Modal scope fallacy вЂ“ a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.But there are other modes of transportation вЂ“ car, taxi, bicycle, walking вЂ“ that can be used. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. X does not bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y.

A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. Modal fallacy вЂ“ confusing necessity with sufficiency.Fallacy of the undistributed middle вЂ“ the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) вЂ“ a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.Illicit minor вЂ“ a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.Illicit major вЂ“ a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.Fallacy of four terms ( quaternio terminorum) вЂ“ a categorical syllogism that has four terms.Fallacy of exclusive premises вЂ“ a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) вЂ“ a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.Syllogistic fallacies вЂ“ logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Existential fallacy вЂ“ an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.ДЄ quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion. Denying the antecedent вЂ“ the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false if A, then B not A, therefore not B.Affirming the consequent вЂ“ the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true if A, then B B, therefore A.Affirming a disjunct вЂ“ concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true A or B A, therefore not B.The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions.

For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly:, ,, , ). ДЄ propositional fallacy is an error that concerns compound propositions.

Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) вЂ“ the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.

Non-sequitur fallacy - where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.

Conjunction fallacy вЂ“ the assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.

Base rate fallacy вЂ“ making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.

Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) вЂ“ the assumption that, if a particular argument for a 'conclusion' is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.

Appeal to probability вЂ“ a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).

All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur. A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form.

Examples of red herring fallacy