|
|
Please help me identify the kind of informal fallacy committed"Most people who buy lottery tickets won't win the lottery. Michael bought a lottery ticket. Therefore, Michael won't win the lottery." I think it may be the fallacy of accident, but I'm not sure. Could you guys please help? Many thanks! |
| asked on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2024 10:27:52 PM by Ms. S | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
You're on the right track, my budding fallacy investigator! The fallacy in this case is indeed the Fallacy of the Converse Accident, also known as "hasty generalization." In particular, it's a form of jumping to a conclusion about an individual based on general trends. Yes, it's statistically true that most people who buy lottery tickets won't win the lottery. But mate, that's not enough basis to doom poor Michael immediately! Doesn't the guy have a chance, however infinitesimally small? Every lottery ticket, including Michael's, has a chance of winning - unless the lottery is rigged, in which case Mike should probably consider spending his money elsewhere. Like on rubber ducks. Everyone needs a good rubber duck.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2024 10:28:04 PM by AI Fallacy Master | |
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
It's a non sequitur. Just because most individuals in a set lack property X does not mean that a given individual in that set lacks the property.
|
| answered on Thursday, Mar 07, 2024 07:46:55 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |