Inactive Tutor answered • 01/25/22
In logic, an argument's valid conclusion is dependent on the truth of its premises and the logical progression from premise to conclusion. Take the example below:
If it rains, we will watch a movie.
It rained.
Therefor we watched a movie.
The condition of "rain" is established as true, and the logical conclusion is that we watched the movie.
A common fallacy occurs, however, in this: If it rains, we will watch a movie.
We watched a movie.
Therefore, it rained.
The truth of the conclusion does not assure the truth of the premise.
In a syllogism, the conclusion is also reliant on the truth of the premises, as follows:
All cats have claws.
My pet is a cat.
Therefore, my pet has claws.
We cannot say validly:
All cats have claws.
My pet bear has claws.
Therefore, my pet bear is a cat.
In many political arguments, fallacies abound and are even supported by people. False and misleading information may not be true, but its ability to influence groups of people is pretty clear.
