|
|
Only mask wearers test positive (CV+)I saw this posted on, yes, Twitter from Telegram: ”CoVid deniers who don’t wear masks, don’t get tested. Which means that the increase in case numbers is mask wearers.” Which fallacy is this? I’m assuming by leaving out the comma after the first “CoVid deniers...” he means that all deniers don’t wear masks nor do they get tested, although clear use of punctuation is not always a given in Tweets. I’ve added implied assumptions in A, C and D: A- Some CoVid deniers don’t wear masks. it seems to be a valid argument yet still false. Where does it break down? |
| asked on Sunday, Oct 04, 2020 09:57:46 AM by | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
This is a problem, specifically, with sampling rather than logic. One can also argue it is a general problem with reason , because one doesn't need to be a social scientist to see the problem with the sample. If it were true that significantly more deniers refuse to get tested than non-deniers, this would skew the results of those tested positive. I also question the assumptions here (i.e., truth of the premises). COVID doesn't pass those who deny it exists. In fact, I would bet that deniers get COVID at significantly higher rates that those who take proper precautions. Asymtomatic people are just as likely to be deniers as non-deniers, so unless there is a substantial group of deniers who are sick and refuse to get tested, the premise of this "argument" is baseless (I would ask for evidence of this). Now let's look at the argument as you have it presented. A&B are not necessary for the conclusion. The conclusion says nothing about COVID deniers, so we don't need those premises. Also, the entire argument is confusing and ambiguous as written, leaving out scope in a couple of places. All you need is P1. The number of positive cases has increased. This is a valid argument, but not at all sound as I mentioned earlier. |
|||
| answered on Sunday, Oct 04, 2020 10:57:45 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
|
|
I don't see a fallacy, only a statement of observation. Your implied assumptions/consequences are good questions to ask the speaker, to see if he meant E. The wearer may be simply more concerned, but the intention of the writer is legitimately challengeable imo. |
| answered on Monday, Oct 05, 2020 12:04:07 PM by DrBill | |
DrBill Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
