A Concise Introduction to Logic¶
Hurley, P. J. (2014). A Concise Introduction to Logic.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Equivocation
- The classic syllogism "Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness" is equivocation displayed in its purest form.
This sourceStandard logic textbook defining the fallacy of equivocation (a word used in two distinct senses across an argument), the diagnostic of tracking the shifting term, and disambiguation as the corrective — covers the classic 'nothing'/quantifier-vs-substantive ambiguity exemplified by the ham-sandwich syllogism.
- The classic syllogism "Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness" is equivocation displayed in its purest form.
Domain-specific¶
- Begging the Question
- Informal-logic and critical-reasoning pedagogy — a core fallacy taught alongside straw man, ad hominem, and equivocation
This sourceHurley's Concise Introduction to Logic teaches begging the question as a fallacy alongside straw man, ad hominem (argument against the person) and equivocation.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“The [fallacy] of [equivocation] occurs when the conclusion”
- Informal-logic and critical-reasoning pedagogy — a core fallacy taught alongside straw man, ad hominem, and equivocation
- Cherry Picking
- Cherry picking — also "the fallacy of incomplete evidence" or "suppressed evidence" — is the argumentative practice of selectively presenting confirming evidence while suppressing disconfirming evidence from the same available population, such that the offered sample gives an audience an impression that the full distribution of evidence would not support.
This sourceCatalogues 'suppressed evidence' as a named informal fallacy of presumption in the standard introductory treatment - an argument whose premises are accurate but which conceals available evidence that would count against its conclusion.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Cherry picking — also "the fallacy of incomplete evidence" or "suppressed evidence" — is the argumentative practice of selectively presenting confirming evidence while suppressing disconfirming evidence from the same available population, such that the offered sample gives an audience an impression that the full distribution of evidence would not support.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 3 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:77aa96110554 · see in the full table