Assertion: reasoning | /r/MadeOf | the fallacy
Facets:
value: in one of those situations
type: TEMPORAL
Source sentences:
text: If you have enough evidence to affirm the consequent of a conditional and then suppose that as a result you have sufficient reason for affirming the antecedent, your reasoning contains the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
text: Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.
text: If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, your reasoning contains the Fallacy of Using a Double Standard.
text: In describing the fallacies below, the custom is followed of not distinguishing between a reasoner using a fallacy and the reasoning itself containing the fallacy.
text: If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.
text: If we reason by paying too much attention to exceptions to the rule, and generalize on the exceptions, our reasoning contains this fallacy.