Whenever you encounter a situation where it is difficult to segregate truth from false hood, logical arguments can save you from making a wrong decision. Logic is different from thinking or intuition. Logic is more systematic. There are different logical arguments which can make us better person in terms of thinking and using our brain. Knowledge of logical fallacies and arguments can enhance your analytical skills.

Logical deductive argument is made up of a premises and a conclusion. If all the premises are correct and logical, conclusion will be true if it follows logically from premises. Let us consider an example:

If A=B and B=C

Then conclusion is A=C.

A=B and B=C are our premises, if both premises are correct then the conclusion that A=C is also correct.

To understand it better, let us take real life example.

Premises-I: 0 deg. C= 32 F,

And Premises-II:  32F = 273.15 Kelvin,

This implies, Conclusion; 0 deg. C = 273.15 Kelvin.

Since premises I & II are correct, thus, conclusion is also correct.


Fallacies can be defined as common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. There are different kinds of fallacies which people use knowingly or unknowingly while debating. You can enhance your debating skills by learning about them. Some are mentioned below:

Circular Argument: Those arguments which does not have any end. It starts from the end itself. Instead of actually proving your point you make your point and call it a proof. It is a fallacy because you reach nowhere in your debate. Example: Suppose Wasil is a brave man, since he is a brave man he cannot commit suicide. Hence it is a murder.

Argument from ignorance: If you do not have evidence of something being not correct, it does not mean necessarily that something is right. In Argument from ignorance fallacy, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence. For example: No one know what will happen after we die, that’s prove there is no afterlife.

Ad hominem: You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Nandita presents a compelling case for a more equitable GST system, FM asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Special pleading: Applying one standard on one group of people and using another standard on other group without proper justification is known as special pleading.



References: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#CircularReasoning