Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "if the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark") under certain assumptions (there are no other lights in the room, it is ...
The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule. [1][2] A generalization that is largely true may not apply in a specific case (or to some subcategory of cases) for good reasons. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle ...
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.
Informal fallacies are a form of incorrect argument in natural language. [ 4 ] An argument is a series of propositions, called the premises, together with one more proposition, called the conclusion. [ 5 ][ 1 ] The premises in correct arguments offer either deductive or defeasible support for the conclusion.
In the above example, if 99% of people are taller than 26 inches, then the probability of the conclusion being true is 99%. Two dicto simpliciter fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms. They are "accident" and "converse accident". Faulty generalization fallacies can also affect any argument premise that uses a generalization.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy which one commits when one reasons, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the ...
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 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: