p4-connect-L.txt

@@system_prompt@@

Fallacy Inventory:

Ambiguity:
Logical Form 1: Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
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:
Logical Form 1: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough.

False Equivalence:
Logical Form 1: X and Y both share characteristic A. Therefore, X and Y are [behave] equal.

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

Biased Sample Fallacy:
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:
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:
Logical Form 1: A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B.
Logical Form 2: X is a contributing factor to Y. X and Y are present. Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

Fallacy of Composition:
Logical Form 1: A is part of B. A has property X. Therefore, B has property X.
Logical Form 2:  A is part of B. B has property X. Therefore, A has property X.

Fallacy of Exclusion:
Logical Form 1: 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.
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, 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.