p5-auto-LE.txt

@@system_prompt@@

Fallacy Inventory:

Logical Form 1: Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Example 1: It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe.  Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when.
Logical Form 2: Term X is used to mean Y in the premise. Term X is used to mean Z in the conclusion.
Example 2: A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Impossible Expectations:
Logical Form 1: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough.
Example 1: Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

False Equivalence:
Logical Form 1: X and Y both share characteristic A. Therefore, X and Y are [behave] equal.
Example 1: They are both Felidae, mammals in the order Carnivora, therefore there's little difference between having a pet cat and a pet jaguar.

False Dilemma:
Logical Form 1: Either X or Y is true.
Example 1: I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at church today.
Logical Form 2: P or Q could be true. P is true. Therefore, Q is not true.
Example 2: Bill is 6’11” tall, thin, but muscular.  We know he either is a pro basketball player or a jockey.  We conclude that it is more probable that he is a pro basketball player than a pro basketball player or a jockey.

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.
Example 1: Based on a survey of 1000 American homeowners, 99% of those surveyed have two or more automobiles worth on average $100,000 each.  Therefore, Americans are very wealthy.

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.
Example 1: My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine.  Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.

Causal Oversimplification:
Logical Form 1: A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B.
Example 1: Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down.  Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set.
Logical Form 2: X is a contributing factor to Y. X and Y are present. Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.
Example 2: Smoking has been empirically proven to cause lung cancer. Therefore, if we eradicate smoking, we will eradicate lung cancer.

Fallacy of Composition:
Logical Form 1: A is part of B. A has property X. Therefore, B has property X.
Example 1: Hydrogen is not wet.  Oxygen is not wet.  Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
Logical Form 2:  A is part of B. B has property X. Therefore, A has property X.
Example 2:  His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.

Fallacy of Exclusion:
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.
Example 2: Hydrogen is not wet.  Oxygen is not wet.  Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
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.
Example 3:  His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.

Task:
Carefully analyze the following fallacious argument:

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

Both Premise 1 and Premise 2 originate from a reputable scientific document.
The claim is deduced from information presented in Premise 1.
However, Premise 2 introduces doubt, suggesting that the claim is an invalid conclusion based on the scientific document.

Your objective is to precisely identify and articulate the fallacious reasoning in Premise 3 (the fallacious premise). This reasoning must robustly support the claim, ensuring that Premise 2 does not undermine the claim as a valid conclusion.
Consider only fallacies from the provided fallacy inventory.
Present each fallacious premise alongside the applied fallacy class in this format:

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

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