Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation. [95] [96] Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied ...
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [1] Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
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.
A fallacy is an incorrect argument or a faulty form of reasoning. This means that the premises provide no or not sufficient support for the conclusion. Fallacies often appear to be correct on the first impression and thereby seduce people into accepting and using them. In logic, the term "fallacy" does not mean that the conclusion is false.
The name of the fallacy comes from the example: Premise 1: I know who Claus is. Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is. Conclusion: Therefore, Claus is not the masked man. The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Claus is the masked man and the speaker does not know that. Thus the argument is a fallacious one. [clarification ...
Logical fallacy: A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. Paradox gun : A gun that has characteristics of both (smoothbore) shotguns and rifles. Paradoxical laughter : Inappropriate laughter, often recognized as such by the laughing person.
A fallacy in argumentation that targets the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. ad ignorantium A logical fallacy where a proposition is considered true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. ad infinitum An argument or process that is supposed to continue indefinitely, without ever reaching an end or conclusion.
Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. [2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious.