Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made ...
Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative. [ 11] Fallacy of four terms ( quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms. [ 12] Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise ...
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 converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.
Caption: "SMASHED!", Harper's Weekly, 22 September 1900. A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [ 1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
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 faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. [1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. [2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all ...
Tu quoque. Tu quoque ( / tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː /; [ 1] Latin for 'you also') is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent is hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad ...
Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P. This fallacy can be summarized formally as or, alternatively, . [ 5]