Writing articles intended to persuade others to adopt a certain position or take a certain action is good writing practice. These types of articles force us to think logically and express ideas clearly. When you write a persuasive piece, such as an editorial, you’ll need to set out your side of a debatable position. While doing so you’ll use the tool of argument. (That’s not in the sense of fighting, but in the sense of using words to support your position.)

But unless we’re careful, our arguments may fail because we’ve fallen into using logical fallacies. These may weaken our position instead of strengthening it.

Here is a partial list of common fallacies to avoid, along with their definitions and examples. Let's say we're writing an editorial intended to persuade state legislators to mandate the use of ignition interlock devices for anyone who's convicted of drinking and driving. (These devices work by requiring drivers to breathe into breathalyzers mounted on the vehicle's dashboard. If their breath-alcohol concentration is greater than the device's programmed limit — usually a blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent or .04 percent — then the engine won't start.)

While arguing your position, be sure to not fall into one of these logical fallacy traps:

An ad hominem attack, which is attacking a person’s character instead of their position. “Anyone who doesn’t want ignition-interlock devices is a moron.”

A non sequitur, Latin for “it does not follow,” attempts to tie unrelated ideas together. “If we can land a drone on Mars we can end drinking and driving by using ignition-interlock devices.”

A straw man argument, which creates a false position for opponents. “Those who oppose ignition-interlock devices don’t care how many people die in DUI-related crashes.”

Hasty generalization, which is making unwarranted assumptions based on limited information or experience. “In the last three years, Clearfield County had two cases of someone convicted of DUI continuing to drive. Since the county passed the ignition-interlock devices law four months ago there have been none. That’s proof the devices work.”

Irrelevant arguments. These present facts that may be true, but are unrelated to the issue under discussion. “Almost everyone takes their first drink before age 21, therefore we need ignition-interlock devices.”

Slippery-slope arguments imply that, if one event occurs, others inevitably follow. “If we don’t install ignition-interlock devices then soon there won’t be any punishment for drinking and driving at all.”

Veiled threats attempt to frighten opponents into agreeing with the writer’s position. “Unless we install ignition-interlock devices someday your family is going to become a victim of a drinking driver.”

False analogies compare two situations that are not the same. “Not installing ignition-interlock devices is like not taking action if someone tries to kidnap your child.”

Correlation vs. causation. Just because two events take place simultaneously doesn’t necessarily mean one caused the other. But be aware that it’s entirely possible that one event did indeed cause the other. In the example above I wrote, “Arizona and Oregon have cut DUI deaths in half largely due to comprehensive interlock laws.” In this case there’s good reason to believe a causative factor exists. But the trick is to avoid arguments where other factors might be involved, such as, “After Oregon passed an ignition-interlock devices law far fewer DUI-related crashes took place from November through February than from June through September.” But potential drinking drivers may have stayed home because of bad winter weather.

Circular reasoning. This is an attempt to prove your point by restating it. “Ignition-interlock devices work. I know this because those who want to have them installed on the vehicles of convicted drinking drivers say they work.”

The either-or fallacy. This assumes there are only two possible positions. “We must install ignition-interlock devices. There’s no other solution to the problem of convicted DUI drivers continuing to drive.”

Burden of proof reversal. This puts the onus on the person you’re trying to persuade. “Ignition-interlock devices save lives. Prove to me that they don’t.”

Deflection, projection, whataboutism, or red herring. These strategies, all similar to each other, are the opposite side of the coin to what we’ve discussed up to now. They’re likely to be a response to your persuasive writing. They introduce ideas that may be true but have little or nothing to do with your issue. These responses may initially seem plausible. However, they are ultimately irrelevant and seek to divert the attention from the issue. If I write the above editorial someone might reply, “What about speeding? That causes crashes, too.” Yes, it does. But that’s not the focus of the above editorial. In these cases you, as the one doing the persuasive writing, should redirect the conversation back to the issue.

Your persuasive writing will be stronger, and more likely to influence those who hold a different position, if you avoid these common logical fallacies.