Two important terms in critical thinking is relevancy and evidence. Relevancy determines how well a statement relates to another statement. In other words, what proof makes a statement true or false? When the facts to do not add up or the premise of the statement does not agree with the conclusion, this is known as the fallacy of relevance. In other cases, however, the premises of a statement is relevant to the conclusion but do not provide adequate evidence to support the conclusion. This type of reasoning is considered to be a fallacy of insufficient evidence. In the following paper, the author will define three types of logical fallacies, an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning. The paper will illustrate examples of such fallacies, how these fallacies are significant to critical thinking and discuss its general application to decision making.
             A commonly believed logical fallacy is two wrongs to make a right. This belief states if one wrong is committed, a second wrong cancels the first one out, therefore justifying the wrong and making it right. Some examples of this fallacy are east to point out, however in other cases it is not always so clear. For example, capital punishment for murders is a widely debated topic. Much pain is caused to family members and close friends with the loss of a loved one, even more so when the death is because of another person. Many supporters of lethal injections believe that inmates do not feel any pain during the injection, while others argue the procedure pain subjected is unconstitutional. While there is no proof that condemned prisoners to feel pain during the injection, Anesthesiologists cannot confirm that the initial drug keeps the inmate unconscious throughout the entire procedure (Battle over lethal injection playing out in courts, 2004). This fallacy is perfect for the close-minded thinker. It justifies people's actions and gives them a false sense of securi
             ...