Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...


Welcome! This is the place to ask the community of experts and other fallacyophites (I made up that word) if someone has a committed a fallacy or not. This is a great way to settle a dispute! This is also the home of the "Mastering Logical Fallacies" student support.


Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

  1. It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
  2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
  3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.

Contact Form



Send me a copy of this message
Send Message sending message...

Q&A Home Question

-1

votes

image loading...
KilliK

Eager Newbie

image loading...

KilliK


Eager Newbie

About KilliK

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
#fallacy
debate
video games
Mon, Sep 02, 2019 - 10:00 AM

Is this a fallacy and what kind?

There is right now an ongoing business war going on between two major storefronts in the PC gaming market, Valve and Epic. Epic is persuading the publishers to sell by contract their games exclusively to Epic's storefront, and not to their competitor Valve and the rest of the smaller stores. Epic will guarantee them a bigger cut from the sales, a minimum number of sales and give them a monetary bonus. Most of the publishers have accepted the deal, and that has divided the PC gaming community into two camps, each one supporting their respective store with a variety of arguments.

I want to focus to a one argument used by the Valve camp:

1.It is generally a bad thing for a publisher to not be able to sell their game to any storefront they want.
2.A publisher made a deal with a store (Epic), to sell their products exclusively to that specific store.
3.The publisher made a bad deal because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year. (the exclusivity deal is for one year)

1 is a valid premise, because in a free competitive market every company needs to have the right to sell its products anywhere it wants and can, so that they can be accessible to as many costumers as possible.
2 is a fact, a company made the exclusivity deal, because they would make a bigger profit (based on the sales guarantees of the Epic store) despite losing a small percentage of costumers. This reasoning for the deal has been openly expressed by the company itself.
3 is a fallacy. Because the deal is not bad according to the company which is why it decided to make it in the first place, although it is forced to sell its products to only one store for at least one year.
4. There is a counter-argument to 3. There is the possibility that the company later in the year regrets for making the deal (the sales guarantees werent met) but is still obliged by contract to sell exclusively to the Epic store. Thus its deal was bad after all, because it wont be able to sell anywhere it wants its products because of the deal.

I would like to know if 3 is a valid fallacy. if yes, what type is it? is 4 a valid counter-argument to 3? it looks to me as a circular reasoning, but I dont know.



Quick Comment On This Question (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the question owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

2 Answers

0

votes

image loading...
William Harpine, Ph.D.

Master Contributor

image loading...

William Harpine, Ph.D.


Master Contributor

About William Harpine, Ph.D.

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Mon, Sep 02, 2019 - 03:13 PM
Sounds like a question for a business attorney, not a logician. But good luck!


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
Bo Bennett, PhD
Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

image loading...

Bo Bennett, PhD

Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

About Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime."  Much of his charitable work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think.  His projects include his book, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, and Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies.  Bo's personal blog is called Relationship With Reason, where he writes about several topics related to critical thinking.  His secular (humanistic) philosophy is detailed at PositiveHumanism.com.
Bo is currently the producer and host of The Humanist Hour, the official broadcast of the American Humanist Association, where he can be heard weekly discussing a variety of humanistic issued, mostly related to science, psychology, philosophy, and critical thinking.

Full bio can be found at http://www.bobennett.com
Print Mon, Sep 02, 2019 - 11:31 AM
You are dealing with opinions and statements of fact here, no room for fallacies.

1.It is generally a bad thing for a publisher to not be able to sell their game to any storefront they want.

Opinion. This should be supported with arguments, then we can look at those arguments for fallacious reasoning.

2.A publisher made a deal with a store (Epic), to sell their products exclusively to that specific store.

Statement of fact... they either did or did not.

3.The publisher made a bad deal because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year. (the exclusivity deal is for one year)

Opinion and statement of fact. "The publisher made a bad deal" is opinion and "because it cant sell their products anymore to any storefront they want for at least one year" is either true or not (statement of fact).

So no fallacies I can see here. Of course, this doesn't mean the opinions are based on reason or what is stated as true are factually true.
Bo Bennett, PhD
Social Scientist, Business Consultant
Consulting > https://scroops.com/Lm5XFu
About My Businesses > http://www.archieboy.com
About Me > http://www.bobennett.com
Books I’ve Written > https://tinyurl.com/bosbooks
Courses I Teach > https://tinyurl.com/boscourses
Podcasts I Host > https://tinyurl.com/bospodcasts


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

Registered User Comments



About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2019, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.