A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
Chat with our AI personalities
mazda
An Equivalence fallacy is the error of defining distinct and conflicting items in similar terms, thus equating tow items that are not, in fact, equal. An author who suggests that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from a minor offence commits the fallacy of moral equivalence. A different kind of Equivalence Fallacy is used when, for example, a politician argues: "Yes, I used illegal money to fund my campaign ... but so did my opponent!" This type of moral equivalence fallacy is called the "tu quo" argument ("But you're one too!").
Affirmative Syllogism: All P are Q X is a P X is a Q Negative Syllogism: All P are Q X is not a Q X is not P Both syllogisms are always valid. but dont be fooled by their evil twins the fallacy of affirmation and the fallacy of negation.
The origin of the word fallacy dates back to 1350-1400. The word fallacy means deceptive or misleading. As a simple example, when one says the world is flat it is a complete fallacy.
The informal fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation. For example: Cutting people with knives is a crime. → Surgeons cut people with knives. → Surgeons are criminals.