Which fallacy involves presuming something is untrue because the argument proving it is invalid?

Which fallacy involves presuming something is untrue because the argument proving it is invalid?

• A. Argumentum ad logicam
• B. Ad nauseam
• C. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
• D. Dicto simpliciter

Answer: (A)

This fallacy happens when you reject a claim simply because the argument offered to support it is flawed. It’s the idea that a conclusion must be false just because the proof or reasoning for it is invalid. The mistake is equating the weakness or invalidity of an argument with the falsehood of the claim itself. In reality, a claim can be true even if the way it’s been argued for is weak, since there could be other, better arguments that support it. So the description points to the argumentum ad logicam, the fallacy of judging a claim false solely because the argument for it is fallacious. For contrast, repeating a claim over and over (ad nauseam), assuming causation from mere correlation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), or applying a general rule too broadly (dicto simpliciter) don’t capture this specific error.

This fallacy happens when you reject a claim simply because the argument offered to support it is flawed. It’s the idea that a conclusion must be false just because the proof or reasoning for it is invalid. The mistake is equating the weakness or invalidity of an argument with the falsehood of the claim itself. In reality, a claim can be true even if the way it’s been argued for is weak, since there could be other, better arguments that support it.

So the description points to the argumentum ad logicam, the fallacy of judging a claim false solely because the argument for it is fallacious. For contrast, repeating a claim over and over (ad nauseam), assuming causation from mere correlation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), or applying a general rule too broadly (dicto simpliciter) don’t capture this specific error.