who has burden of proof when given some constraints and we're expected to make some reasonable assumptions

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

The exact problem I'm trying to solve is too technical to explain, so I'm trying to come up with a simpler example. This isn't a great one, but the best I can think of at the moment:

for example:

to apply for this programming job, you must have either a Phd in computer science, or a bachelor degrees in computer science.

So what implied or assumed from that job description, is one needs an education level equivalent to a bachelor's degree, or something better than that like a Phd.

What about a masters degree, which usually is better than bachelors and requires a bachelors before one can enter a program to attain a masters degree?

In some situations, someone can directly apply to a masters program without having first gotten a bachelors degree.

But obviously they have the capability of someone who has a bachelors degree already.

Most intelligent people would just assume a masters degree is also acceptable for that job requirement.

But let's say an evil boss trying to exploit any loophole denies a qualified candidate who has a masters degree but not a bachelor's degree.

Many times we're expected to make reasonable deductions and inferences given a terse description of a situation. Who has the burden of proof?

Is there a name for this kind of fallacy or weasel maneuvering?

Answers

There is a common expression about situations like these, following the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The letter being a literal interpretation of what the rule says, and the spirit being a more flexible interpretation that conveys the intention of the writer of the rule. For what it's worth, I did see someone online claim something like this has happened to them. They got turned down for a job that required a high school diploma because they could only provide proof that they'd earned a bachelor's degree.

In this case, I would say the boss is guilty of logic chopping .

One thing I will say as someone who has dealt with technical requirements: Generally, if it's your job to meet the requirements, it's also your job to prove you've met the requirements. And it's on whoever writes the requirements to make them as unambiguous as possible to avoid situations like this

In this scenario, the burden of proof would typically fall on the person making the claim, who is also responsible for providing clarity when ambiguity arises. In this case, it would be the hiring organization or boss who stated the job prerequisites. If a dispute over qualification arises, it is their responsibility to provide further clarity on the requirements. This is important to prevent misunderstandings or misuse of a situation. If the job description specifies a bachelor's degree or a Phd without mentioning a masters degree, it can lead to a reasonable assumption that a masters degree is acceptable. However, the organization may be guided by flawed logic or bias if it disqualifies candidates with a masters degree. Such qualifications should ideally be clarified and better outlined to avoid this.

Want the full book?

Get the complete guide to logical fallacies by Bo Bennett.

Buy the Book

Master Logical Fallacies Online

Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.

View Online Course