Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies

by Bo Bennett, Nicholas Ostler (Introduction)

This book is a crash course in effective reasoning, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.
Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions, perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to be improve his or her reasoning skills.
"Expose an irrational belief, keep a man rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, and keep a man rational for a lifetime." - Bo Bennett

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Logic, Psychology, Reference, Science, Education

256 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 22, 2012

About the author

See http://www.bobennett.com

Reviews

[R. F. Errant · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this work. It's definitely encompassing, the examples are clear, and even the jokes are entertaining. However, the book proves that no matter how hard you try, when discussing logical fallacies, you eventually come off as a jerk.

Not really his fault. That's the nature of the subject. However, about two-thirds through I had to take to reading it in bits. Still, I recommend highly that everyone read at least one book on logical fallacies, and this could be the one for you.

One more thing. For self-promotion, the author a few times mentions Donald Trump endorsing him. (I presume it was before he became president and for another book.) When warning against logical fallacies I would not want a Trump endorsement, except as irony.

[Laura Schmidt-Dockter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was hilarious and informative. I listened to it on audible which, I believe, made the technical explanations easier to take. Now I wish I had the actual book to use as a reference.

[Rod Hilton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel bad for not liking this book more than I did. The author, Bo Bennett, definitely knows his stuff about logical fallacies, and it's clear he realized that a book listing 300 logical fallacies would be boring, and he made his greatest efforts to make the material lively and interesting, largely by injecting a lot of humor into the book.

But at the end of the day, it's a book listing 300 fallacies, and it's a slog to get through them all. Yes, it's funny. Yes, it's informative. Yes, it's comprehensive. But no, it's not terribly interesting. Sorry Bo, you did your best.

[⋆˚°✩*˖ Gohnar23 (•˕ •マ.ᐟ ˚⟡˖ ࣪(inactive) · Rating 5 out of 5]

#️⃣4️⃣5️⃣9️⃣ Read & Reviewed in 2025 💔🩸
Date : 🚀 Thursday, September 11, 2025 🚫🔻❌
Word Count📃: 109k Words 🧨🔪🎈

⋆⭒𓆟⋆｡˚𖦹𓆜✩⋆ >-;;⁠;⁠;€ᐷ °‧ 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 ·｡

( ˶°ㅁ°) !! My 33th read in "READING AS MANY BOOKS AS I CANNN 😢 cuz smth....happened.....irl.........😥" September ⚡

5️⃣🌟, the thing that you throw on the other team's face in a debate. 😆😆😆😆😆
——————————————————————
➕➖0️⃣1️⃣2️⃣3️⃣4️⃣5️⃣6️⃣7️⃣8️⃣9️⃣🔟✖️➗

So i basically just bought this book because i want to study about the fallacies and just that. This has over 300+ fallacies and it is presented in such a way that it is explained in a simplistic and concise manner, there is a format on how every fallacy is defined and organized. It is the best object to put in a podium when you're about to absolutely demolished the other team because everytime after they speak you just tell them 🤣🤣 hi bitch datz a fallacyyyy 😝😝😝 (i mean we did eventually win because our strategy is just THE BEST OUT THERE 🗿🗿🗿 so sigma, my other teammate is the defender which explains our stand and explains it, my other other teammate is the offense, the one that looks for things to argue and rebuttles the other team on their arguments and then i'm the right hand man of the offese and the one that persuades and engages the audience because at the end of the day it's not who gets the better argument, the better logic and evidences nonono, the one with the higher grade is the one that the audience votes for so it's a good thing they have me and my joker card::::

This book that i found in the library!!!!! :DDDDDDDDD

But then about the book itself, its very informative. Not only that but the examples that are given are sometimes so funny and reads like a comedy book, which is not that bad for an academic text because it just differentiates the part where the book is going to be serious (aka when defining the fallacies themselves and its logical composition), and then the unserious aspect of this book which is all the examples of the fallacies being used.

"Just because you have the right to be a galactic jackass, doesn’t mean you should."

[Sadan · Rating 4 out of 5]

میشه گفت این کتاب جامع ترین منبع برای معرفی عنواع مغلطه هستش. لحن نسبتا طنز بو بنت و مثالای جالبش باعث شده بود که متن کتاب خشک و حوصله . سر بر نباشه
من ترجمه ی این کتابو از سایت آقای آذسن خوندم.

https://azsan.ir/blog/category/%d9%85...

