In the following argument, identify the premise and conclusion, explain why the argument is deceptive, and, if possible,
identify the type of fallacy it represents.
I ate oysters for dinner and later that night I had a nightmare. Oysters caused my nightmare.
The premise is
oysters caused my nightmare.
I ate oysters for dinner and later that night I had a nightmare.

Question

UpStudy AI · Accepted Answer

Certainly! Let's break down the argument you've provided:

**Argument:**
1. *Statement 1:* I ate oysters for dinner.
2. *Statement 2:* Later that night, I had a nightmare.
3. *Conclusion:* Oysters caused my nightmare.

**Identifying the Premise and Conclusion:**

- **Premise:** 
  - *I ate oysters for dinner.*
  - *Later that night, I had a nightmare.*

These statements provide the factual basis or the reasons that support the conclusion.

- **Conclusion:** 
  - *Oysters caused my nightmare.*

This is the statement that the argument is trying to prove, based on the premises provided.

**Why the Argument is Deceptive:**

The argument is deceptive because it **erroneously assumes a cause-and-effect relationship** between eating oysters and having a nightmare solely based on the sequence of events. Just because two events occur in succession does not necessarily mean that the first event caused the second.

**Identified Fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**

- **Definition:** 
  - *Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc* is a logical fallacy that translates to "after this, therefore because of this." It involves assuming that if one event occurs after another, the first event must be the cause of the second.

- **Application to the Argument:**
  - The argument commits this fallacy by stating that because the nightmare followed eating oysters, the oysters must have caused the nightmare. However, there is no evidence provided to establish a direct causal link between the two events. There could be numerous other factors that contributed to the nightmare, such as stress, other foods consumed, or unrelated psychological factors.

**Conclusion:**

While the temporal sequence of eating oysters and having a nightmare is clear, concluding causation without further evidence is logically unsound. To strengthen the argument, one would need to provide additional evidence that specifically links oyster consumption to nightmares, ruling out other possible causes.
**Premise:** I ate oysters for dinner and later had a nightmare. **Conclusion:** Oysters caused my nightmare. **Deceptive Reasoning:** The argument assumes that because the nightmare followed eating oysters, the oysters must have caused it. However, this is a logical fallacy called "post hoc ergo propter hoc," which means "after this, therefore because of this." Just because two events occur in sequence doesn't mean the first caused the second. There could be other reasons for the nightmare.

Solución de inteligencia artificial de Upstudy

Responder

Solución

Extra Insights

preguntas relacionadas

Latest Other Questions