Skip to main content
added 5 characters in body
Source Link
RodolfoAP
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34

The fallacy is a false exclusionary disjunct. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial, does not exclude it.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, then rabbits are not animals".

The fallacy is a false exclusionary disjunct. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial, does not exclude it.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, rabbits are not animals".

The fallacy is a false exclusionary disjunct. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial, does not exclude it.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, then rabbits are not animals".

added 36 characters in body
Source Link
RodolfoAP
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34

The fallacy is ana non sequiturfalse exclusionary disjunct. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial, does not exclude it.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, rabbits are not animals".

The fallacy is an non sequitur. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, rabbits are not animals".

The fallacy is a false exclusionary disjunct. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial, does not exclude it.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, rabbits are not animals".

Source Link
RodolfoAP
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34

The fallacy is an non sequitur. The point (4) does not deny point (3). It is different, but is not a denial.

Your conclusion is equivalent to "since rabbits are not cats, rabbits are not animals".