[Bill P · Rating 1 out of 5]

After reading, I had no idea how this book ever made it past an editor and then to a publisher. This might be intriguing to a raw novice, but anyone with the slightest exposure to logic, rhetoric and philosophy will see the author frequently succumbs to the fallacies he condemns.




Then I found out that the author owns the company that published this book

Figures.....

[Hamid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Never realized there were so many fatal flaws in the way I reason until I read this amazing book. Very educational indeed with lots of examples to clarify the fallacious arguments. Although the format of the book is similar to a textbook, I didn't find it boring in the least. Bo Bennet's proper use of humor makes this book all the more fascinating. An easy read. It's a must read if you're a habitual debater or just want to explain the world around you in a more logical and reasonable way.

[Max · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of them are already clear to any sensible person. But then again what is sensible? I have to admit that the author did keep a smooth sarcastic and jocular theme throughout the book, probably so it doesn't become tedious reading all these fallacies.

My favourite one of them has to be "Ad Fidentia", particularly when it is used to prove a supernatural existence, people just like throwing this at me whenever I argue about God.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very extensive list of fallacies, this book lays them all out in clear English with excellent examples to help illustrate the way each fallacy is used. I have really enjoyed reading this book - it's an excellent option for when you only have a short amount of time to spend reading and, since fallacies are something everyone should be keen to avoid, the value of the content is enormous.

[Grant Barnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a logophile, student of rhetoric, and generally logical individual, I found the subject interesting. Ultimately, this is an encyclopedia of logical fallacies. Bennett made the topic as interested as he could by injecting as much humor as was appropriate, however, it is still somewhat dry.

Notes:
Logical fallacy simple definition: an error in reasoning

Logical fallacy thorough definition: a concept with an argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation.

Factual errors are not logical fallacies

Each logical fallacy was explained by providing the following:
- Name(s)
- Description
- Logical form (an equation of sorts used to explain the fallacy)
- Examples
- Exceptions to the fallacy
- Tips
Favorite tip: “If you have a penis, don’t put it in the wood chipper.”

Some of my favorite logical fallacies:
Ad hominem: attacking the person making the argument vs the argument itself

Gambler’s Fallacy: reasoning that in a situation that is pure chance, the outcome can be affected by previous outcomes

Red herring: I deliberate diversion of attention with the intent to distract from the original argument

Self-selling or vacuous (meaningless) argument: an argument or position where no evidence can be brought against it.

Shoehorning: force-fitting some current affair into one’s personal, political, or religious agenda.

[Alexandru · Rating 4 out of 5]

A necessary book for the times we are living - fallacies and biases are ignored in political discourse, debates online, business communication and day to day life. The parts of the book on biases and Q&A section are my favorite ones. The format of the dictionary is a bit difficult and not exciting to read, because the sheer amount of info is making it improbable to remember of logical fallacies mentioned in the book. So you have to carry the book with you everywhere when you foresee a possible hard debate. When dealing with such a large amount of info, it is probably better to find some form of classifying them otherwise all the concepts just blur together and difficult to quickly remember.

[Arsalan · Rating 5 out of 5]

تا جایی که فهمیدم یکی از ابزار اندیشه نقادانه، منطق هست اما برای اینکه استدلال های درست رو متوجه بشیم باید مغالطه های زبانی رو بدونیم چون تعدادشون بسیار زیاده و زبان ما هم داخلش پر از مغلطه هست!
این کتاب رو به شدت پیشنهاد میکنم تاثیر خیلی زیادی روی شیوه تفکر و حرف زدن داره

[T Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is NOT for people trying to prove beliefs. It is an incite on how people think and their "justifications" for doing so.

[Simon Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

I actually really liked this read, I found the author both knowledgeable and humorous.

[John Engelman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before reading Logically Fallacious, by Bo Bennett, I advise you to access and read the following website:

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_wr...

It is a short and easy to read introduction to some of the most common logical fallacies you are likely to find. Bo Bennett’s book can be overwhelming unless you have a primer to start with.

You should also have a good idea of when to use the information in this book and when not to. It is only appropriate to argue about politics with those who enjoy arguing about politics.

A family reunion is rarely a good time to argue politics. A working environment is another time when you should be careful.

Back in the day I wrote letters to the editor of newspapers and opinion journals. My letters were polite, fact based, logical, and clearly indicated respect for those who disagreed with me. If a co worker initiated a conversation with me about one of my letters, I would talk to that coworker about the letter. I did not go around saying, “Hey look what I wrote.”

Now I post my arguments on my Facebook account, unless I write something that might bother my siblings. I would rather they think of their older brother as a man of intelligence and learning, rather than a purveyor of controversial and unpopular opinions.

