Is this a non sequitur fallacy? Also, is pointing out a logical fallacy also an argument?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person 1: "I’m beginning to believe that there is no COVID"
Person 2: "You think all the numbers and data are fabricated?"
Person 1: "Yes, I believe there’s way too much money involved."
Person 2: "Saying that a claim is true or false because there is too much money involved is an appeal to money fallacy. This is an example of what it would look like: Two math professors are betting a billion dollars that 2+2=4. So, 2+2 cant = 4 because there is too much money involved. As you can see this is a non-sequitur fallacy as well. The amount of $ has no bearings on whether 2+2=4 or not.
"Syllogistic form:
X is true.
X is true because there is too much $ involved.
Therefore X is true"
Person 1: " See. There you go again with your fallacy arguments. Sometimes life is not cut and dry. Using an example of 2+2=4 to talk about what we are talking about is just not realistic."
Answers
2I see it has a opinion or unproven claim. I would not call it an ad hominem as it is not directed at a specific person.
I would say this is an ad hominem (circumstantial) . It is the claim that a person (or group) is motivated to make false claims, therefore the claims must be false. It is addressing the motivation rather than the claim itself (i.e, the data/science).
Person 1 ends with what is essentially a claim that the analogy person 2 presented was weak, starting a new/related argument. It is up to person 2 to demonstrate why the analogy is strong, then tie that back into person 1's flawed reasoning.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course