The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
what is the logical flaw where
| Ungodly arousing electric furnace community account | 09/25/18 |
| Smoky disturbing boistinker | 09/25/18 |
| geriatric crackhouse selfie | 09/25/18 |
| Smoky disturbing boistinker | 09/25/18 |
| Misanthropic henna round eye | 09/25/18 |
| Smoky disturbing boistinker | 09/25/18 |
| Misanthropic henna round eye | 09/25/18 |
| Laughsome Antidepressant Drug Dingle Berry | 09/25/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:08 AM Author: Ungodly arousing electric furnace community account you ignore the flaws of the singular to protect the bigger picture? specifically fb shitlibs acting like these allegations against kavanaugh should be believed because this shit does happen to women |
 |
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:31 AM Author: Smoky disturbing boistinker idk, seems like some kind of induction fallacy. like using the pattern to predict the instance when we already have enough information about the instance to analyze it without using the pattern, and the pattern is actually less accurate.
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:39 AM Author: geriatric crackhouse selfie that's like a class vs. instance fuckup in academic writing. you're not supposed to attribute qualities to a item in a set based on the set's overall characteristics unless the characteristic is a definitional property of being in the set. you're only supposed to make descriptive/epistemic claims about the item based on qualities directly attributable to that item. that's an analytical error that can destroy your whole thesis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4086810&forum_id=2#36882700) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:42 AM Author: Smoky disturbing boistinker yeah. it's like lack of attention to detail in the instance.
using just the attributes of the class is going to have a lower accuracy than looking at instances on a case-by-case basis and class-based reasoning is really just a shortcut for when you don't have all the info. |
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:53 AM Author: Misanthropic henna round eye They would be arguing from probability. The implied premise being that some particular event likely happened because we know it happens universally under similar circumstances. A good refutation would be to claim that most crimes require both motive and opportunity. The motive may lay dormant until the right opportunity arises. We understand Brett once ruled against the interests of Ford's mother in a case. But Ford did not have her opportunity until now, and making false accusations is a crime. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4086810&forum_id=2#36882732) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 1:54 AM Author: Smoky disturbing boistinker is that what it's called? good to know, i see that one a lot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4086810&forum_id=2#36882735) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 2:02 AM Author: Misanthropic henna round eye If they argue that something likely happened based on the existence of circumstantial attributes that it shares with other incidences of a similar or an identical nature, yes, they would be arguing from probability. It may not necessarily be fallacious, either. It all depends on how much assent they can gain to the implied premise. A weakness with their position however is that, since they are the accusers, the burden falls to them to demonstrate beyond all doubt, while their argument aims no higher than establishing that there is a good chance that he did what they allege. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4086810&forum_id=2#36882752) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2018 3:43 AM Author: Laughsome Antidepressant Drug Dingle Berry Thanks going to leave my car unlocked in the ghetto tonight (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4086810&forum_id=2#36883011) |