Core Points - The article discusses 20 common logical fallacies and their identification methods, emphasizing the importance of recognizing these fallacies to construct more rigorous arguments [1]. Group 1: Types of Logical Fallacies - Ad Hominem Fallacy: This occurs when the argument is directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining [2]. - Appeal to Authority Fallacy: This fallacy arises when someone cites an authority figure's opinion without substantial evidence to support the argument [4]. - Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: This involves attempting to win an argument by appealing to emotions rather than facts or logic [6]. - Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: This fallacy claims something is true simply because it has not been proven false [7]. - Bandwagon Fallacy: This assumes that if many people believe something, it must be true, regardless of the actual evidence [8]. - Causal Fallacy: This occurs when a correlation between two events is mistaken for a cause-and-effect relationship [9]. - Circular Reasoning: This fallacy uses the conclusion as a premise, creating a loop in reasoning [11]. - Post Hoc Fallacy: This involves assuming that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second [12]. - False Dichotomy Fallacy: This presents only two options when more exist, oversimplifying the situation [15]. - Ambiguity Fallacy: This uses vague or double meanings to mislead or distort the truth [17]. - Composition Fallacy: This assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole [18]. - Division Fallacy: This assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for its parts [20]. - Gambler's Fallacy: This is the belief that past random events affect future random events [22]. - Genetic Fallacy: This assumes that the origin of a person or idea determines its value or truth [24]. - Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This involves making a conclusion based on insufficient evidence [26]. - Loaded Question Fallacy: This contains a presupposition that leads to a predetermined conclusion [28]. - Red Herring Fallacy: This diverts attention from the main issue by introducing a related topic [29]. - Straw Man Fallacy: This simplifies or misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack [31]. - Sunk Cost Fallacy: This involves continuing a behavior or endeavor due to previously invested resources [33]. - Slippery Slope Fallacy: This suggests that a small first step will lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant impact [34].

Group 1 - The article discusses the common behaviors of investors in the stock market, particularly "bottom fishing" and "chasing highs" [1][2] - A real case is presented where an investor bought shares of Jiakai City at a price of 0.49 yuan after a significant drop of 96.5% from its peak of 12.99 yuan [3][4] - The investor aimed to benefit from a potential rebound after the stock was delisted, but the stock price further declined to 0.10 yuan, resulting in a substantial loss [7][8] Group 2 - The article highlights the common mistake of blindly "bottom fishing," referencing the 2008 financial crisis where many investors lost money by buying stocks they believed were undervalued [10][11] - It emphasizes the concept of "value traps," where stocks appear cheap but their fundamentals continue to deteriorate, leading to further declines [14] - The narrative suggests that trying to recover losses in the same failing investment can lead to deeper losses, illustrating the importance of recognizing when to stop investing in a losing position [15][30] Group 3 - The article introduces the concept of "recouping thinking," which is a cognitive trap that can lead investors to make poor decisions based on past losses [17][18] - It explains the gambler's fallacy, where individuals mistakenly believe that past independent events will influence future outcomes, leading to irrational investment decisions [19][20] - The article discusses the anchoring effect, where investors fixate on previous high prices as reference points, ignoring the deteriorating fundamentals that may prevent a return to those levels [24] Group 4 - The article advocates for a more rational approach to resource allocation, suggesting that investors should focus on opportunities with higher marginal returns rather than being tied to past losses [33][36] - It emphasizes the importance of recognizing opportunity costs, where continued investment in a failing asset can prevent capital from being allocated to more promising opportunities [43] - The article concludes that in a rapidly changing environment, the ability to adapt and reallocate resources is more valuable than stubbornly trying to recover losses in a failing investment [68][72]