I spend most of my time arguing politics on political websites on the internet.

Arguing politics on the internet can be a bloodsport. My arguments are expressed politely with fact based and logical arguments. I welcome challenges to my opinions, and I express them without the insults, name calling, and obscene words I often face, as well as the threats of violence I occasionally receive.

Early in his book Bennett defines a logical fallacy as an error in reasoning, rather than a factual error.

He illustrates his argument by saying that the argument:

“Plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents.
Therefore it is safer to drive in a car than fly in a plane.”

Is based on a factual error. Plane crashes do not kill more people than automobile accidents.

The easiest and best way to refute an argument is to prove that it is based on an assumption that is not true.

On the other hand, the following argument:

“Women have the right to get a tattoo,
Therefore they have the right to get an abortion”

is a fallacy, in this case a weak analogy. Women do have the legal right to get a tattoo. In some states they lack the legal right to get an abortion. Whether they have the moral right to get an abortion is a matter of opinion, rather than a statement that is either true or false.
A fallacy one frequently finds on the internet, and on more civilized environments is the ad hominem fallacy. I place these among personal insults.

For example, one may say, “Of course Mr. Tucker thinks high school mathematics teachers should be paid more than high school civics teachers. Mr. Tucker is a high school mathematics teacher.”

In this case one should explain why it is a good idea to pay high school mathematics teachers more than high school civics teachers, without mentioning Mr. Tucker’s profession.

It might be that most college students find political science a more interesting major than mathematics (like I did) so qualified mathematics teachers are more difficult to attract and have more opportunities outside of a school environment.

Bennett explains each logical fallacy by naming it, then he describes it, then he presents its logical form, then he gives at least one example, then he gives an explanation of why each example is a fallacy, even though it is based on an assumption that is correct

Bennett is a good writer. Nevertheless, Logically Fallacious can be tough going. This book is not a page turner. I advise reading is slowly, but by bit, underlining parts that interest you. When you are finished, go back and read what you have underlined.

[Rory Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

An informative overview of fallacies, biases and aberrations in thinking.

Aiming to be as comprehensive as possible, this is a very useful reference resource. It works through each collection of issues in alphabetical order, so that it is also quite easy to look ideas up. However, although it makes sense (to some extent) to separate fallacies from biases, it does mean that people need to think whether something is a fallacy or a bias, before they try looking it up.

One of the problems with writing about these kinds of issues is that there are multiple names, and multiple ways of categorising and linking fallacies and biases to each other. So its almost inevitable that readers will find bits of the book to quibble with. For example, ‘proof by intimidation’ is described as being also ‘proof by verbosity.’ Really? Well I suppose being hit by a verbose wall of words could feel a bit intimidating, but verbosity can also be experienced as frustrating and boring. So, is the book right or wrong on this issue? It all depends on perspective…

Rather than focusing on perspective issues, there were a few problems in the more mechanical aspects of book production. For example, there were numerous places in the book where a chapter ended with a ‘references’ section and then a comment about how the author hadn’t been able to find any references to a particular fallacy.

For example, the chapter on the ‘Galileo Gambit’ ended with the disclaimer about not being able to find any academic references to it. However, I spent about 1 minute doing a quick internet search and found that it is referenced in chp 27 of DJ Johnson’s book on ‘Bad Arguments.’

This means that the multitude of comments about not being able to find references to fallacies sounded more like poor research and a lack of professional editing by the author, rather than any real issue that was being rightly or accurately cited.

This is also true as there were also basic editorial mistakes in the book. For example, under Equivocation it referred to a book on Aristotelian Logic for follow-up reading, and referred to that book as ‘n.d.’ (ie as having no date). Again it took less than a minute for me to scan the internet and find that the publishing date was 1991.

Overall, this is an informative book which is worth dipping into, but the editorial standards of the book are not as professional as would normally be expected. On a somewhat different note, I didn’t really understand why anyone would want to spend money buying the book, when it can also be read effectively free, as its contents appear on the author’s website.

[Kevin Torre · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the era of information overload, “Logically Fallacious” by Bo Bennett emerges as an indispensable guide to clear thinking, offering readers a navigational compass through the murky waters of fallacies and faulty reasoning. Bennett, with his incisive wit and profound understanding of logic, crafts a book that is both an educational manual and an engaging read.

