unforum

brjames · Greenhorn Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

#187 Logical Fallacies??

**Posted:** Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:39 pm

European Chris

This should help you-it's easy enough.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

**Posted:** Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:03 pm

_________________
http://www.hayfestival.com/archive/2006/05/blasphemy-debate.aspx
The internet, giving the entire world a license to opine, since 1989.
http://littleatoms.com/

brjames · Greenhorn Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

Had a good read on there but still none the wiser!!! Is it really easy enough?? Or am I being dull??

**Posted:** Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:14 pm

amliag

Well I'd say

**Posted:** Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:11 pm

_________________
http://perplexcitytrades.com/amliag

brjames · Greenhorn Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

Cheers for that - I managed to finish it last night after several tries Wink

**Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:00 am

Hituro · Veteran Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 102

This rather confused me, shouldn't the order of 6 and 7 be the reverse of that given in the spoiler above? (I know the spoiler is correct, but I am not sure about the card).

The last line says "after X happened, Y happened" as if this was proof, which is a coincidental correlation, whereas the second last line uses Dr. Bajdan as a representative of the whole argument, hence a Strawman. So 6 should be Strawman and 7 Coincidental correlation, surely?

**Posted:** Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:10 pm

Wowbagger

I agree with you Hituro, and as far as I remember I had 6 and 7 the other way round when I solved this card. Maybe they're just being a little more lenient.

**Posted:** Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:48 am

Mikeyj

Can confirm that had 6 as strawman and 7 as coincidental correlation and it was accepted

**Posted:** Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:40 pm

_________________
Irrelevant musings.

amliag

Obviously I am not as good at arguments as I thought then Embarassed

Sorry for the mistake. Just as well the site was being kind to me.
I assumed if the answer was accepted it was correct. Seems a bit strange if it's accepting incorrect answers as correct for this card when it's so picky at having the exact wording etc on other cards.

**Posted:** Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:12 pm

_________________
http://perplexcitytrades.com/amliag

CoolCats712

**Posted:** Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:15 pm

jayito

Did anyone else think that this was a bit easy for a purple card? A lot of the others take more research and some lateral thinking - but this one was quite obvious, even not knowing the names - but with a tiny bit of research you can find out for sure? Maybe I am selling myself short, but I don't think so!

Very Happy

**Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:28 pm

Platinumflux · Boot Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 43 Location: Ireland

Confirmed solve

**Posted:** Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:55 pm

Platinumflux · Boot Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 43 Location: Ireland

Sorry forgot to mention... 6 & 7 are completely seperate. For a start there is two sentences there and they are seperate from each other.

**Posted:** Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:58 pm

gamegirl · Boot Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Posts: 32 Location: US

I still think that #6 should be Attacking the Person because the deffinition I found for that indicates that it means you are attacking the person who is arguing with you....
Oh well!

**Posted:** Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:05 am