Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its
conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be
either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between
the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The
term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known
non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical
fallacies.
Contents
[hide]
1 Non sequitur in normal speech
2 Fallacy of the undistributed middle
3 Affirming the consequent
4 Denying the antecedent
5 Affirming a disjunct
6 Denying a conjunct
7 See also
8 References
[edit] Non sequitur in normal speech
See also: Derailment (thought disorder)
The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which
premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example
might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no direct
relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is
often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Two examples include:
"If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog." (Premise and
conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to
emotion.)
"I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining." (The
conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)
[edit] Fallacy of the undistributed middle
Main article: Fallacy of the undistributed middle
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the
middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.
More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
1. All Zs are Bs.
2. Y is a B.
3. Therefore, Y is a Z.
It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the
conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs,"
which is ignored in the argument.
Note that if the terms were swapped around in the first co-premise or if the first premise
was rewritten to "All Zs can only be Bs" then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it
could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are
similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.
An example can be given as follows:
1. Men are human.
2. Mary is human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a man.
[edit] Affirming the consequent
Main article: Affirming the consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur
1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.
Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary
consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the
consequent.
An example of affirming the consequent would be:
1. If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
2. I am a mammal. (B)
3. Therefore, I am a human. (A)
While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another
type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of
the truth of its premises - it is a 'non sequitur'.
Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle,
but using propositions rather than set membership.
[edit] Denying the antecedent
Main article: Denying the antecedent
Another common non sequitur is this:
1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is false.
3. Therefore, B is false.
While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the
statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent.
[edit] Affirming a disjunct
Main article: Affirming a disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
1. A is true or B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is not true.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are
both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be
inclusive.
An example of affirming a disjunct would be:
1. I am at home or I am in the city.
2. I am at home.
3. Therefore, I am not in the city.
While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader
knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which
case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy
even if the conclusion is true.
[edit] Denying a conjunct
Main article: Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:
1. It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.
2. B is not true.
3. Therefore, A is true.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are
both false.
An example of denying a conjunct would be:
1. It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.
2. I am not at home.
3. Therefore, I am in the city.
While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader
knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in
which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a
fallacy even if the conclusion is true.
