Bottom-up condemnation:
Conceptual/Evidential Fallacy
| Definition | Example |
| An argument of the following form. “a” has the negative quality “x” and belongs to the group “A”. Therefore “A’s have “x”. | My neighbor is a banker, and is a jerk. Therefore, bankers are jerks. |
| Also known as: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid / faulty generalization | |
| Notes | |
| A more detailed treatment of this fallacy can be found on the supplementary Inductive Errors page. | |
Case Study One
If you break your leg the first time on the ski slopes, this is not evidence that skiing is any more dangerous than other sports. Actual statistical significance derived from a sufficiently large data set is necessary before such a conclusion can be made, in spite of your disinclination to get back on the slopes anytime soon.
Case Study Two
When confronted with statistical evidence that a university degree improves your chances of securing a satisfying job, citing your unemployed Ph.D. neighbor does not invalidate the statistical evidence, and is a bottom-up condemnation fallacy.
Keep in mind that a fallacious argument does not entail an erroneous position.
