3 ms·
That logical fallacy is not equivalent to what I'm saying. Assume attribute X is overvalued. Object A has attribute X. Object A is indicated to be
by travisjungroth 10y ago
That logical fallacy is not equivalent to what I'm saying.
Assume attribute X is overvalued.
Object A has attribute X.
Object A is indicated to be overvalued.
This may not meet the strict requirements of a college logic class as stated, but I still believe it is true.
I'm not making a statement here about exactly what attributes are overvalued (fabric, paint jobs, bus stops or otherwise).
An argument of the article is that "image" is overvalued. I don't think the author did the best job supporting this argument.
- Domenic_S 10y agoThe fallacy he's intuiting is really the implied denial of the antecedent: If X, then Y !X Therefore, !Y As in: Attribute X is overvalued Object B does NOT have attribute X. Therefore Object B is NOT overvalued. So in other words, your statement may be true: > When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation. but the implication of the inverse: when you DON'T have a highly overvalued attribute, lack of that attribute becomes an indicator of a lack of overvaluation. is not.