Lots of "common knowledge" surrounding various animals survives because of the appeal to popularity. The idea that the adult sizes of fish and reptiles are determined by tank size falls into this, as well as the idea that birds won't take back hatchlings that smell like humans (fun fact: very few birds actually have a sense of smell acute enough to notice if their baby smells strange).
**** This is also why people think piranhas are solely carnivorous. In fact, they're omnivores, and eat primarily insects, seeds and other fish.
** The 'Appeal to Popularity'' fallacy is also sometimes called "Eat Shit! Millions of flies can't be wrong".
** "The Mob Song" from ''Film/BeautyAndTheBeast'' includes the line "Here we come, we're fifty strong and fifty Frenchmen can't be wrong".
** The dot-com bubble was caused by many investors believing this fallacy. People invested in companies that made popular websites, but that does not mean that those sites are profitable and would be able to provide a positive return.
** Note, though, that the appeal to popularity can be non-fallacious if and only if the criteria for measuring quality is popularity. For instance in a list of "best-selling books" the ranking can only be determined by how many people bought each book, not by whether it's considered a good book or not.
--> In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. - Galileo Galilei
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''': The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
--->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
--->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
--->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
--->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
::Or, conversely,
--->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
--->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
--->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
--->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.
** Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
** A related attempt to prove the existence of God is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument Anselm's Argument]]. To wit: Man can think some thoughts and imagine some ideas which are greater than others. An idea which is conceived of and which exists is better than one which is only imagined. There must exist some idea which is greater than all others. Such a thing would be God. Therefore God exists. This can be said to be an appeal to consequences because it assumes the most desirable possibility to be the real one, a bit like the preceding example about global warming. It also uses "greatness" in a rather shady way, leaves out the possibility that a fictional idea can be so much greater than all others that it doesn't need the added bonus of being real, and assumes that existence is proven by the idea of a thing and not the experience of it, But that's beside the point.
** Creationists like this one. In fact, even if [[GodwinsLaw Hitler's policies had been informed]] by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing in the slightest on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
*'''AppealToObscurity''': Something is wrong because nobody's ever heard of the person who did the thing. The person used in the example may not even exist.
--> '''Alice''': I don't think I want to drill a hole in my head. \\
'''Bob''': Yeah, Chuck Smithenson didn't drill a hole in his head either. \\
'''Alice''': Who?\\
'''Bob''': ''Exactly''.
**If you break this one down and examine it, it's actually two fallacies wrapped up in one. Bob starts with a single example -- Chuck Smithenson did not drill a hole in his head and did not become famous. First he commits an error of composition, extrapolating that into the general rule that anyone who does not drill a hole in their head will not become famous. Then he Denies the Antecedent -- Anyone who does not drill a hole in their head will not become famous. Alice will drill a hole in her head, therefore Alice will become famous. Bad logic all around there, Bob.
** It is worth noting that [[{{Scanners}} Darryl Revok]] ''did'' drill a hole in his head and ''is'' moderately famous, but most of his fame derives from [[YourHeadASplode exploding someone else's head.]] Although his fame and his drill-scar are not coincident (they both derive from his being a mad psychic), correlation is not causation.
** Notably used in a milk advert, alongside an AppealToAuthority, in Britain in the '80's. Two kids had just finished playing football (soccer) and gone inside for refreshments. Kid 1 got himself a glass of milk:
-->'''Kid 2''': Urgh... Milk?\\
'''Kid 1''': [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Rush Ian Rush]] says that if I don't drink milk, when I grow up I'll only be good enough to play for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrington_Stanley Accrington Stanley]].\\
'''Kid 2''': Accrington Stanley? Who're they?\\
'''Kid 1''': ''Exactly''.\\
(They then proceed to fight over the milk)
** Parodied in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZIzRqDOSZo this ad]] for orange juice:
-->'''Kid''': I'm not drinking [orange juice.]\\
'''Father''': Oh no, it's sweet, you'll like it.\\
'''Kid''': I don't believe you.\\
'''Father''': Then who would you believe?\\
'''Kid''': I don't know, Robert Loggia?\\
(Robert Loggia enters)\\
'''Kid''': Whoa, Robert Loggia!
** "Bill Finger is an obscure comic book writer, so he couldn't possibly have created {{Batman}}."
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_force Appeal To Force]]''', also termed "argumentum ad baculum", or "appeal to the stick": Perhaps the crudest form of appeal, this is, quite simply, saying that "I am right, because I will hit anyone who disagrees with me with this large stick." Ad Baculum is always a logical fallacy, but can be quite effective, nevertheless.
**Most commonly known by the phrase "Might Makes Right"; also sometimes expressed as "Changing a man's mind by altering the shape of his face."
** Jayne from ''{{Firefly}}'' referred to this as the Chain of Command. ("It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here!")
** This fallacy is often shown as one person saying to another "One good reason? I'll give you ''five'' good reasons" as they very obviously curl their fingers one by one into a fist, held under the other's nose. Charles Schultz used this image several times in various ''Peanuts'' strips, as well as ''A Charlie Brown Christmas'', usually with Lucy using it against either Charlie Brown or Linus.
** A slight variation of this appears often in political foreign-policy debates: "The time for diplomacy is past -- we must bomb Tropeistan ''now!''"
* '''[[ScienceIsBad Appeal To Technological Paranoia]]''': Playing on people's fears or misunderstanding about technology in order to convince them of your argument. A big favorite with conspiracy-theorists, and often used in association with the Slippery Slope fallacy, as in "Cell phones may be handy, but since they can be located by triangulating the signal from several towers, the government can use that to keep track of where you are, ''whenever you have your cell phone on!''"
* '''Appeal To Technology''': The opposite of the previous fallacy: if it's more technologically advanced, it must be better. This fallacy most often shows up in combination with Appeal to Novelty, and is a favorite of consumer goods manufacturers.
** [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GXskZFXbNY One ad]] for a home pregnancy test uses this fallacy when it says "[=ClearBlue Easy=] is the most advanced piece of technology you'll ever ... pee on." The whole ad makes it rather clear that it's being done at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though.
** Multi-blade razors also rely on this fallacy. If two blades are good, three blades must be better, and five plus a moisturizing strip [[http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 better yet]].
** A car ad that mentioned that the vehicle in question gathered a lot of data about the road surface. And then said ''absolutely nothing'' about what it uses the data for.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Appeal to Ignorance]]''': Claiming to have proven that a statement is true (or false) when all that has actually been proven is that the statement's truth value is not known (specifically, that it is not known to be false). Famously refuted by Carl Sagan with the statement, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Based on shifting the burden of proof onto whichever side of the argument you want to lose: if something can not be proven either way, just act like the opinion opposite of yours is inherently sillier, and you can assert that your position must be assumed correct until someone from the other side can prove you wrong. Usually involves an appeal to ''one's own'' authority: If you can't prove ''me'' wrong, I'm right, because ''my'' opinion is truth-by-default.
** To write out arguments from opposite sides using this to show the problem: "You can't prove that my argument is wrong, so I'm right." versus "You can't prove that your argument is right, so you're wrong and I'm right."
*'''Irrelevant Thesis''' (''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Ignoratio Elenchi]]''): The formal name literally means "ignorance of refutation" -- this is not refuting the opposing position at all, but acting as though you did. It's really a superfallacy, in the same way that "RuleOfCool" is a supertrope; there are a number of fallacies which are all types of "Ignoratio Elenchi", among them all Appeals To Consequences, all Appeals To Emotion, all Strawmen and Red Herrings, Ad Baculum, and all Ad Hominems.
* '''Appeal To Brevity''': one that seems to have been born on the internet (usually expressed with "tl;dr" ("too long; didn't read")), this is assuming that somebody is wrong because they have spent a good deal of time and text explaining their position. (Or more often, simply assuming that their argument is not worth listening to and that one is justified in ignoring it.) Misuse of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor Occam's Razor]], if you will.
** So, they don't fail logic forever because this whole page is about proving that they fail logic forever?
** Yes.
* '''Appeal To Worse Problems''' (the Children Are Starving In Africa Argument): Accusing someone with a minor complaint of being a horrible person who doesn't care about the real problems in the world. This assumes three things:
# That it is not possible to care about big and small problems simultaneously.
# That venting a minor complaint is sufficient proof that the major problem is considered unimportant.
# That if the person irritated over the minor problem did help solve the big problems, he would then not mind at all that his car broke down or whatever the frustration was.
::Incidentally, I've never seen anyone who actually ''has'' charity work under their belt use disadvantaged people as leverage in arguments.
** This (specifically the starving African children) has become a fairly popular T-Shirt. It personifies Africa as saying "And you think you have problems..."
** Although ThisTroper may [[YouFailLogicForever fail logic forever for thinking so]], this reasoning seems to suggest that only 1 (hypothetical) person, whose problems are the absolute worst on the planet, is allowed to feel bad about themselves. Everyone else has someone "beneath" them.
*** That's correct. Carried to its logical conclusion, that's ''precisely'' what this fallacy means.
**Of course, this does not apply if solving the problem would prevent the solving of another. Ie: Carbon restrictions in Chad prevents people from burning charcoal to "solve" global warming. This has caused a number of deaths and hardships as the people now have no reliable supply of fuel.
* '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity Appeal to pity]]''': (''ad misericordiam''): Attempting to make someone feel sorry for either the arguer or the subject of the argument, in order to convince them to accept the argument regardless of its validity.
** A Gentleman will always apologize to a Lady if it turns out that he was right and she was wrong.

