The logical error of reasoning: 'We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this.' This fallacy involves treating any action as necessary simply because some action is needed, without evaluating whether the proposed action is appropriate, effective, or the best available option. It exploits the psychological pressure to be seen as responding to problems.

The claim that a particular policy, action, or system is inevitable or that no alternative exists, when alternatives do exist but are not acknowledged or considered. This involves presenting what is actually a choice as if it were a necessity imposed by circumstances, logic, or nature, thereby foreclosing debate about alternatives.

The use of coded or suggestive language that appears innocent to a general audience but carries a specific, often controversial or offensive, meaning to a targeted in-group. While the practice itself is a rhetorical tactic, the fallacy occurs when: (1) denying the coded meaning despite clear evidence, or (2) attributing coded meanings without adequate evidence, or (3) using accusations of dog-whistling to avoid engaging with surface arguments.

The practice of selectively highlighting the most extreme, absurd, or unrepresentative members of a group or movement as if they were representative of the whole. This involves deliberately seeking out 'nuts' (extremists or fools) from the opposing side to characterize that entire side, while ignoring mainstream or reasonable representatives.

The practice of seeking out and arguing against the weakest form or weakest defenders of a position while ignoring stronger versions or more capable defenders. Unlike straw man (which misrepresents arguments), weak man finds genuinely poor arguments or advocates, but treats refuting them as if it refutes the position itself.

Incorrectly assuming that in a given situation, one party's gain must necessarily equal another party's loss, that resources or benefits are fixed in total amount, and that value cannot be created or destroyed. This fallacy treats all interactions as competitive rather than recognizing possibilities for mutual benefit, value creation, or positive-sum outcomes.

Treating a bare assertion or claim as proven simply because someone stated it, without providing evidence, reasoning, or justification. The fallacy involves accepting or demanding acceptance of a proposition based solely on the authority or will of the speaker rather than on any supporting argument or evidence.

Arguing that something is superior, correct, or should be preferred simply because it is old, ancient, or has been done for a long time, without providing evidence that age itself confers merit. This assumes that older necessarily means better, wiser, or more valid.

Supporting a claim by referencing 'studies', 'research', 'science', or 'experts' without specifying which studies, what kind of research, whose expertise, or what the evidence actually shows. The fallacy treats vague invocation of scientific authority as sufficient justification while providing no way to verify, evaluate, or challenge the claimed support.

Assuming that technology, particularly digital technology or apps, can solve complex social, political, or human problems that are fundamentally about values, behavior, institutions, or social structures. This fallacy treats technology as a universal solution while ignoring that many problems require social, political, or cultural changes that technology alone cannot provide.

Responding to criticism, problems, or failures by deflecting blame onto others or external factors rather than addressing the actual issue, accepting appropriate responsibility, or proposing solutions. The fallacy substitutes identification of who to blame for analysis of what went wrong and how to fix it.

Treating loyalty to a person, group, party, organization, or nation as requiring uncritical support and acceptance of their positions, even in the face of contrary evidence or ethical concerns. The fallacy assumes that questioning or criticizing those you're loyal to represents betrayal, disloyalty, or insufficient commitment rather than responsible engagement.

Treating arguments, claims, or positions as more credible, trustworthy, or valid simply because they come from family members, relatives, or close associates, or conversely, treating someone's family connections as relevant to evaluating their arguments. The fallacy assumes kinship or close association affects the quality of reasoning or evidence.

Treating someone's claims as more credible or authoritative because they are associated with, trained by, work for, or are endorsed by legitimate authorities, even though the person themselves hasn't established relevant expertise. The fallacy assumes that authority transfers through association, proximity, or affiliation rather than requiring direct demonstration of competence.

Treating products, services, or claims as superior, trustworthy, or valid simply because they carry a prestigious brand name, label, or trademark, without evaluating actual quality, evidence, or merit. The fallacy assumes brand reputation automatically transfers to all products or claims associated with that brand.

Invoking the butterfly effect or chaos theory to argue that because small changes can theoretically have large effects, any small action could have arbitrarily large consequences, therefore we cannot predict anything, cannot assess likely outcomes, or must treat all small changes as potentially catastrophic. The fallacy misunderstands chaos theory by treating sensitive dependence on initial conditions as meaning outcomes are completely unknowable or that all perturbations have equal probability of large effects.

Dismissing valid criticism, arguments, or concerns by characterizing them as merely playing 'cards' (race card, gender card, class card, etc.) or employing rhetorical strategies, rather than addressing the substance of the claim. The fallacy treats the identification of a rhetorical pattern as sufficient to invalidate the argument, regardless of its merit.

The mistaken assumption that because a metric or indicator correlates with something we care about, we can optimize or incentivize that metric and get corresponding improvements in the underlying quality we actually value. Named after Donald T. Campbell's observation that 'the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.'

The principle (often misapplied as fallacy) that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind existing arrangements is understood—used fallaciously when it becomes a blanket defense against change, when understanding is set as impossibly high bar, or when absence of reformer's knowledge of original reasoning is treated as proof the reform is unwise, regardless of new evidence or changed conditions.

The inverse error of misapplying Chesterton's fence: assuming that because an arrangement exists and has existed for some time, it must be justified and beneficial, without investigating whether it actually serves useful purpose or whether conditions have changed. This treats longevity and institutional memory as automatically superior to analysis, evidence, or reform proposals.