p4-connect-DL.txt

@@system_prompt@@

Fallacy Inventory:

Definition 1: When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion.
Logical Form 1: Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Definition 2: When the same word (here used also for phrase) is used with two different meanings.
Logical Form 2: Term X is used to mean Y in the premise. Term X is used to mean Z in the conclusion.

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.
Logical Form 1: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough.

False Equivalence:
Definition 1: Assumes that two subjects that share a single trait are equivalent.
Logical Form 1: X and Y both share characteristic A. Therefore, X and Y are [behave] equal.

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.
Logical Form 1: Either X or Y is true.
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.
Logical Form 2: P or Q could be true. P is true. Therefore, Q is not true.

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.
Logical Form 1: Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P. Conclusion C is drawn about population P based on S.

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.
Logical Form 1: Sample S is taken from population P. Sample S is a very small part of population P. Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.

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.
Logical Form 1: A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B.
Definition 2: Assumes there is a single, simple cause of an outcome.
Logical Form 2: X is a contributing factor to Y. X and Y are present. Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

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.
Logical Form 1: A is part of B. A has property X. Therefore, B has property X.
Definition 2: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.
Logical Form 2:  A is part of B. B has property X. Therefore, A has property X.

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.
Logical Form 2: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.
Definition 3: Discarding the relevance of Premise 2 within the argument.
Logical Form 3: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2. Therefore, evidence B is irrelevant to the claim.

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.
Do not repeat the claim itself, Premise 1, or Premise 2 when generating the fallacious Premise 3. Make sure the generated Premise 3 connects Premise 1 and Premise 2 to robustly support the claim, and ensure that Premise 2 does not undermine the claim as a valid conclusion.
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.