----
Of course, before you get too carried away with these fallacies, there's one more you should remember:
*'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy The Fallacy Fallacy]]''' (or '''Appeal to Fallacy'''): Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position used a fallacy. It may sound logical, but just see an example:
-->To read TV Tropes, you must be on the Internet.
-->You are on the Internet, therefore you must be reading TV Tropes.
-->But wait, I just used the "Affirming the consequent" fallacy!
-->Therefore my argument was wrong, and therefore you're not reading TV Tropes at all!
**[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyK1LTfLXiM Lore]] has a nice video on the subject.
** Common in internet debates when one person knows logical fallacies but no one else does. This troper cannot count the times he's seen a Strawman argument for a claim of False Dichotomy when either alternatives were addressed originally or there otherwise really are only two options. Also claiming Appeal to Authority when someone uses a source for facts, because when someone cites a valid source to establish facts, then argues from those facts, their argument is not 'because X says so.'
** One common cause of the Fallacy Fallacy is CompletelyMissingThePoint. The speaker might primarily have in mind a different premise.
::: For instance, in the Firefly episode where Simon and Mal are trying to save River from the townsfolk who are going to burn her as a witch, the arguments
--->River Tam is just a troubled girl.
--->Therefore River is not a witch.
::: is Appeal to Pity (a witch can also be a troubled girl) and
--->Jayne is lookin' to kill some folk.
--->Therefore River is not a witch.
::: is Appeal to Force (the fact that Jayne desires to kill people doesn't prove River is not a witch).
::: But those two arguments assume that the real premise Simon and Mal are concerned about is "River is not a witch". The ''real'' premise is "Mal and Simon do not want River burnt", and therefore the argument is
--->Mal and Simon do not wish River burnt (true)
--->Incentives can potentially cause people to modify their actions (true)
--->Pity and force are potential incentives (true)
--->Therefore Simon's use of pity and Mal's use of the threat of force as incentives might potentially prevent the burning of River (indeterminable).

