An Illicit Process

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Illicit Process

This fallacy uses unsupported claims, unsupported premises. (131).

A reasonable conclusion cannot be drawn in regard to a whole class, without some knowledge about what applies to all in this class. (131).

For example:

To state as conclusion that all Christians are fundamentalists without reasonably demonstrating this in a premise or premises, is fallacious.

Pirie cited:

'Some Australians are pleasant fellows, and some con-men are not pleasant fellows, so some Australians are not conmen.' (132).

Pirie writes that this might be true, but cannot be proven by this argument. (132).

As a premise it might be true that some Australians are pleasant fellows.

As a premise it might be true that some con-men are not pleasant fellows.

There is not enough significant evidence and significant reason to demonstrate that some Australians are not con-men as conclusion. It may be asserted and assumed on 'the street', but is not an academic factual argument.

Fallacy files

'Any form of categorical syllogism in which a term that is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in a premiss.' (premise, my correction).