Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of division [1] is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. An example: The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream; Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary; Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. 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 ...
The Spanish version of the book was reviewed by Rafael Martínez for Loffit, and it emphasized how effectively the book's lessons could be learned by listening to various debates heard every day on radio and television, identifying in them examples of logical fallacies that the book explains. [12]
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments [1] is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies.
Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time. [5] [44] [45] [46] Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a ...
division See fallacy of division. domain The set of all possible inputs for a function, or more generally, the subject matter or universe of discourse in a logical argument. domain of discourse The collection of objects being discussed in a particular logical context, which determines the range of quantifiers. dominant connective
The fallacy of division is committed if one infers from the sentence in the collective sense that one specific individual is strong enough. [12] [24] The fallacy of composition is committed if one infers from the fact that each member of a group has a property that the group as a whole has this property. [24]
The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies) of this book are the following: Fallacies in the language or formal fallacies (in dictionem): Equivocation; Amphiboly; Composition; Division; Accent; Figure of speech or form of expression; Fallacies not in the language or informal fallacies (extra ...