Please note that the author does not agree with this argument, but isn't sure exactly why. He invites others to critique this argument which was presented to him recently.
I was not sure how/where to make this remark and I see I can not add critiques to my own argument, so I placed it here.
I feel that this argument is similar to this one, which is clearly false:
Most birds are animals capable of flight.
The Kiwi is a type of bird.
Therefore, it is likely that a Kiwi can fly.
Well, not only is not unlikely that a Kiwi can fly, it is completely impossible. The Kiwi is a small flightless bird from New Zealand (national bird).
So, I have two questions. (1) Is the original argument that was made to me valid, even as a weak (unconvincing?) inductive argument? (2) Is my Kiwi bird argument truly analogous?
What types of logical fallacies are being committed here, if any?
|
Watch Topic 
