Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative. [1] Example of an EOO-4 type invalid syllogism. E Proposition: No cats are dogs. O Proposition: Some dogs are not pets. O Proposition: Therefore, some pets are not cats. Explanation of Example 1:
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. [11] Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative. [11]
Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.) Example (invalid aae form): Premise: All colonels are officers. Premise: All officers are soldiers. Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers.
A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. [1] [2] [3] In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an argument, i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is unsound, i.e. not
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. For example: No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
Two premises are not enough to connect four different terms, since in order to establish connection, there must be one term common to both premises. In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation : using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though ...
The fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs when the term that links the two premises is never distributed. In this example, distribution is marked in boldface: All Z is B; All Y is B; Therefore, all Y is Z; B is the common term between the two premises (the middle term) but is never distributed, so this syllogism is invalid.
A naturalistic fallacy can occur, for example, in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better" [43] or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better". [46] A false analogy occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons between data points.