Best for
Analysing advertisements, speeches, debates, social posts, classroom arguments, and opinion writing.
Social Sciences / Critical Thinking • Years 9–10 • Lesson 3 scaffold
Logical Fallacies Guide
Use this guide to spot weak reasoning without attacking the person making the argument. The goal is stronger kōrero: name the pattern, explain why it weakens the claim, and respond with evidence.
What to print
Print one guide per student or pair. The first table can stay as a reference sheet; the practice cards and response frame are designed for direct annotation.
- Focus on the argument, not the person's mana.
- Ask students to quote the exact words that reveal the pattern.
- Require a repair: how could this argument become stronger?
Kaiako planning snapshot
- Use length: 20-30 minutes for fallacy spotting; 45 minutes if students rewrite flawed arguments.
- Grouping: Pairs work well because students can debate the diagnosis before writing.
- Prep: Bring one local, age-appropriate example from an ad, speech, article, or school issue.
- Teaching move: Keep asking, “What evidence would make this claim fairer or stronger?”
Resources already provided
- Fallacy reference table
- Four-step spotting flow
- Six practice cards
- Response sentence frame
- Support and extension options
All student scaffolds are on this page. Kaiako can add their own real example when they want stronger local relevance.
Ngā Whāinga Akoranga / Learning Intentions
- We are learning to recognise common patterns of weak reasoning.
- We are learning to explain why a fallacy makes an argument less reliable.
- We are learning to respond to flawed arguments with evidence and respect.
Paearu Angitu / Success Criteria
- I can identify the claim and the reasoning pattern in a short argument.
- I can name a fallacy and quote the words that show it.
- I can suggest a fairer, stronger way to argue the point.
Curriculum integration / Te Marautanga alignment
This guide supports Social Studies Phase 3 by helping students evaluate claims, compare perspectives, and form reasoned conclusions.
- TM-SS-3-D1: Explore perspectives, use evidence to form conclusions, and share ideas: Compare systems, map decisions, present new solutions.
He aha te hapa whakaaro? / What is a fallacy?
A logical fallacy is a reasoning shortcut that makes an argument weaker than it first appears. Spotting a fallacy does not prove the opposite side is automatically right. It shows that this particular argument needs better evidence, clearer reasoning, or a fairer treatment of other perspectives.
In strong kōrero, we protect mana. Say “this reasoning is weak because...” rather than “you are wrong because...”. The aim is to lift the discussion.
1. Quick fallacy reference
| Fallacy | Pattern | Why it weakens the argument | Mana-enhancing response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ad hominem | Attacks the person instead of the argument. | The claim may still be true or false; the insult does not test the evidence. | “Let’s come back to the evidence for the claim.” |
| Straw person | Changes someone’s position into an easier version to attack. | It responds to a fake version of the view, not the real view. | “Is that the strongest fair version of their argument?” |
| False cause | Assumes one thing caused another because they happened near each other. | Timing is not proof of cause; other factors may explain the change. | “What evidence shows this caused that?” |
| Slippery slope | Claims one step will lead to an extreme chain of events. | It skips the evidence for each step in the chain. | “Which step is most likely, and what makes it likely?” |
| False choice | Pretends there are only two options when more exist. | It hides compromise, staged action, or alternative solutions. | “What other options could sit between these two?” |
| Appeal to popularity | Says a claim is true because many people believe it. | Popularity is not the same as evidence. | “What evidence supports the popular view?” |
| Hasty generalisation | Uses one or two examples to judge a whole group or issue. | The sample may be too small, biased, or unusual. | “How many examples would we need before generalising?” |
| Whataboutism | Dodges criticism by pointing to a different problem. | The new problem may matter, but it does not answer the original claim. | “We can discuss that next. How do we answer this claim first?” |
2. Spotting flow
What is the speaker or writer trying to make us believe or do?
What evidence, example, value, or emotion is being used to support the claim?
Does the support test the claim, or does it distract, exaggerate, simplify, or attack?
What evidence or fairer wording would make this argument stronger?
3. Practice cards
For each card, tick the likely fallacy, quote the clue, and write one respectful response.
Card A: “The council should ignore that student submission. They are only thirteen, so they cannot understand transport planning.”
ad hominem straw person false choice
Clue and response:
Card B: “If we add one cycle lane, next the whole road will be closed and nobody will be able to get to work.”
slippery slope false cause appeal to popularity
Clue and response:
Card C: “Either we keep every rule exactly the same, or we do not care about safety.”
false choice whataboutism hasty generalisation
Clue and response:
Card D: “Everyone in my group chat agrees the article is true, so it must be reliable.”
appeal to popularity straw person false cause
Clue and response:
Card E: “One visitor dropped rubbish at the awa, so tourists clearly do not respect our place.”
hasty generalisation slippery slope ad hominem
Clue and response:
Card F: “Why are you asking about our school’s food waste? Other schools waste food too.”
whataboutism false choice appeal to popularity
Clue and response:
4. Response frame
The claim is:
The reasoning pattern I notice is: distraction exaggeration unfair attack missing evidence
I think this is a fallacy because:
A stronger version of the argument would:
Tautoko / Support
- Use only three fallacies first: ad hominem, false cause, and false choice.
- Let students sort practice cards by “attack”, “exaggeration”, and “missing evidence” before naming the exact fallacy.
- Allow oral diagnosis with a peer before writing the response frame.
Whakawhānui / Extension
- Find a real public argument and annotate the claim, evidence, and reasoning pattern.
- Rewrite one practice card so it becomes a strong argument with evidence.
- Create a new fallacy card based on a school or local issue, then swap with another pair.
Self-check before I call something a fallacy
- I have identified the actual claim, not just the topic.
- I can quote the words that show the weak reasoning pattern.
- I have not used “fallacy” as a shortcut for “I disagree”.
- I can explain what evidence would improve the argument.
- I can respond in a way that protects the mana of the people in the discussion.