<p>
[quote]
"The Argument is valid. If A than B, A, therefore B. Whether or not it's a good arguemnt is a different matter.</p>
<p>A fallacy is an error in reasoning, not in the truth of the statment."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not accurate. There exist informal fallacies that apply to the content of an argument. They purport to undermine an argument's truth condition because the reasoning used does not necessarily implicate it. What you identified were merely formal fallacies viz., affirming the consequent, negating the antecedent, and so forth.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I made this clear enough. Oh well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, the argument IS FALLACIOUS, because of the third clause.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are called premises, not clauses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was first approaching the soundness of the argument, then whether or not it is cogent.]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Soundness and cogency are essentially the same evaluations; however, the former only applies to deduction and the latter to induction.</p>
<p>Yes I read everything you said. That's the problem.</p>
<p>The addtion of the third clause has no weight on the validity of this argument; If A than B, A, C, D, E, F, therefore B; is valid under any system of logic.</p>
<p>And mocking is a form of insult, hence the ad hominem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And mocking is a form of insult, hence the ad hominem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not all insults are ad hominems. If the insult is not uses as support from which to derive the necessity of a conclusion, it is not an ad hominem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that people commonly object to any form of insult as ad hominems. But this is mistaken. An ad hominem fallacy is when you reject your opponent's argument because of some characteristic of the advocate that is irrelevant to the content of the argument made. In general, what matters is the argument, not who makes it. (I will mention some exceptions below.) But not all "personal attacks" take this fallacious form. Rather than saying "you suck, therefore your argument does", one might instead provide an adequate counterargument, then append: "your argument sucks, therefore you do". Such gratuitous insults may be unwise, but the counterargument doesn't depend upon them, so it's a mistake to object to the counterargument (and ignore its substance) on that basis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Disabuse for the one who cannot tell an ad hominem from an insult.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is not accurate. There exist informal fallacies that apply to the content of an argument. They purport to undermine an argument's truth condition because the reasoning used does not necessarily implicate it. What you identified were merely formal fallacies viz., affirming the consequent, negating the antecedent, and so forth.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I made this clear enough. Oh well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. But that's an issue of soundness, which I said was inderminant. Not all ad hominem attacks are automatically false.</p>
<p>And, I'm majoring in mass communications because it sounds like a fun pre-law major. From what I've heard, your grades play a much bigger part than your major. Pick something you'd enjoy and will do well in, rather than something "looks impressive".</p>
<p>And that english stuff was a bit of a drag. Past participle? I can honestly say I never learned that stuff. It's a forum not a paper.</p>
<p>LOL. Well you made my point for me. Mocking someone, which happens to be an insult, is ad hominem. It has no relation to the speakers argument and is used to convey your point that the speaker's argument is bad just because you don't happen to like it.</p>
<p>". An ad hominem fallacy is when you reject your opponent's argument because of some characteristic of the advocate that is irrelevant to the content of the argument made."</p>
<p>Thus, "attacking" someone when the entire point of the argument is to show someone needs to take logic classes is NOT ad hominem; showcasing that person's weakness is clearly relevant to the argument.</p>
<p>And nspeds, I revised my post before you responded.</p>