Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. [1] [2] [3] In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an argument, i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is unsound, i.e. not
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Venn diagram for "A or B", with inclusive or (OR) Venn diagram for "A or B", with exclusive or (XOR). The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true; in fact they may both be true because "or" is defined inclusively rather than exclusively.
The conclusion is that either the first outcome or the second outcome will happen. The criticism with this form is that it does not give a definitive conclusion; just a statement of possibilities. [3] When it is written in argument form it looks like below. Either A or B If A then C If B then D Therefore either C or D
Boudry coined the term fallacy fork. [27] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork). [27]
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]
For example, a tsunami could also explain why the streets are wet but this is usually not the best explanation. As a form of non-deductive reasoning, abduction does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion even if the premises are true. [80] [82] The more plausible the explanation is, the stronger it is supported by the premises.
This is the case in the fallacy "you are either with us or against us; you are not with us; therefore, you are against us". [39] Some theorists state that formal logic studies the general form of arguments while informal logic studies particular instances of arguments.