At its core, “Logically Fallacious” is a comprehensive catalog of logical fallacies, but to pigeonhole it as a mere reference tool would be an injustice. Bennett delves deep, not just listing fallacies, but exploring their nuances, providing examples, and elucidating their practical implications. The way he presents each fallacy—with context, clear examples, and sometimes a touch of humor—makes the content accessible even to those who might be new to the realm of logical reasoning.

One of the standout features of this book is its relevance to our modern world. In an age where misinformation can spread like wildfire, Bennett equips readers with the tools to discern fact from fiction. Whether you are browsing social media, watching the news, or engaged in a debate, the lessons from this book can be applied almost universally.

Another commendable aspect of “Logically Fallacious” is its organization. Bennett doesn’t merely list fallacies alphabetically; he categorizes them in a way that is intuitive and aids in retention. The structure of the book allows for both linear reading and quick reference, making it a versatile tool for both learners and seasoned debaters.

However, what truly makes “Logically Fallacious” a standout is Bennett’s undeniable passion for the subject. His enthusiasm is infectious, and it’s evident that he genuinely wants his readers to become more astute thinkers. The tone is neither preachy nor condescending; instead, it’s like receiving guidance from a knowledgeable friend.

In conclusion, “Logically Fallacious” by Bo Bennett is a manual for the discerning mind, and an enjoyable read that educates as much as it entertains. In our times, when logical reasoning is both essential and seemingly rare, Bennett’s work stands out as a beacon of clarity. Whether you’re a student, a professional, or just someone keen on sharpening your cognitive tools, this book is an invaluable addition to your library.

[Jean-Francois Simard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here are five main takeaways from Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies by Bo Bennett, based on its content and reviews:

1. Comprehensive Understanding of Logical Fallacies: The book serves as an extensive catalog of over 300 logical fallacies, providing clear definitions, original examples, and explanations. It equips readers with the ability to identify errors in reasoning, making it a valuable resource for educators, debaters, and anyone aiming to enhance critical thinking skills.

2. Practical Application for Critical Thinking: Bennett emphasizes applying knowledge of fallacies to real-world scenarios, such as media, politics, and personal conversations. By recognizing fallacies like ad hominem, straw man, or appeal to fear, readers can avoid flawed arguments and make better-informed decisions.

3. Engaging and Accessible Presentation: The book combines humor and relatable examples to make complex concepts digestible, even for those new to logic. This approach keeps readers engaged while learning about reasoning errors, though some note the humor can feel forced or biased.

4. Focus on Form Over Truth: Bennett clarifies that fallacies are about flawed argument structures, not necessarily the truth of the claims. For example, he uses controversial topics like creationist arguments to illustrate fallacies without judging their validity, encouraging readers to focus on reasoning processes.

5. Tools for Lifelong Rational Thinking: The book promotes strategies to avoid fallacious thinking, such as questioning assumptions, seeking reliable sources, and being open to new evidence. Bennett’s mantra, “Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime,” underscores the long-term value of critical reasoning.

These takeaways highlight the book’s role as both an educational tool and a practical guide for navigating reasoning in everyday life.

[Numan Ahmad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Who wouldn't wanna become a human fallacy detector!? Who wouldn't want the their reason and logic to be as sharp as a blade of diamond!? To spot Bulshit when u hear or see it .
It's a wonderful book for starters who want to be equiped with the knowledge to spot the so many fallacies commited by poeple and ourselves too ( knowingly or unknowingly). We can spot most of these fallacies and we know that there is something wrong in the logic presented,but just can't point it out for some reason ( the reason being we don't know how). The author Bo Bennett has tried his best to first elucidate the all kind of different fallacies and then also has given tips for how to get around them. The book is often boring, as it is logic we are talking about, especially the parts about formal fallacies , but nevertheless the author has tried his best to simplify and present them with a few humourous jokes here and there. If one can't read all the fallacies,, there's is a list at the end of 25 most often committed fallacies which should be known by everyone.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful Reference, But Repetitive and Dry at Times

Logically Fallacious is a comprehensive catalog of logical fallacies, offering clear definitions, examples, and explanations. Bo Bennett does a solid job of organizing a wide range of fallacies in a way that's accessible to beginners and helpful as a quick reference.

The strength of the book lies in its scope—it covers hundreds of fallacies, from common mistakes in reasoning to more obscure ones. If you're looking for a tool to sharpen your critical thinking or spot flawed arguments, this book delivers.

However, it earns 3 stars because the tone can be overly casual or sarcastic, which might not appeal to every reader. The entries sometimes feel repetitive, and the lack of narrative or thematic structure makes it harder to read straight through. It works better as a reference book than a cover-to-cover experience.

