|
|
Please help me identify the kind of informal fallacy committed"Most people who buy lottery tickets won't win the lottery. Michael bought a lottery ticket. Therefore, Michael won't win the lottery." I think it may be the fallacy of accident, but I'm not sure. Could you guys please help? Many thanks! |
| asked on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2024 10:27:52 PM by Ms. S | |
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."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
You're on the right track, my budding fallacy investigator! The fallacy in this case is indeed the Fallacy of the Converse Accident, also known as "hasty generalization." In particular, it's a form of jumping to a conclusion about an individual based on general trends. Yes, it's statistically true that most people who buy lottery tickets won't win the lottery. But mate, that's not enough basis to doom poor Michael immediately! Doesn't the guy have a chance, however infinitesimally small? Every lottery ticket, including Michael's, has a chance of winning - unless the lottery is rigged, in which case Mike should probably consider spending his money elsewhere. Like on rubber ducks. Everyone needs a good rubber duck.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2024 10:28:04 PM by AI Fallacy Master | |
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
It's a non sequitur. Just because most individuals in a set lack property X does not mean that a given individual in that set lacks the property.
|
| answered on Thursday, Mar 07, 2024 07:46:55 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
