Learn
The Five Ways Arguments Break
Plain names, everyday tells, and how to answer them.
Most bad arguments fail in predictable ways. These are the five patterns you’ll actually meet — the accessible on-ramp to the architecture behind the fallacy catalogue.
The Five, at a glance
Five places reasoning loses its license.
Used one kind of truth to prove another kind.
Ad hominem · appeal to emotion · naturalistic fallacy · genetic fallacy
Type 2Jumping Too FarOperator OverextensionMade a reasoning leap the evidence doesn’t support.
Post hoc · slippery slope · false cause · appeal to possibility
Type 3Wrong TestVerification Habitat MismatchRight topic, wrong method of verification.
Appeal to authority · bandwagon · appeal to tradition · cherry-picking
Type 4Level JumpStratification FailureMixed up examples, patterns, rules, or principles.
Hasty generalization · ecological fallacy · anecdote · presentism
Type 5Forced BinaryContrast Frame CollapseMisrepresented the structure of the available options.
False dilemma · straw man · false equivalence · motte-and-bailey
The Diagnostic
Which one are you looking at?
Run down the list — the first “yes” is usually your answer.
The Tricky One
Wrong kind of proof, or wrong test?
The most common mix-up. Both use “wrong” evidence — but they fail differently.
Wrong Kind of ProofType 1 · Axis
The evidence comes from an entirely different kind of truth. Attacking someone’s character to disprove their math: character is real, but it’s a different axis than factual accuracy.
Wrong TestType 3 · Method
The evidence is on the right topic but uses the wrong method. A celebrity endorsement for a medical claim: the topic is medical, but celebrity testimony isn’t how you verify medical facts.
Quick test: is the evidence from the wrong category of truth (Type 1), or the wrong form of proof within the right category (Type 3)?
The Map
Five kinds of mistakes.
wrong kind of truth
went too far with the move
right topic, wrong test
jumped between layers
broke the map of what exists
Most bad arguments don’t fail because they’re stupid — they fail because they use the wrong kind of truth in the wrong place. Your job isn’t to win arguments; it’s to notice when someone (including you) has crossed a boundary they shouldn’t have.