Spot the flaw
in the argument.

Attacking the character or motives of the person making an argument instead of engaging with the argument itself.

Distorting or exaggerating someone's position into a weaker version, then attacking that version instead of what they actually said.

Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities, when other choices or middle ground exist.

Claiming one modest step will inevitably trigger a chain of increasingly dire consequences, without evidence for the chain.

Treating a person's status, title, or fame as proof of a claim — especially when they're speaking outside their expertise.

Drawing a sweeping conclusion from a sample that is too small, biased, or unrepresentative.

An argument whose conclusion is smuggled in as one of its premises — it assumes the very thing it claims to prove.

Assuming that because one event followed another, the first must have caused the second (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Using fear, pity, pride, or anger to win agreement in place of a relevant reason or evidence.

Claiming something is true, good, or right because many people believe it or do it.

Defending a generalization against a counterexample by redefining the group to exclude it ("no real X would do that").

Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the actual question being argued.

Deflecting criticism by charging the critic with the same fault, instead of answering the criticism (appeal to hypocrisy).

Arguing a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false — or false because it hasn't been proven true.

Using a single word or phrase in two different senses within the same argument, so the conclusion only seems to follow.

A question built on an unproven assumption, so that any direct answer forces you to concede that assumption.

Continuing a course of action because of resources already spent, rather than the value of going forward.

Treating two things as equivalent when they differ in scale or kind in ways that matter to the argument.