Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Understanding Fallacy

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

Comments

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    5320 karma

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

  • ExcludedMiddleExcludedMiddle Alum Member
    edited November 2018 737 karma

    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.

  • jurislawjurislaw Alum Member
    51 karma

    @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.

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    edited November 2018 5320 karma

    @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.

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage
    5320 karma

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

  • 474 karma

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

Sign In or Register to comment.