# Logisticians only: What logical fallacy is this 'Reverse straw man' thing you see on here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 26, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logisticians-only-what-logical-fallacy-is-this-reverse-straw-man-thing-you-see-on-here/540792 "2010-05-26T03:17:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logisticians-only-what-logical-fallacy-is-this-reverse-straw-man-thing-you-see-on-here/540792/21 "2010-05-27T07:26:19Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > The conclusion doesn’t follow though. Otherwise drunk driving would be legal since not all drunk drivers get into accidents. The conclusion doesn’t _necessarily_ follow as a matter of logic, but it would not be illogical to arrive at an opinion based on the argument as a matter of judgment. The OP asked if example one was a logical fallacy: it isn’t. It may well be an unpersuasive argument in any given case, but it isn’t a logical fallacy. ISTM you are taking person two’s comment as “your argument is necessarily as a matter of logic wrong, since not all x leads to y.” You are reading too much into it. They may well simply mean “In my opinion, given that not all x leads to y, response z is inappropriate”. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logisticians-only-what-logical-fallacy-is-this-reverse-straw-man-thing-you-see-on-here/540792/22 "2010-05-27T10:28:51Z")
The correct word is logician. [QUOTE=Chronos] Reductio ad absurdem isn’t a fallacy; it’s a perfectly valid logical technique. You use it to prove something’s false, by assuming it’s true, and showing that that leads to a contradiction. [/quote] Legal types have a notion of _reductio ad absurdum_ where they take something to its logical extreme and then argue against the consequences of that. The first example isn’t a fallacy of logic. It just shows that arguing with formal logic is only useful in certain circumstances. Probability is far more useful in a day-to-day setting, IMO. The second example is a straw man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logisticians-only-what-logical-fallacy-is-this-reverse-straw-man-thing-you-see-on-here/540792.md?page=1)