Overall, Logically Fallacious is a useful resource for students, debaters, or anyone interested in logic—but it’s best approached in small doses.

[Davina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sorry sir, your book wasn't exactly a page turner. Some of his jokes can land a little off. On the subject of his jokes, I suspect they are consistent with his age, and his upbringing, but some aren't quite PC. However, all that having been said, it was a useful endeavor. I don't think I will recall most of the classifications. However, walking through the numerous examples and structures, I do think he has sharpened my eyes and ears for subtle arguments, made in sometimes simple statements, all of which fail to be proven by the argument made. I don't think I was a complete amateur, but the effort was worth it. I read this as an audiobook, so went from cover to cover, and that may not be the best route, but it worked for me.

[Jonathan Gnagy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't have much to say about this book that others haven't already said. Bo Bennett does his very best to make a book about 300+ logical fallacies (and their explanations) interesting, including bits of humor, anecdotes, concise explanations, and a simple format, but I think there's only so much that can be done to keep it interesting.

In the end, I'm not sure anyone could do much better.

I would definitely recommend the book to anyone even remotely interested in logic, debate, or reaching logical conclusions when in dialogue with others (especially with people that have a different opinion).

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm giving a high rating because this is exactly what I was looking for - a quick and easy-to-understand reference of logical fallacies. The humor was a nice bonus.

It's not a deep-dive of the subject of logic. You can read other reviews from people who are able to explain what this book is missing. But for someone like me who enjoys following current events and reading nonfiction and hearing hot takes from different angles, but feels the lack of formal understanding/practice of catching logic flaws and fallacies (it's been 15+ years since taking intro to philosophy...), this has been a fun and easy book to get my mind moving in the right direction (I hope!)

[Pavel Urubčík · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hesitated between 3 and 4 stars.
I definitely enjoyed the extensive list of fallacies with descriptions, examples and occasional humor.
On the other hand as others pointed out, the read was quite dry and lack of good grouping/organization of the fallacies also didn't add on readability. I wish there was some way either in the book or accompanying a web dictionary where I could look up the fallacies by key words and such.
I think it was also possible to make the book shorter by merging and omitting some fallacies.
Other than that pretty good read!

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this as an audiobook which I did not find bad, but I think in the end, this is more a reference book and it makes sense to have an ebook or physical book. I found 300 to be a huge number of fallacies; I'd have preferred fewer fallacies in groups. Some are so hard to distinguish. In the end, I understood the nature of the fallacies, but calling them out by name is a struggle. To dominate the subject, I'd say a couple reads are necessary and it can be at times a tedious read. Overall, I liked the book and the subject.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a marvelous for whom are a little or bit more confuse in misunderstanding about formal or informal speaking. At the beginning toward end you will find a good translate either context or meaning of the fallacies in the book. But if you are reading Persian version of this note that there are lack of content in the book. If you see the table of content of the book in En version there will be 300 logical fallacy, but in Fa version there will be only 228 fallacy.

In the end don't need to worry about the book. Read it as I did.

[Bilal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Debunking my every day’s life logical fallacy would be favorable but I didn’t see any of them relevant with ‘Ukrainian Roulette’ (my monthly writing's title). Realizing how logical fallacy tend to messing up the mindset of problem-solving, building a problem around detective subject full of logical fallacy would produce a systematic to discover and examine the facts (or in this case, clues). It surely challenge me to come up with abundance of fresh problems.

This https://bilal-labil.medium.com/ukrain... article will be forever in debt to Bo Bennett's work.

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

An Informative Read

This is an accessible read, given the amount of information packed into this volume. What prevented this from being a five star book for me was that some of the humor was a bit puerile for my tastes, and the book was rife with grammatical and typographical errors, especially towards the last third of the book. For the most part though, the book explained each logical fallacy in a clear, concise manner and the examples were easy to understand and elucidating. Anyone interested in delving into the waters of online or in person debate in these divisive political times should find this book very useful.

[Sascha Leib · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great collection of logical (and of course rhetoric) fallacies. This could be a great resource that you want to check back from time to time if it was in any way ordered in a more reasonable way than *alphabetical* (that's right, not by relation, not by similarity, not by classification). At least I have got the kindle version, so I can use the search function...

[Shivam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Could have been a great reference book on logical fallacies. But it is messed up due to its poor indexing - The fallacies are indexed alphabetically. Honestly, and ironically, I find it illogical.

Liked the sense of humour from the author that made it possible to go through the list which would otherwise have been a boring dictionary of fallacies.