Donald and solvancy problem

[Josh <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>]

Whether or not the leap can be made is based on the manner in which the
argument is set up. Take the generic arg:

If [policy continues to exist] then [disadvantages will ensue]

First it is being assumed that the policy is (will be) the sole cause of the
harms. This assumption is often made by debaters and seldom in the evidence.

This notion becomes manifested in the actual logical flaw of Denying the
Antecedent.

If A then B
Not A, therefore Not B

Unfortunately thisargument is just plain invalid.

Of course the solvency claim could be made to avoid the hypothetical
construction, but the fallacious reasoning would still exist.

Matt Kuss

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Becky's defense of Kate's defense of environment topic
• Next by Date: That solvency thang and Greg
• Prev by thread: test--ignoreRe: The Solvency Whine
• Next by thread: That solvency thang and Greg
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page