Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can lead to false conclusions. Examples of fallacies include hasty generalization, appeal to force, genetic fallacy, personal attack, and false dilemma/false dichotomy.
It is important to be aware of these fallacies in order to avoid them in one's own arguments and to spot them in others' arguments.
Tips on avoiding fallacies include asking oneself what kind of sample is used, using a logical fallacies checklist, and using logical fallacies when making an argument.
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one.
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia
This page is a resource for Doctor Wheeler's students in composition and literature, providing a list of logical fallacies from the Western European tradition of philosophy. These fallacies include appeal to force, genetic fallacy, personal attack, and Occam's Razor. It is important to be able to spot these fallacies in others' arguments and to be able to identify them in order to make a false line of reasoning won't fool the reader.
Logical Fallacies Handlist
A straw man fallacy is a form of argument that creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition and the subsequent refutation of that false argument. It has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects, and has been expanded on by Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin in 2006. The straw man fallacy has been used in political debate since the early 20th century, and has been used to create a neologism called "nut picking" which combines with an ad hominem and fallacy of composition.
Straw man - Wikipedia
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
False equivalence - Wikipedia
Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.
Argument from ignorance