Logisticians only: What logical fallacy is this 'Reverse straw man' thing you see on here?

[Princhester]

@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”.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

The correct word is logician.

@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.

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.