* Computer scientist Fred Brooks, in his famous 1975 book, ''The Mythical Man-Month'', argues that this type of thinking causes managers to add more software developers to late software projects will speed up productivity, while it actually just makes the project later as developers need time to come up to speed. Brooks joked that this was like thinking that if it takes nine months for a woman to make a baby, then nine women could produce a baby in a month.

* Global warming deniers make this fallacy when they claim that cold weather during the winter disproves global warming. Of course, it can be very cold, even unusually so, in one area and still have a mean rise in global temperature. To say otherwise is like saying you can't run a fever and have cold feet at the same time.
** They also use this when talking about climate change papers from the 60s and 70s predicting global cooling. Not only is this a case of not realizing that ScienceMarchesOn, but they conveniently ignore the fact that more papers published in that period predicted global warming instead of cooling.[[note]]Around 7 research papers predicted cooling to about 44 for warming in the 60s and 70s.[[/note]]
** Of course, it is equally fallacious to claim that any single instance of unseasonably warm--or unseasonably cool--weather anywhere, at any time, is evidence of global warming or climate change.

* One common strategy in politics is to hold up extreme members of a group as typical of the whole. For example, "Bob went to your rally and is a Nazi, so everyone at your rally must be Nazis."
** A similar example is - "Dogs have four legs. Cats have four legs. Therefore, cats are dogs."

* The ubiquitous argument "If the president of this corporation is [[CorruptCorporateExecutive corrupt]], then the whole corp is playing dirty". Believed by the masses when the higher ups are investigated or tried for any crime, even though it may have nothing to do with the other workers of the company.

* Three words: "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql7uY36-LwA Puppy Monkey Baby]]". Apparently, because everybody loves PreciousPuppies, EverythingsBetterWithMonkeys, and BabiesMakeEverythingBetter, a chimera of all three must be ''awesome''. Yeah...no.

** They also use this when talking about climate change papers from the 60's and 70's predicting global cooling. Not only is this a case of not realizing that ScienceMarchesOn, but they conveniently ignore the fact that more papers published in that period predicted global warming instead of cooling.[[note]]Around 7 research papers predicted cooling to about 44 for warming in the 60s and 70s.[[/note]]

* Alternative health claims are rife with these. The claimants will say that X is in a drug/food/compound, and therefore that the substance is healthful/unhealthful. For example, one fad claims that Splenda is toxic because it contains the element chlorine. It does. So does table salt. That's a classic example of this fallacy. A less unreasonable claim is that chloro-carbons (like Splenda) are unhealthful, while ionic chlorine (such as salt) is fine. This claim does not run afoul of this fallacy, though "Splenda is toxic at any reasonable dose" is not accepted by mainstream evidence-based medical practitioners. Food additives go through extensive toxicity testing before approval.

** Some trick questions go even further and make the feathers the right answer, by using different measures of weight.
*** One memorable variant uses the word "pound", then goes on to discuss the economic trends of the United Kingdom.

** The same is true of word filters: written erotica may mention breasts, but blocking all uses of the word blocks out gynaecology, chicken recipes, and other innocent uses. The "ScunthorpeProblem" nets even more collateral blocking (while the devious perverts just use word-substitution tricks).

*** A pound of gold weighs less than a pound of feathers because gold is measured in troy weight.