is there a fallacy here?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
P1: more and more teenagers are playing violent games
P2: video games themselves have become more graphically and realistically violent
P3: the number and variety of video games have expanded dramatically
C: school violence is mainly caused by teenagers playing violent video games
Comments on Question
Answers
5This is a variation of the old argument that they all used toothpaste, so toothpaste must be causing X. It does not follow. Correlation does not equal causation.
Totally invalid conclusion.
Yep!
As Shawn says, this claim confuses correlation (things happening at the same time) with causation. It's a common point of confusion, but things happening together doesn't mean they cause each other. It seems like the questionable cause fallacy. I've also heard it referred to as cum hoc ergo propter hoc ... for the latin scholars among us.
Depending on how this approach is used, it can lead to lying with statistics if one presents a high correlation as evidence of causation.
Obvious non sequitur. There's no attempt to justify why more teenagers playing increasingly violent games necessarily means that school violence is mainly caused by these games. There's also no evidence presented to defend the claim.
It is an assumption. There is nothin there that explains why. I am sure there as been studies on this but no studies have been cited.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
There is an attempt here to make a direct causal link between teens playing violent games and school violence. But what we see from this statement is a correlation which is not the same as a causal one. There has been no causal link been made between the two statements (variables). I would call that, among other things, the fallacy of jumping to conclusions
One has to realize that the truth behind any social phenomena is way more complex than can be captured by simplistic statements such as this. There are numerous interacting variables to take into consideration when providing a more accurate explanation of why something is. And even then, we cannot be 100% certain that we are correct.