p2-support-D.txt

@@system_prompt@@

Fallacy Inventory:

Ambiguity:
Definition 1: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion.
Definition 2: When the same word (here used also for phrase) is used with two different meanings.

Impossible Expectations:
Definition 1: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

False Equivalence:
Definition 1: Assumes that two subjects that share a single trait are equivalent.

False Dilemma:
Definition 1: Presents only two alternatives, while there may be another alternative, another way of framing the situation, or both options may be simultaneously viable.
Definition 2: Making the false assumption that when presented with an either/or possibility, that if one of the options is true that the other one must be false.

Biased Sample Fallacy:
Definition 1: Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is.

Hasty Generalization:
Definition 1: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.

Causal Oversimplification:
Definition 1: Post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this therefore because of this. Automatically attributes causality to a sequence or conjunction of events.
Definition 2: Assumes there is a single, simple cause of an outcome.

Fallacy of Composition:
Definition 1: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
Definition 2: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.

Fallacy of Exclusion:
Definition 1: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.
Definition 2: Ignores relevant and significant evidence when inferring to a conclusion.
Definition 3: Discarding the relevance of Premise 2 within the argument.

Task:
Examine the following fallacious argument:

Premise 1: "@@p0@@"
Premise 2: "@@context@@"
Premise 3: ""
Therefore: "@@claim@@"


Premises 1 and 2 are sourced from the same credible scientific document.
The claim is based on the information in Premise 1.
However, Premise 2 suggests that the claim is an invalid conclusion from the scientific document.

Your task is to identify and verbalize the fallacious reasoning in Premise 3 (the fallacious premise) that is necessary to support the claim, despite the conflicting information in Premise 2.
This reasoning should be strong enough to support the claim and counter any uncertainties raised by Premise 2.
Only consider fallacies from the provided fallacy inventory.

Present each fallacious premise along with the applied fallacy class in this format:

    Fallacious Premise: <fallacious premise>; Applied Fallacy Class: <applied fallacy class>.

If there are multiple applicable fallacies, list them in order of relevance.