Which term covers drawing conclusions that do not logically follow from the premises?

Which term covers drawing conclusions that do not logically follow from the premises?

• A. Illogical reasoning
• B. Circular reasoning
• C. Red herring
• D. False dilemma

Answer: (A)

Recognizing when a conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises is about illogical reasoning, a non sequitur. In a solid argument, the conclusion should be supported by the evidence given. When the stated conclusion goes beyond what the premises actually establish, the link between evidence and claim is broken, so the conclusion isn’t logically warranted. For example, if you’re told that all cats are mammals and that this creature is an animal, concluding that this creature is a cat does not follow from those premises—the premises don’t establish that being an animal makes something a cat. Other flaws have different signs: circular reasoning repeats the claim as part of the premise, a red herring distracts with an irrelevant point, and a false dilemma limits choices to two when more exist. Here the focus is on the conclusion not being supported by what’s given.

Recognizing when a conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises is about illogical reasoning, a non sequitur. In a solid argument, the conclusion should be supported by the evidence given. When the stated conclusion goes beyond what the premises actually establish, the link between evidence and claim is broken, so the conclusion isn’t logically warranted. For example, if you’re told that all cats are mammals and that this creature is an animal, concluding that this creature is a cat does not follow from those premises—the premises don’t establish that being an animal makes something a cat.

Other flaws have different signs: circular reasoning repeats the claim as part of the premise, a red herring distracts with an irrelevant point, and a false dilemma limits choices to two when more exist. Here the focus is on the conclusion not being supported by what’s given.