I see no non-sequitur. Joe is deferring to an overwhelming scientific consensus on a scientific issue. Perfectly reasonable. Jill is reasoning inconsistently because she is ignoring her own argument—the many studies on climate change funded by organizations who have a . Definition of Non Sequitur. A non sequitur is something said that has nothing to do with what was said previously. Non sequiturs often sound a bit absurd because there is no logical leap from one statement to the next. For this purpose, non sequiturs can be either comical or confusing, or both. The formal logical rules of a non-sequitur are pretty well explained on the wikipedia page (Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia), but that’s usually not what people talk about when they bring it up. They usually just mean that an argument didn’t make sense, and it’s sometimes . Definition of Non Sequitur. Non sequitur is a literary device that includes statements, sayings, and conclusions that do not follow the fundamental principles of logic and reason. They are frequently used in theater and comedies to create comedic effect. Distilled to its essence, the argument for the NEA is: Art is a Good Thing, therefore a government subsidy for it is a Good Deed. To appreciate the non sequitur, substitute “macaroni and cheese” for “art.” Holy moly! OK. I’ll limit myself to three things. #1: The argument overyields.
Wishful Thinking Non Sequitur also known as: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion. Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true. People generally like to walk on the beach. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea! As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Tag Archives: Argument by Analogy
Buddy Burger has the greatest food in town. Buddy Burger was voted 1 by the local paper. I bet Phil makes one heck of a burger, but it does not follow that he should be president. There really are no exceptions to this rule. Any good argument must have a conclusion that follows from the premises.
One of the best ways to expose non sequiturs is by constructing a valid analogy that exposes the absurdity in the argument.
There are many forms of non sequiturs including argument by scenario, where an irrelevant scenario is given in an attempt to support the conclusion. Other forms use different rhetorical devices that are irrelevant to the conclusion. False or questionable premises could be seen as errors in facts, but they can also lead to the conclusion not following, so just keep that in mind, as well. The Elements of Logic, Theoretical and Practical.
For example, two people are discussing the protests and riots in Ferguson after the shooting of Michael Brown. One person, Jon, takes the position that there were both peaceful protests and riots. The other person, Mike, believes there was only riots. Mike makes the argument that he only remembers seeing media coverage of the riots, therefore there were only arguments.
Your perception of reality is shaped by the media you consume. If you mostly consume right wing media, you'll mostly hear the protests described as riots and misrepresentations of why the black community is upset. There is no excuse for rioting.
How does Jon respond to this? Is this a non-sequitur?
Jon hasn't offered any excuses for rioting.