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

Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse

Description: Treating an explanation of a fact as if it were a justification of the fact, a valid reason for the fact, or evidence for the fact.

Logical Form:

Person 1 wants claim X be justified.
Person 2 explains claim X in detail.
Therefore, claim X is justified / true.

Example #1:

Barto: If masks don’t work, how do you explain the almost perfect correlation between mask-wearing communities and lower transmission rates?
Tikki: All this means is that in communities where more people where masks, the virus is less-likely to spread. It is not proof that masks are the reason.

Explanation: Not only did Tikki not answer the question asked, she created an answer based on elucidation of what Barto had said. Tikki explained what a correlation is (i.e., not “proof”) but came no closer to explaining the reason for the correlation.

Example #2:

Virgil: How do you justify the claim that Bigfoot is the missing link between the great apes and humans?
Marshall: Well, a "missing link" is the intermediary species between the two in the evolutionary process.

Explanation: Marshall simply explained what a missing link is; he did not give a valid reason for why he believes that Bigfoot is the missing link.

Exception: If it is clear to both parties that no justification attempt is being made, but rather just stating a fact, then this fallacy is not being committed.

Tip: If you are unsure if someone is trying to make an excuse or simply stating a fact, ask them. Don’t assume.

References:

This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

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