search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

False Conversion

(also known as: illicit conversion, [illicit] inductive conversion)

New Terminology:

Type “A” Logical Forms: A proposition or premise that uses the word, “all” or “every” (e.g., All P are Q)

Type “E” Logical Forms: A proposition or premise that uses the word, “none” or “no” (e.g., No P are Q)

Type “I” Logical Forms: A proposition or premise that uses the word, “some” (e.g., Some P are Q)

Type “O” Logical Forms: A proposition or premise that uses the terms, “some/not” (e.g., Some P are not Q)

Description: The formal fallacy where the subject and the predicate terms of the proposition are switched (conversion) in the conclusion, in a proposition that uses “all” in its premise (type “A” forms), or “some/not” (type “O” forms).

Logical Form:

All P are Q.

Therefore, all Q are P.

 

Some P are not Q.

Therefore, some Q are not P.

Example #1:

All Hollywood Squares contestants are bad actors.

Therefore, all bad actors are Hollywood Squares contestants.

Example #2:

Some people in the film industry do not win Oscars.

Therefore, some Oscar winners are not people in the film industry.

Explanation: It does not follow logically that just because all Hollywood Squares contestants are bad actors that all bad actors actually make it on Hollywood Squares.  Same form problem with the second example -- but we used “some” and “are not”.

Exception: None, but remember that type “E” and type “I” forms can use conversion and remain valid.

No teachers are psychos.

Therefore, no psychos are teachers.

Tip: Remember that formal fallacies are often obscured by unstructured rants. Creating a formal argument from such rants is both an art and a science.

References:

Welton, J. (1896). A Manual of Logic. W. B. Clive.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

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