|
|
Does the following argument involve a fallacy?Some politicians are drug dealers, since some politicians are criminals, and some criminals are drug-dealers. |
| asked on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2023 02:37:36 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."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
|
The specific fallacy committed is fallacy of (the) undistributed middle. |
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2023 09:19:33 AM by Darren | |
Darren Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
This is worded awkwardly. I am guessing the argument is meant to be: P1. Some politicians are criminals The conclusion does not follow because we don't know if the politicians that are criminals are also drug dealers. I can't find a specific fallacy for this form, but at the least it is a non sequitur . |
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2023 07:36:37 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Put it on a Venn Diagram, and you can see the fallacy. Not to mention unsubstantiated premises. |
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2023 10:46:10 AM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
The intersection of the sets "criminals who are politicians" and "criminals who are drug dealers" could be an empty set. It cannot be assumed some politicians are drug dealers from the information given. Kath |
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2023 06:43:55 AM by Kath | |
Kath Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
