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!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book