0

I hear this kind of false implications pretty often, e.g.:

  • If you're smart you'd agree with me
  • People who understand the situation would all agree that ...
  • Anyone who says something else must be trying to confused us

These often come up in social deduction board games, where the good team is trying to gain information and the evil team is trying to spread misinformation. If someone says one of these lines and I disagree, they can say "see, he disagreed, so he must be on the evil team". Is there a term for this kind of faulty logic trap?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Philosophy is the best place to ask for the names of types of fallacies.
    – Barmar
    Oct 27 at 23:12
  • The first assertion, rather than a true implication to be reckoned with in serious argumentation , is a remark that has to do with rhetoric, but it is colloquial. It aims at emphasizing the certainty of the speaker and at prompting the person(s) spoken to to use their mind so as not to miss a particular point. It seems that something similar can be said for the other two.
    – LPH
    Oct 28 at 0:30

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

From: Master List of Logical Fallacies

  1. Either/Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of logos that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range of possible alternatives, variations and combinations are always readily available. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you are as queer as a three dollar bill--it's as simple as that and there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re in with us all the way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed! What's it gonna be?"
Improve this answer
1
  • It's more than this; it establishes an us (who're obviously right0 / you (if you're daft enough to disagree) dichotomy. Either/or reasoning includes 'An ing form must be either a verb or a noun' (dismissing those who hold with gradience models). There need be no setting up of a confrontation with the addressee (indeed. no definite addressee).
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 28 at 18:49
0

This is essentially the appeal to authority fallacy (without even mentioning a true authority in the [or a nearby] field).

  • Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

[Wikipedia]

but it also includes an overt browbeating, potential belittling ('Only an idiot would disagree ...') which is

  • Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.

               • Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad               absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to               deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument.

[op cit]

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    The proposition "If you're smart you'd agree with me" is hardly an appeal to authority, unless the speaker is known and respected in whatever field is germane to the issue (or thinks s/he is).
    – Robusto
    Oct 28 at 16:00
  • 'Take my word for it.' It's setting oneself (or the vague 'everyone who can actually think' [People who understand the situation would all agree that ...'] up as an authority.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 28 at 18:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.