flaws

mc_meatt

Hi, I'm confused with these statements. They refer to some kind of flaws, but can't seem to pinpoint exactly what they are.
Does anyone know what they're called?

1. The argument assumes without warrant that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which that phenomenon occurs (in other words, the argument assumes that one way is the only way)

2. It sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that are not known to be exclusive. (in other words, the argument assumes a limited number of possibilities when there could be more)

sarahfatima28

Hey, incase you mean you WANT to label these flaws and don't know what to call them, then Mike Kim in Trainer has categorised flaws quite easily. If you have already read the trainer and are still confused about which categories they fall in then here is my understanding of them.

1. A Piece is not a Puzzle flaw: here the argument overvalues - a trait, an opinion and/or a sample set. The evidence used to support the conclusion is just one part of the bigger picture. (mistaking necessary for sufficient)

2. 1+1 is not equal to 3 flaw: here the author brings two ideas or two pieces of information together to conclude something that may not be correct. ( correlation does not imply causation).

I could be wrong but thats what i understood from it.

runiggyrun

You are understanding the first one perfectly.
The second one assumes that there are only two mutually exclusive alternatives. (So it assumes if you don't do A you have to do B and you can't do both).
I'm not sure what you mean by "what they're called". You don't need to name them, you just need to be able to understand how to translate that complex mumbojumbo into plain English and what to do with the translation. As soon as you are able to do that, you're good to go. Doesn't matter if they are called "Bob" or "the false dichotomy conundrum".