Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called contradictories .
Correlative-based fallacies. Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., "I'm not fat because I'm thinner than John."). [18] Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the ...
[1] [2] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, [44] [45] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy [46]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.
This inference is unsound because all cats, by definition, are mammals. A second example provides a first proposition that appears realistic and shows how an obviously flawed conclusion still arises under this fallacy. [3] To be on the cover of Vogue Magazine, one must be a celebrity or very beautiful. This month's cover was a celebrity.