Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The above argument using converse accident is an argument for full legal use of marijuana given that glaucoma patients use it. The argument based on the slippery slope argues against medicinal use of marijuana because it will lead to full use. [citation needed] The fallacy of converse accident is a form of hasty generalization.
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy where a general rule is applied to an exceptional case. 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.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample. [55]
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [9] The fallacy of begging the question, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion ...
For example, the four-vertex theorem was proved in 1912, but its converse was proved only in 1997. [3] In practice, when determining the converse of a mathematical theorem, aspects of the antecedent may be taken as establishing context. That is, the converse of "Given P, if Q then R" will be "Given P, if R then Q".
Another example is: If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress. I am not President. Therefore, I cannot veto Congress. [This is a case of the fallacy denying the antecedent as written because it matches the formal symbolic schema at beginning. The form is taken without regard to the content of the language.]
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 .