seen from United States
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Canada
The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies: Chapter 4
Chapter 4: Formal Fallacies | The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies Home | Media | Contact Chapter 4: Formal Fallacies Published on May 14, 2019 1. Definition and Characteristics 1.1 Definition of Formal Fallacies Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structure of an argument that render the argument invalid, regardless of the truth of its premises. Unlike informal fallacies, which…
The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies: Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Categories of Fallacies | The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies Home | Media | Contact Chapter 3: Categories of Fallacies Published on April 30, 2019 1. Formal vs. Informal Fallacies 1.1 Definitions and Distinctions Logical fallacies are broadly categorized into formal and informal fallacies, each representing different types of errors in reasoning. Understanding the distinction…
Logical Fallacies Series: Affirming The Consequent
(The first in a series of infographics breaking down logical fallacies.)
Like most logical fallacies, this argument can be superficially convincing. In the final graphic above, we have an argument based on a true conditional statement - If the hypothetical Sarah was 15, then yes, she would obviously be a teenager. So in step 2, when we find out that she is a teenager, it seems reasonable to say she is 15, especially since we’ve been primed with the age “15″ in the conditional statement - but of course, we don’t really know that she is 15. She doesn’t have to be 15. Sarah could be 13, 14, 16, 17...you get the idea.
“Affirming The Consequent” can take many forms, such as the example given below:
The valid statement “If it’s raining, then the sidewalk will be wet.” “It’s raining. Therefore, the sidewalk is wet.” becomes “If it’s raining, then the sidewalk will be wet.” “The sidewalk is wet. Therefore, it must be raining [or have recently rained].” Which is invalid - maybe the sidewalk is wet because someone spilled something, or had the sprinklers on, or...
More Info: Fallacy Files Related Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Fallacy of the Single Cause.
