Card 4 of 24 · Formal
Argumentum ad logicam
Finding a bad turn and assuming the whole ski run is bad.
An argument can be flawed while its conclusion is still correct.
Example
“His reasoning for carrying avalanche gear was weak, so carrying avalanche gear must be unnecessary.”
“Argument to logic.” Formally it resembles denying the antecedent: if the argument is sound, the conclusion is true; the argument isn’t sound; so the conclusion is false.
Diagnosis: Denying the antecedent (If P then Q; not P; therefore not Q) is invalid. A failed argument leaves C unsupported, not refuted — other arguments may establish it.
“Paley’s watchmaker argument was undermined by Darwin, so there is no Designer.” The failure of one argument leaves the question open; fine-tuning or cosmological arguments must be assessed on their own.
“Anselm’s ontological argument has a flaw, so God’s existence is irrational.” Plenty of theists reject the ontological argument while holding belief on other grounds.
“Your argument against lying used a bad analogy, so lying is fine.” Kantian, virtue, and natural-law accounts might still ground the conclusion.
Trail recovery
Separate the route from the destination. When you expose a flaw, say exactly what it does and doesn’t show, then ask whether a better argument for the conclusion exists. This is where seminar conversations get genuinely productive.
Try saying: “I think that argument doesn’t work — but is there a stronger case for the same conclusion?”
Keep questioning. Keep exploring.