*And don't forget the opposite of that, the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. If one of your ''premises'' is wrong, then the argument can be logically valid and still have a false conclusion.
-->The moon is made of cheese.
-->Cheese is edible.
-->Therefore, the moon is edible.

*You can also guess the conclusion, but use a faulty premise, and then if the conclusion is right, pretend your guess was perfectly logical. The argument is still faulty.\\
-->"What else floats in water?"
-->"A duck."
-->"If she weighs the same as a duck...then she's made of wood..."
-->"And therefore...?"
-->"A WITCH! A WITCH!"
--->(''MontyPythonAndTheHolyGrail'')

**A RealLife variant, common in {{Message Board}}s:
-->"My favorite VideoGame system will win this generation of the ConsoleWars because of my favorite game, X."
-->''That system wins, but everybody agrees it is because of games Y and Z, and circumstance W.''
-->"I knew it would win!"

*And, to muddy the waters even more, your premises may be wrong, and your argument may be illogical, but you might reach a true conclusion anyway.
-->All humans are reptiles.
-->I have seen three reptiles that live on Earth.
-->Therefore, all humans live on Earth.

-->The moon is made out of green cheese.
-->Green cheese is delicious.
-->Hitler was the political leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945.
-->Therefore, the more massive something is, the stronger its gravity.

YourHeadASplode now.

And all of that is why logicians do not use the words "sound", "valid" and "true" interchangeably. The chain of reasoning itself can be sound or unsound, valid or invalid, but the argument as a whole is not "true" or "false". The premises and conclusion can be true or false, but they are not called "sound" or "valid".

* "True" refers to the factual accuracy of the premises or the conclusion. It's exactly what it sounds like but ''it does not address the validity of the argument''. (A fallacious argument can give a true conclusion.)
-->All animals are dogs. (false premise)
-->Formal logic isn't as complicated as it seems. (true premise)
-->Therefore, all dogs are animals. (true conclusion; no logical argument at all)
* "Valid" refers to the chain of reasoning, the logic part of the argument. ''It does not address the truth of either the premises or the conclusion.'' The logic must be correct, though.
-->All animals are dogs. (false premise)
-->All dogs are terriers. (false premise)
-->Therefore, all animals are terriers. (false conclusion; valid logic)
* "Sound" refers to the argument as a whole. The premises must be "true", the conclusion must be "true", ''and'' the logic must be "valid". (Using a fallacy results in an unsound argument, as does using false premises or coming to a false conclusion.)
-->All terriers are dogs.
-->All dogs are animals.
-->Therefore, all terriers are animals.

The perfect argument, then, is true and valid, and therefore sound. In other words, the argument must be based on accurate information, produce a true conclusion, and not contain any errors in logic.
----
<<|DidNotDoTheResearch|>>
<<|IndexFailure|>>