Understanding Fallacy

alexanderthegreat4-2-1-1

What would this fallacy look like: Mistakenly equating what is actual for what is merely possible?

NotMyName

Bill could have stolen the cookies therefore he did steal the cookies.
My own shorthand for this is "could therefore did".

ExcludedMiddle

There are numerous things to which you could be referring.

If you're referring to the fallacy whereby one reasons that just because something could happen, it will happen, you would probably call it an appeal to possibility. Even if something is really very unlikely to occur, one might try to argue that it will just because it could happen. Murphy's Law is a humorous example of this. "I could struggle with this logic game, so I will."

You could also be referring to a distinction between metaphysical possibility and logical possibility? That likely would be slightly above the pay grade of the LSAT itself. If something's logically possible it just means that its truth wouldn't entail a contradiction. It's the broadest sense of "possibility," above things like metaphysical possibility and physical possibility. It's logically and metaphysically possible for me to run a 4-minute mile, but it's not a physical possibility. A circular square would be a logical impossibility.

jurislaw

@NotMyName said:
Bill could have stolen the cookies therefore he did steal the cookies.
My own shorthand for this is "could therefore did".

Or, is it the other way around instead?
Since Bill did steal the cookies he probably had the chance to steal the cookies. This specific example doesn't make a lot of sense but I was wondering what is mistaken for what.

NotMyName

@jurislaw

Or, is it the other way around instead?
Since Bill did steal the cookies he probably had the chance to steal the cookies. This specific example doesn't make a lot of sense but I was wondering what is mistaken for what.

Right. I had to parse the sentence myself because it's awfully LSAT-y in construction. The word "merely" is what tells me that "possible" has been established but not "actual". I also can't think of an example that would make sense interpreting it the other way.

NotMyName

^^ Another example of the importance of grammar and parsing on the LSAT and likely in law generally : )

alexanderthegreat4-2-1-1

Thank you all for the help!! The question was for an old lsat 7 S.4 Q.3