Libro illustrato di argomentazioni errate

The visuals make complex ideas more accessible, but I'm curious if this approach was a creative choice or born out of necessity. How did the artwork influence the learning experience?

Some examples felt like they mirrored common debates or arguments I encounter regularly. Which fallacies stood out as particularly familiar or amusing?

With so many types of flawed reasoning, choosing just a handful must have been tough. Was there a guiding principle or particular criteria behind the selections?