The thesis provides an overview of some of the most common informal logical fallacies in public discourse. It came about as a result of recognizing the wide use of logical fallacies in the public sphere and the need to form arguments according to logical rules. Logical fallacies in the broad sense include all fallacies in reasoning, and in the narrow sense they refer to the typical fallacies that we make while inferring. In the traditional logician approach to this issue, it is deduction and induction that prevail as methods of correct reasoning, while modern approaches to logical fallacies recognize the need for additional logical tools for the purpose of evaluating arguments in public discourse. Namely, if we were to accept only the aforementioned dichotomy, as emphasized by Johnson and Blair in their Logical Self-Defense, we would be able to talk of sound and strong arguments exclusively, the kind we rarely come across in debates. For this reason, these authors place arguments on a spectrum, where very good arguments are at the beginning, very bad are placed at the end, and most arguments fall somewhere in the middle. Good arguments meet three standards: the standard of relevance, according to which the premises of an argument must be relevant to the conclusion, the standard of sufficiency, according to which the premises of an argument must provide sufficient support for the conclusion, and the standard of acceptability, which requires that the premises of an argument be worthy of acceptance by the person who represents them and the audience to whom the argument is presented. Johnson's and Blair's contemporary approach to informal logical fallacies is the approach taken in this thesis as well, and for that purpose three types of informal logical fallacies have been analyzed, each of which violates one of the stated standards of a good argument. Real, up-to-date and intriguing examples from different areas of science and society have been used for the analysis of logical fallacies. Although logical fallacies will not disappear from public discourse, having the awareness of them and the knowledge of correct reasoning is what makes the foundation of every healthy and constructive discussion.