Critical reasoning is the most important skill an individual can master. Logic is the foundation of critical thinking. Logical fallacies are the most commonly found errors in debate. It behooves us, therefore, to be intimately familiar with the forms of logical fallacy so that our faculties are better equipped to properly evaluate logical assertions, both in our own critical thinking and in debate with others.
Here is a quick reference guide (cheat sheet) of logical fallacies, slightly reorganized, from informationisbeautiful.net. I hope it is as useful to you as it has been to me. In my opinion, this is not the usual cheat sheet that you refer to when you have the occasion to need it, but rather a compact reference guide that you should refer to often, without needing it, until the information is memorized and internalized.
And here's a description of the fallacies presented:
Appeals to the Mind
Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Using evidence from an unnamed expert, study, or generalized group to claim something is true
Appeal to Authority: Claiming something is true because an unqualified expert says it is
Appeal to Common Practice: Claiming something is true or good because it's commonplace
Appeal to Ignorance: Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)
Appeal to Incredulity: Claiming something is false because it seems unbelievable or implausible
Appeal to Money: Supposing that wealth or expensiveness affects the truth of a claim
Appeal to Novelty: Supposing something is better because it is new or newer
Appeal to Popular Belief: Claiming something is true because a majority of people believe it
Appeal to Probability: Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen
Appeal to Tradition: Claiming something is true because it has occurred or been true in the past
Appeals to Emotions
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe
Appeal to Fear: Arguing by invoking fear or prejudice towards the opposing side
Appeal to Flattery: Using a compliment to hide an unfounded claim
Appeal to Nature: Drawing a comparision to the natural world as a standard
Appeal to Pity: Arguing by invoking sympathy or empathy
Appeal to Ridicule: Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd
Appeal to Spite: Dismissing a claim by way of personal bias against the claimant
Appeal to Wishful Thinking: Claiming something is true because it is desirable
Faulty Deductions
Anecdotal Evidence: Claiming something is true on the basis of isolated incidents
Composition: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of members of a group apply to the entire group
Division: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of a group automatically apply to an individual member
Design Fallacy: Claiming something is true because it is well-designed or aesthetically pleasing
Gambler's Fallacy: Predicting future outcomes on the basis of unrelated or independent past events
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a general conclusion from an inappropriately small sample
Jumping to Conclusions: Drawing a quick conclusion without considering relevant and readily-available evidence
Middle Ground: Assuming that because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie between them
Perfectionist Fallacy: Rejecting an imperfect yet adequate solution on the basis of its imperfection
Relativist Fallacy: Rejecting a claim or argument because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group
Sweeping Generalization: Applying a general rule too broadly
Undistributed Middle: Equating two things because they are similar or share characteristics
Manipulating Content
Ad Hoc Rescue: Repeatedly revising an argument to explain away problems
Begging the Question: Making a claim that ignores a larger issue
Biased Generalizing: Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample
Confirmation Bias: Placing heavier weight on evidence that supports a favorable conclusion while ignoring, dismissing, or marginalizing evidence opposing it
False Dilemma: Presenting a choice between two options while ignoring or hiding alternatives
Lie: A falsehood repeated knowingly as a fact
Misleading Vividness: Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is a rare occurrence, to increase its perceived importance
Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract or lead towards a different conclusion
Slippery Slope: Assuming a small change will lead to a series of related (negative) changes or events
Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to acknowledge significant, relevant evidence
Unfalsifiability: Offering a claim that cannot be opposed because it cannot be tested
Garbled Cause & Effect
Affirming the Consequent: Assuming there's only one explanation for something
Denying the Antecedent: Assuming that because there is a cause for something, the lack of the cause will result in the lack of the effect
Circular Logic: A conclusion derived from a premise based on the conclusion
Ignoring a Common Cause: Claiming two things that are correlated must be causal, while ignoring a third event that may have caused both
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it
On the Attack
Ad Hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid by attacking the person making the argument and not the argument itself
Burden of Proof: Claiming an argument is true unless it is refuted
Circumstance Ad Hominem: Claiming an argument is invalid because of the advocate's interests in their claim
Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the cause or original of a claim rather than the claim itself
Guilt by Association: Discrediting an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group
Straw Man: Creating a distorted or simplified charicature of your opponent's argument, and the arguing against that misrepresentation