The 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

The 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.