If you happen to read Ukrainian, the text of my 42 fallacies have been translated and posted at http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/fallacies-nizkor-ua by Galina Miklosic .
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn from evidence that does not support that conclusion but another claim. The form of this reasoning is as follows:
- Evidence for claim X is presented.
- Conclusion: Y
While all fallacies are such that the alleged evidence provided in the premise(s) fails to adequately support the conclusion, what distinguishes this fallacy is that the evidence presented actually does provide support for a claim. However, it does not support the conclusion that is actually presented.
This fallacy typically occurs when the evidence for X seems connected or relevant to Y in a logical way, but actually is not. It is this seeming relevance or connection that lures the victim into accepting the conclusion. As such, this differs from fallacies in which the victim is lured to the conclusion by an emotional appeal.
Obviously, this fallacy (like all fallacies) is a case of non-sequiter (“does not follow”) in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, this specific sort of mistake is common and interesting enough to justify giving it its own name and entry.
“I am troubled by the reports of binge drinking by college students. According to the statistics I have seen, about 19% of college students are binge drinkers and this leads to problems ranging from poor academic performance to unplanned pregnancies. Since people often drink in response to pressure, this shows that professors are putting their students under too much pressure and hence need to make their classes easier.”
“Our product testing revealed that 60% of the people on Acme Diet Master reported that they felt less hungry when using the product. This shows that 60% ate less when using our product. I think we have our next big product!”
This fallacy occurs when someone makes illicit use of the conversion rule from categorical logic in the context of inductive reasoning. This fallacy has the following form:
- Premise 1: P% (or “some”, “few”, “most”, “many”, etc.) of Xs are Ys.
- Conclusion: Therefore P% (or “some”, etc.) of Ys are Xs.
In deductive logic, conversion is a rule that allows the subject and predicate claims of a categorical claim to be exchanged. In categorical logic there are four sentence types (All S areP , No S are P, Some S are P, and Some S are not P) and this rule applies correctly to two of them: No S are P and Some S are P. A conversion is legitimate when the converted claim logically follows from the original (and vice versa). Put another way, the rule is applied correctly when its application does not change the truth value of the claim.
For example, “No cats are hamsters” converts legitimately to “no hamsters are cats.” Interestingly, “some dogs are huskies” converts correctly to “some huskies are dogs”, at least in categorical logic. In categorical logic, “some” means “at least one.” Hence, “at least one dog is a husky” is converted to “at least one husky is a dog.” In this case, the inference from one to the other is legitimate because it is made in the context of categorical logic.
The illicit use of conversion is, not surprisingly, an error. This error occurs in two ways. The first is when the rule is applied incorrectly in the context of categorical logic: if conversion is applied to an All S are P or a Some S are not P claim, then the rule has been applied improperly. This can be easily shown by the following examples. While it is true that all dogs are mammals, the conversion of this claim (that all mammals are dogs) is not true. As another example, the claim that some dogs are not huskies is true while its conversion (that some huskies are not dogs) is false.
The second occurs when the conversion rule is applied outside of the context of categorical logic. To be specific, it occurs in contexts in which “some” and comparable terms such as “few”, “most”, “many” and so on are not taken to mean “at least one.” This is the sort of error that defines this specific fallacy. For example, to infer that most people who speak English are from Maine because most people from Maine speak English would be an obvious error. This is because “most” in this context is not taken to mean “at least one.”
Not surprisingly, people generally do not make such obvious errors in regards to conversion. However, people do fall victim to conversions that seem plausible. For example, when people hear that a medical test for a heart condition is 80% accurate they might be tempted to infer that 80% of those who test positive have the condition. However, to convert “80% of those who have the condition will test positive” (that is what it means for a test to be 80% accurate) to “80% of those who test positive have the condition” is an illicit use of conversion.
“Very few white men have been President of the United States. Therefore very few Presidents have been white men.”
“A fairly small percentage of automobile accidents involve drivers over 70. Therefore a fairly small percentage of drivers over 70 are involved in automobile accidents.”
“Most conservatives are not media personalities on Fox News. Therefore, most of the media personalities on Fox News are not conservative.”
“Most wealthy people are men so most men are wealthy.”
“Most modern terrorists are Muslims, therefore most Muslims are terrorists.”
“Most modern terrorists are religious people, therefore most religious people are terrorists.”