Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.
For example:
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly, provided that dogs exist.
Or:
This could be illustrated mathematically as
It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorica...
More
Read article at Wikipedia
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
We can tell you that Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a
If you know more about Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, you can add more facts here »
Similar topics in Freebase
-
False dilemma
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one... -
Naturalistic fallacy
The phrase naturalistic fallacy, with "fallacy" referring to a formal fallacy, has several meanings. It can be used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see also "appeal to nature"). This naturalistic fallacy is the... -
Fallacy of the undistributed middle
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy, and more specifically a formal fallacy, that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed in either the minor premise or the major premise. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. In classical syllogisms, all... -
Homunculus argument
The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie... -
If-by-whiskey
In political discourse, if-by-whiskey is a relativist fallacy where the response to a question is contingent on the questioner's opinions and use of words with strong positive or negative connotations (e.g., terrorist as negative and freedom fighter as positive). An if-by-whiskey argument...