Where is the fallacy here?












2















Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3



Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural










share|improve this question









New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Obviously not all cats are normal.

    – Bread
    3 hours ago











  • Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

    – Bread
    2 hours ago











  • @Bread - I did some edits.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

    – Mark Andrews
    1 hour ago






  • 1





    It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

    – jobermark
    1 hour ago


















2















Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3



Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural










share|improve this question









New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    Obviously not all cats are normal.

    – Bread
    3 hours ago











  • Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

    – Bread
    2 hours ago











  • @Bread - I did some edits.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

    – Mark Andrews
    1 hour ago






  • 1





    It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

    – jobermark
    1 hour ago
















2












2








2








Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3



Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural










share|improve this question









New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3



Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural







logic






share|improve this question









New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







brilliant













New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









brilliantbrilliant

1134




1134




New contributor




brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    Obviously not all cats are normal.

    – Bread
    3 hours ago











  • Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

    – Bread
    2 hours ago











  • @Bread - I did some edits.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

    – Mark Andrews
    1 hour ago






  • 1





    It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

    – jobermark
    1 hour ago
















  • 1





    Obviously not all cats are normal.

    – Bread
    3 hours ago











  • Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

    – Bread
    2 hours ago











  • @Bread - I did some edits.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • @brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

    – Mark Andrews
    1 hour ago






  • 1





    It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

    – jobermark
    1 hour ago










1




1





Obviously not all cats are normal.

– Bread
3 hours ago





Obviously not all cats are normal.

– Bread
3 hours ago













Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

– Bread
2 hours ago





Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.

– Bread
2 hours ago













@Bread - I did some edits.

– brilliant
2 hours ago





@Bread - I did some edits.

– brilliant
2 hours ago













@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago





@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.

– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago




1




1





It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

– jobermark
1 hour ago







It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.

– jobermark
1 hour ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















1














Here is the argument:




  1. No N is not-N.


  2. No not-N is N.


  3. All C are N.


  4. No R are C.



Thus: No R are N.



The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.



Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.



The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,






share|improve this answer
























  • Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago



















1














You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

    – Frank Hubeny
    2 hours ago











  • By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago



















0














Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.



You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.






share|improve this answer
























  • I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











  • Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

    – Lee Daniel Crocker
    1 hour ago











  • This is the same error, not the second one.

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago



















0














The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N




  • RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,

  • CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,

  • therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.


R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "265"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60901%2fwhere-is-the-fallacy-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    Here is the argument:




    1. No N is not-N.


    2. No not-N is N.


    3. All C are N.


    4. No R are C.



    Thus: No R are N.



    The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.



    Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.



    The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,






    share|improve this answer
























    • Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago
















    1














    Here is the argument:




    1. No N is not-N.


    2. No not-N is N.


    3. All C are N.


    4. No R are C.



    Thus: No R are N.



    The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.



    Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.



    The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,






    share|improve this answer
























    • Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago














    1












    1








    1







    Here is the argument:




    1. No N is not-N.


    2. No not-N is N.


    3. All C are N.


    4. No R are C.



    Thus: No R are N.



    The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.



    Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.



    The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,






    share|improve this answer













    Here is the argument:




    1. No N is not-N.


    2. No not-N is N.


    3. All C are N.


    4. No R are C.



    Thus: No R are N.



    The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.



    Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.



    The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 1 hour ago









    Mark AndrewsMark Andrews

    2,7851623




    2,7851623













    • Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago



















    • Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago

















    Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago





    Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago











    1














    You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















    • I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

      – Frank Hubeny
      2 hours ago











    • By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago
















    1














    You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















    • I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

      – Frank Hubeny
      2 hours ago











    • By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago














    1












    1








    1







    You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.










    You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 2 hours ago









    Jonah.PJonah.P

    112




    112




    New contributor




    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.













    • I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

      – Frank Hubeny
      2 hours ago











    • By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago



















    • I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

      – Frank Hubeny
      2 hours ago











    • By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago

















    I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

    – Frank Hubeny
    2 hours ago





    I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.

    – Frank Hubeny
    2 hours ago













    By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago





    By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago













    I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago





    I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago











    0














    Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.



    You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

      – Lee Daniel Crocker
      1 hour ago











    • This is the same error, not the second one.

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago
















    0














    Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.



    You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.






    share|improve this answer
























    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

      – Lee Daniel Crocker
      1 hour ago











    • This is the same error, not the second one.

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago














    0












    0








    0







    Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.



    You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.






    share|improve this answer













    Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.



    You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker

    1,524512




    1,524512













    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

      – Lee Daniel Crocker
      1 hour ago











    • This is the same error, not the second one.

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago



















    • I did some editing to my question.

      – brilliant
      2 hours ago











    • Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

      – Lee Daniel Crocker
      1 hour ago











    • This is the same error, not the second one.

      – brilliant
      1 hour ago

















    I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago





    I did some editing to my question.

    – brilliant
    2 hours ago













    Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

    – Lee Daniel Crocker
    1 hour ago





    Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.

    – Lee Daniel Crocker
    1 hour ago













    This is the same error, not the second one.

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago





    This is the same error, not the second one.

    – brilliant
    1 hour ago











    0














    The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N




    • RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,

    • CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,

    • therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.


    R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N






    share|improve this answer




























      0














      The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N




      • RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,

      • CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,

      • therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.


      R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N






      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0







        The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N




        • RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,

        • CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,

        • therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.


        R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N






        share|improve this answer













        The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N




        • RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,

        • CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,

        • therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.


        R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        Graham KempGraham Kemp

        85618




        85618






















            brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60901%2fwhere-is-the-fallacy-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

            Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

            Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)