10

Suppose there is a non-empty subset A of U. Let A' denote the complement of A in U.

What is the name of this logical fallacy?

X is true for A
therefore
not X is true for­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ A'

For example, suppose U = {all people} and A = {all teenagers} then the logical fallacy is

all teenagers are bad
therefore
all non teenagers are not bad

  • 2
    Is there a reason you're using different notations for not X and A' ? Either is the complement of X or A (respectively). – Flater Jan 10 at 15:22
  • @Flater If I used the same notation for X what would the superset be? – James Rohal Jan 11 at 4:01
  • Actually, I could just use X ⊆ {bad, not bad}. If I had realized that earlier I might not have had to ask the question! – James Rohal Jan 11 at 4:08
  • The definition of not inherently means that { X , not X } is a complete set. You don't need to define it for every variable, negation is a basic operation. – Flater Jan 11 at 16:43
22

After some thought I realized this is a denying the antecedent fallacy. Put another way we have

If the person is a teenager then they are bad
therefore
If the person is a non teenager then they are not bad

| improve this answer | |
13

To add to @Jon's answer, denying the antecedent often comes up due to confusion with the valid argument form Modus Tollens

((p → q) ∧ ¬q) → ¬p)
or ((if p then q) and not q) then not p)

Which is equivalent to

(if p then q. Therefore, if not q then not p), i.e.

If a person is a teenager, then they are bad
Therefore
If a person is not bad, they are not a teenager

| improve this answer | |
0

@willross1 currently writing a thesis on logical fallacies, new to this forum. I am confused about your account of modus tollens. I believe it is a simple clerical error in which you have accidentally forgotten a parentheses? There are too many close parentheses per open parentheses. Is this simply a keyboard error or am I too prone to misunderstand MT? {[(p➡️q) & ~q] ➡️ ~q}

| improve this answer | |
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. – J D Jan 16 at 0:40
0

Other contributors gave really interesting answers, yet no one mentioned the link to the classical confusion of necessity and sufficiency - the X is necessary for being an element of A, i.e. A ⊆ T, where T = {t ∈ U | X is true for t}. Yet no one guarantees that A = T (property is not a criterion), thus, ¬X is not necessary for being an element of A' (unless A = T is stated), but it sufficient for being an element of A'. It could be demonstrated via the following Euler diagram (sorry for a sloppy picture): enter image description here

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.