Dirty Tricks: Spotting Logical Fallacies

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Identify and evaluate five common logical fallacies and manipulation tactics used in workplace arguments.

Use it when: Use during communication, negotiation, or critical-thinking sessions where participants need to spot faulty logic and manipulative persuasion tactics.

Skip it when: Skip when the team is currently experiencing acute, unresolved interpersonal conflict, where drafting manipulative statements could easily be perceived as passive-aggressive personal attacks.

Group arrangement: Five teams of 2 to 5 people, distributed as evenly as possible across five tables.

Timing: The original source recommends 30 to 45 minutes; structured here as a complete 40-minute workshop plan.

Materials and tools

• Printed Reference Cards (one copy per person of their table's assigned card, plus full five-card sets for everyone at step 6)
• Checklist for Rating the Examples (one copy per person)
• Blank index cards (one per person)
• Pens (one per person)
• Countdown timer
• Chime or bell

Before participants arrive

1. Set up five distinct tables or small-group clusters labeled 1 through 5.
2. Place copies of one specific Reference Card at each table (Table 1: Accusing Your Opponent; Table 2: Sliding Down; Table 3: Appeal to Authority; Table 4: Appeal to Tradition; Table 5: Name Calling).
3. Place a stack of blank index cards, pens, and copies of the Checklist for Rating the Examples at each table.

Say this to open

Arguments in workplace meetings, emails, and proposals often rely on manipulative shortcuts rather than sound evidence. We call these dirty tricks, built on classic logical fallacies. In this exercise, each team will master one specific trick, write an anonymous realistic example, and pass it to another team to evaluate against four clear criteria.

How to run it

1. Introduce fallacies and organize teams 5 minutes

   Explain the concept of dirty tricks and logical fallacies. Divide the group across five tables so each table has between 2 and 5 people. Extra participants are distributed evenly. Each table receives copies of only their assigned Reference Card: Accusing Your Opponent, Sliding Down, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, or Name Calling. State the task and ensure everyone has their card.

2. Study assigned tactic 4 minutes

   Participants read their assigned reference card individually. Then, team members discuss the definition and example together to verify they understand the mechanics of the fallacy before writing.

3. Draft original examples 6 minutes

   Distribute blank index cards. Working individually and silently, each person writes a realistic workplace example illustrating their team's assigned dirty trick. To keep rating objective and anonymous, instruct everyone to write a random four-digit number in the upper right corner instead of their name. Collect all completed cards at each table into a single stack.

4. Rotate tactics and examples 4 minutes

   Hand each table the reference card and the stack of written examples from the preceding table (Table 1 gives to Table 2, Table 2 to Table 3, Table 3 to Table 4, Table 4 to Table 5, Table 5 to Table 1). Give teams two minutes to read the new reference card so they fully grasp the tactic they are about to evaluate.

5. Evaluate examples against checklist 8 minutes

   Distribute the Checklist for Rating the Examples. Teams read the received anonymous example cards aloud within their group. Using the four checklist questions (Valid, Authentic, Medium Difficulty, Brief), the team debates and selects the single strongest example that best illustrates the tactic.

6. Share best examples and debrief 13 minutes

   Distribute full sets of all five reference cards to every participant. One spokesperson from each team takes one minute to read their chosen top example aloud, revealing the four-digit code so the author can be acknowledged. Use the remaining eight minutes to conduct the debrief discussion on recognizing and countering these fallacies at work.

Debrief questions

• Which of the five tricks was easiest to identify, and which tends to slip past unnoticed in everyday workplace discussions?
• When you notice someone using an Appeal to Tradition or a Sliding Down argument in a meeting, what is a practical way to redirect the conversation back to evidence?
• How can you audit your own proposals to ensure you are not relying on these shortcuts?

Finished output: Five curated, peer-evaluated workplace examples demonstrating each logical fallacy, scored against standard evaluation criteria.

Remote

Create five breakout rooms corresponding to the five tactics. Share the assigned tactic text via pinned chat or shared slide. Participants type their example into a designated column on a shared digital whiteboard or spreadsheet, tagged only with a four-digit code. For the evaluation step, direct each room to review the column submitted by the preceding group, using the rating checklist to paste a star next to their top choice. Return to the main room for spokespersons to read winning entries and debrief.

Hybrid

All participants, in-person and online, record their anonymous examples with four-digit codes on a shared digital whiteboard. Assign remote participants together in one or two table cohorts while in-person participants work at physical tables with laptops. During rotation, each cohort reviews another cohort's digital column. Spokespersons present their winning examples on screen with audio routed through the main room system.

Access and participation choices

• Participants may draft fictional workplace scenarios or draw on generalized patterns without revealing actual colleague names or sensitive proprietary matters.
• Any participant may contribute ideas within small-team discussions or pass on serving as the reading spokesperson during the whole-room sharing.

If the session gets stuck

A participant names real colleagues or specific sensitive company disputes on their card.

Remind everyone during the briefing that all scenarios must use fictional names and generic job roles so the focus remains on the logical structure rather than personal grievances.

A team is split between two strong examples during the evaluation step.

Ask them to score each card from 1 to 3 on each of the four checklist criteria; the card with the higher total score wins.

Terms used here

• Textra Game: A training game framework developed by Thiagi that uses written text handouts as the engine for interactive peer analysis.
• Logical Fallacy: A flaw in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument while appearing superficially persuasive.