This logical fallacy occurs when a person tries justifying a point by merely stating that it is true irrespective of obvious contradictions. Mere assertion is just the same as rhetoric because stating something does not necessarily establish it or prove it as the truth (Wheeleer, 2012).
2. Circular reasoning
This fallacy occurs when one tries to support an assertion by repeating the assertion severally, usually in stronger terms. The reason given in this fallacy is merely a restatement of the stated conclusion, which comes off as the reason for the intended conclusion. Example: A student protests to a lecturer, “You cannot give me a D. I am an A student.” This claim is made on disputed and unstable grounds, since such a student cannot claim to be an A student if the rightful grade is a C.
3. Ad hominem
This fallacy aims at discrediting a position or an argument by drawing attention to the traits of the one holding the position or making the argument (Wheeleer, 2012).
4. Red herring
This fallacy introduces or focuses on irrelevant information with an aim of distracting discourser from the real reasoning or evidence. It gets its name from the act of dragging a herring fish or any other kind of fish across a path in order to distract tracking dogs from the scent of what they were initially searching for (YMCA, 1997).
Example: One may reject the purchase of a particular object, for instance, in a company, mentioning the failure of the purchased item in meeting particular and vital needs of the company's clients. However, such an assertion may be made without considering the convenient fact that the object is less costly, and is easier to learn and administer.
This fallacy happens when a question is posed, founded on a false and untrue premise (YMCA, 1997). Example: A person may pose a question, "...so, how long have you been defrauding the poor?"
6. False cause
This is the logical fallacy of asserting arguments that two events possess a causal connection owing to their correlation. That is, this fallacy erroneously assumes that one event causes the other.
The assertion that Napoleon was a great ruler because he was short. If the inference in this assertion were causal, then all short individuals would become great rulers.
7. Sweeping generalizations
It is an informal fallacy in which the sufficiency of evidence offered seemingly allows a conclusion to be drawn. However, in this fallacy, the conclusion made greatly exceeds what is supported by the evidence offered (Burton, 2010).