Question

...
Hossain

Which kind of FALLACY does it fall under

Hi, Which kind of FALLACY does it fall under: 
1- Cows eat grass
2- Humans eat cows
Conclusion - Humans eat grass

asked on Sunday, Jun 27, 2021 05:57:05 PM by Hossain

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."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

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. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
4

This can also be an example of equivocation . The kind of eating cows do of grass differs from the kind of eating humans do of grass. Also, the grass the cows eat is substantially different from the kind humans eat (i.e., grass that is broken down to nutrients and absorbed in the meat).
answered on Sunday, Jun 27, 2021 07:32:37 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
4

P1) A is Y

P2) B is X

C) Therefore B is Y

That is a non sequitur, and this Venn Diagram demonstrates it.
answered on Sunday, Jun 27, 2021 06:20:19 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

EDIT: Realised I fucked up.

The form is more like:

P1) A is C

P2) B is A

C) Therefore B is C

The grass is eaten and digested by the cow  before  humans eat the cow. Thus, the human is not eating grass in any meaningful sense, since it's been broken up in the cow's body (i.e. the grass is irrelevant). So the conclusion still does not follow from the premise.

The Venn Diagram still works:

A is touching C

B is touching C

Therefore B is touching A

But B does not have to be touching A; for instance, if C is in the middle of the Venn Diagram, with A and B on opposite sides.

posted on Sunday, Jun 27, 2021 06:28:12 PM