Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies ~ Fallacy of Exclusive Premises


Contents

  • How to Use This Guide
  • Search
  • Privacy and Security
  • Contact
  • Home Page
  • All Fallacies
  • The Fallacies

  • False Dilemma
  • Argument From Ignorance
  • Slippery Slope
  • Complex Question
  • Appeal to Force
  • Appeal to Pity
  • Appeal to Consequences
  • Prejudicial Language
  • Appeal to Popularity
  • Anonymous Authorities
  • Coincidental Correlation
  • Attacking the Person
  • Appeal to Authority
  • Converse Accident
  • Style Over Substance
  • Unrepresentative Sample
  • Hasty Generalization
  • False Analogy
  • Slothful Induction
  • Fallacy of Exclusion
  • Accident
  • Joint Effect
  • Genuine but Insignificant Cause
  • Wrong Direction
  • Complex Cause
  • Begging the Question
  • Irrelevant Conclusion
  • Straw Man
  • Equivocation
  • Amphiboly
  • Accent
  • Composition
  • Division
  • Affirming the Consequent
  • Denying the Antecedent
  • Inconsistency
  • Fallacy of Four Terms
  • Undistributed Middle
  • Illicit Major
  • Illicit Minor
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
  • Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
  • Existential Fallacy
  • Subverted Support
  • Non-Support
  • Untestability
  • Limited Scope
  • Limited Depth
  • Too Broad
  • Too Narrow
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises

    Category:

    Definition: A syllogism has two negative premises

    Examples:

    Proof:

    The fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

    Show that the two premises are negative. Nothing follows from two negatives.


    Created by Stephen Downes, Copyright 2023 CC By-NC-SA