search

Affirming a Disjunct

(also known as: the fallacy of the alternative disjunct, false exclusionary disjunct, affirming one disjunct, the fallacy of the alternative syllogism, asserting an alternative, improper disjunctive syllogism, fallacy of the disjunctive syllogism)

New Terminology:

Disjunction: A proposition of the "either/or" form, which is true if one or both of its propositional components is true; otherwise, it is false.

Disjunct: One of the propositional components of a disjunction.

Description: Making the false assumption that when presented with an either/or possibility, that if one of the options is true that the other one must be false.  This is when the “or” is not explicitly defined as being exclusive.

This fallacy is similar to the unwarranted contrast fallacy.

Logical Forms:

P or Q.

P.

Therefore, not Q.

 

P or Q.

Q.

Therefore, not P.

Example #1:

I can’t stop eating these chocolates.  I really love chocolate, or I seriously lack willpower.  I know I really love chocolate; therefore, I cannot lack willpower.

Explanation: Ignoring the possible false dilemma, the fact that one really loves chocolate does not automatically exclude the other possibility of lacking willpower.

Example #2:

I am going to bed or watching TV.  I am exhausted, so I will go to bed; therefore, I cannot watch TV.

Explanation: It is logically and physically possible to go to bed and watch TV at the same time, I know that for a fact as I do it just about every night.  The “or” does not logically exclude the option that is not chosen.

Exception: If the choices are mutually exclusive (either by necessity or indicated by the word "either"), then it can be deduced that the other choice must be false.  Again, we are working under the assumption that one of the choices we are given represents the truth.

Today is either Monday or Sunday.  It is Monday.  Therefore, it is not Sunday.

In formal logic, the above is referred to as a valid disjunctive syllogism.

References:{apa}

Kilgore, W. J. (1979). An introductory logic. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
{/apa}

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