When you start learning about logical fallacies, it's really helpful to know the difference between formal and informal logical fallacies.

1. Formal Logical Fallacies: These fallacies focus on how an argument is set up. If the structure of the argument is wrong, then the conclusion can’t really be trusted, even if the facts used are true.

A common example is called Affirming the Consequent. Here’s how it goes:

• If it’s raining, then the street is wet.
• The street is wet. So, it must be raining.

The problem with this is that the street could also be wet for other reasons, like someone watering their garden.

2. Informal Logical Fallacies: These fallacies are more about the content and the situation around the argument, not just how it’s put together. They often involve feelings or misunderstandings.

A well-known example is called the Ad Hominem fallacy. This is when someone attacks the person giving the argument instead of talking about the argument itself. For instance:

• "You can’t trust her opinion on climate change because she’s not a scientist."

This shifts the focus away from climate change and targets the person instead.

In summary:

• Formal Fallacies = Problems with how the argument is set up.
• Informal Fallacies = Problems with the content or situation around the argument.

Knowing these differences has really helped me think more clearly and understand arguments better, whether in discussions or when reading!