Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!
|
It appears to Logic Chopping . You are correct that statement 2 does not invalidate statement 1. You did not claim that the forest "takes up carbon dioxide" you said it was "important for taking carbon dioxide out of the air." You can play the game of pedantics as well :) If there is a reason for the clarification, then this would be acceptable, like if there were a forest of dead trees it is important to know that this wouldn't help much with carbon dioxide (assuming it wouldn't - not my area). So it could be unnecessary precision (logic chopping) or perhaps necessary clarification depending on the context. |
answered on Wednesday, Sep 04, 2019 08:05:39 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|