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 ...
List of paradoxes. Outline of public relations – Overview of and topical guide to public relations. Map–territory relation – Relationship between an object and a representation of that object (confusing map with territory, menu with meal) Mathematical fallacy – Certain type of mistaken proof.
A complex question, trick question, multiple question, fallacy of presupposition, or plurium interrogationum (Latin, 'of many questions') is a question that has a complex presupposition. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this ...
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]
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 ...
In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur[ 1] ( / ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər /; Latin for 'it does not follow') is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. [ 2]
In this example, a valid conclusion would be: ~P or Q. The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause (antecedent) of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with an example that has true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:
Argument from fallacy. Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. [ 1] It is also called argument to logic ( argumentum ad logicam ), the fallacy fallacy, [ 2] the fallacist's fallacy, [ 3] and the bad reasons fallacy. [ 4]