![]() Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises. Modal scope fallacy – a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. X does not bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y. A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. Modal fallacy – confusing necessity with sufficiency.Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion. ![]() Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.Fallacy of four terms ( quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.Ī quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion. Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false if A, then B not A, therefore not B.Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true if A, then B B, therefore A.Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true A or B A, therefore not B.The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly:, ,, , ). Ī propositional fallacy is an error that concerns compound propositions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |