# Name the logical fallacy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 9, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130 "2017-04-09T21:09:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/21 "2017-04-10T22:52:13Z")
Given that I mixed up sound/valid at least twice above (bleh), you may have a point… Still, nothing like a bit of Latin to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about. _Argument ad Latinum_ works as well as the others. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/22 "2017-04-11T08:31:48Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Huh? > > All presidents are protected by the Secret Service. > I am the president. > Therefore, I am protected by the Secret Service. > > All presidents are protected by the Secret Service. > Donald Trump is the president. > Therefore, Donald Trump likes cookies. > > The premise is correct in both of the above examples, the error lies elsewhere. I would say that the unstated premise in the first one is that all the premises are true. That unstated premise is false. The second one, being the non sequitur fallacy, can have any number of false premises, as long as they somehow connect them. But, if we assume that both stated premises are relevant, then the obvious one is “All people protected by the Secret Service like cookies.” That premise is false. I remember when I first noticed that all named fallacies can be converted to the fallacy of the (unstated) false premise. It made it a lot easier to identify fallacious reasoning than trying to remember a long list of names (something I am always bad at.) Unless someone is completely irrational (or intentionally saying something completely irrational), there must be some premise that they are assuming is true that is not. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/23 "2017-04-11T12:25:38Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > … > Still, nothing like a bit of Latin to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about. _Argument ad Latinum_ works as well as the others. Isn’t that _Argumentum ad Latinum_?\* 😃 =========== \*I’m actually clueless on all this Latin stuff so you may well be right. But the joke seemed irresistible. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/24 "2017-04-11T12:32:46Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Isn’t that _Argumentum ad Latinum_?\* 😃 > > =========== > \*I’m actually clueless on all this Latin stuff so you may well be right. But the joke seemed irresistible. No. Latin- is modifying the understood lingua. Ablative case, so _Latina_. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/25 "2017-04-11T13:45:38Z")
Sometimes the argument is simply irrelevant. Crane ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/26 "2017-04-11T14:27:40Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > No. Latin- is modifying the understood lingua. Ablative case, so _Latina_. So does that make the complete correct phrase \*Argument ad Latina \*or _Argumentum ad Latina_? English seems to be hard too. ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/27 "2017-04-11T15:55:29Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > So does that make the complete correct phrase \*Argument ad Latina \*or _Argumentum ad Latina_? English seems to be hard too. Argumentum. Argument isn’t Latin, it’s English. And we’re doing this in Latin. Or ad Latina. Or something. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/28 "2017-04-11T17:24:15Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > What is the name of the logical fallacy which attempts to disprove a statement by claiming the person making the statement has never personally experienced the situation? Not a “logical” fallacy at all. There are indeed Formal Logical fallacies: > **[Formal fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy)** > > In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (/ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər/; Latin for 'it does not follow') is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy in whic While a ... What you’re asking for is sometimes called a “Informal fallacy” . Often they are not fallacies at all as the wiki page pointed out: \*Appeals to accomplishment are fallacies only when they are simple appeals to authority. It is not fallacious to rely on the testimony of a person who has attained a certain level of education or experience if they can produce further evidence to back up their positions when required. \* ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/29 "2017-04-11T21:17:03Z")
Ahh, but the OP’s issue was anti-appeal to non-accomplishment. The faulty assertion is that only parents can make informed statements about child rearing, or only motorcycle riders can make informed statements about helmets. Helmet expertise and riding expertise are different things and possession (or lack) of one doesn’t necessarily imply possession (or lack) of the other. Is there often some overlap? Sure. Is there never non-overlap? Of course not. But the assertion of never non-overlap is the point of failure in the argument. The inability to correctly construct or read a Venn diagram \*is \*a failure of logic. Whether that is specifically a “fallacy” or not is a different question. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/30 "2017-04-11T21:45:51Z")
> [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](#): > > No. Latin- is modifying the understood lingua. Ablative case, so _Latina_. Now write it out a hundred times. If it’s not done by sunrise, I’ll cut your balls off. _Hail Caesar!_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130.md?page=1)