I would say it's rather a case of affirming the consequent. The general structure of this kind of fallacy is:

1. If P, then Q.
   
2. Q.
   
3. Therefore, P.
   

In this case, this would be

1. If Virginia was sexually abused as a child, then she would (possibly) deny it.
   
2. Virginia denies it.
   
3. Therefore, Virginia was sexually abused.
   

I'm rebutting an argument. Can you tell me what is wrong here?

- Louise claims that Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
- Virginia made no such claims.
- Louise explains Virginia's silence as indicating that she is in denial about the sexual abuse.

Would we call this circular reasoning?

Thanks very much for your help.

I think this analysis is false. She did not make an argument, so there is no AtC argument being made. She merely explained something. A proposition being explained by another proposition is not an argument.

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 09:29 PM ----------



Her remark is question begging but it is not an argument. It is question begging in the sense that it assumes what is under discussion, that is, that Virginia was sexually abused as a child.

It's a form of explaining other people's utterances psychologically instead of evaluating their reasoning. One should always evaluate reasoning before explaining it. There are many things which are false but are yet explainable.

Well, it is implicitly question question-begging, since it is being assumed that Virginia has been sexually abused by saying that she is in denial (about being sexually abused).

I'm rebutting an argument. Can you tell me what is wrong here?

- Louise claims that Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
- Virginia made no such claims.
- Louise explains Virginia's silence as indicating that she is in denial about the sexual abuse.

Would we call this circular reasoning?

Thanks very much for your help.

Begging the question. Assuming what we need to prove.

You must be getting old. You already answered this thread. :p

It's a non-sequitur, just like all failures of logic. Any fallacy is simply an inference for which there is no other rule to justify it. Naming them is just pointing out the background to the fallacy.

No. Naming them details the reason for the non-sequitur. But, as Emil and I have been discussing, the fallacy of begging the question is not really a non-sequtur, or at least, not in the ordinary sense. In fact, a technically sound argument may commit the fallacy of begging the question. So, something else is going on.

Almost seems like an 'Argumentum ad Ignorantian' but 'Affirming the consequent' is the one I would go for.
People who have been abused deny their abuse, she denies that she was abused so she must have been.
Hope this helps.

Please explain why you think it is an instance of affirming the consequent.

It seems to me that people often call arguments for various fallacies for no particular reason. Perhaps as part of the fallacy fallacy.

It fallacious because instead of affirming the antecedents to prove or credit the consequent e.g. People who have been abused deny their abuse. She was abused so it is only natural that she would deny it.
In this case the consequent is used to prove the antecedents: People who have been abused deny their abuse, she denies that she was abused so she must have been.
There could be more possibilities to explain this consequent, the most notable would be that she has not been abused.

My analysis would be as follows:

1. Louise claims that Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
2. Virginia is silent about it.
3. If someone is silent about it, they are denying it.
4. If someone has been sexually abused as a child, they deny it.
5. (from 2 and 3) Virginia denies it.
6. (from 4 and 5) Therefore Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
7. Therefore Louise's claim in (1) is true.

As I see it, steps (4)-(6) are a clear case of affirming the consequent. Note that Louise's claim may actually be false. (Step 3 also looks very dubious.)

My analysis would be as follows:

1. Louise claims that Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
2. Virginia is silent about it.
3. If someone is silent about it, they are denying it.
4. If someone has been sexually abused as a child, they deny it.
5. (from 2 and 3) Virginia denies it.
6. (from 4 and 5) Therefore Virginia was sexually abused as a child.
7. Therefore Louise's claim in (1) is true.


As I see it, steps (4)-(6) are a clear case of affirming the consequent. Note that Louise's claim may actually be false. (Step 3 also looks very dubious.)

3. and 4. are just unsupported assumptions, neither of which would be made by someone who did not believe the conclusion of the argument, 7. in the first place. That is why the argument begs the question. It assumes exactly what requires proof.

I see.

Technically (3) is not a step. A step in an argument is usually understood as an inference. (3) is a premise and it is false, and I think that was what you were getting at.

Anyway it requires a lot of speculation.

---------- Post added 11-16-2009 at 08:52 AM ----------



I don't think (4) is entirely unsupported, but (3) clearly only works if one believes that the individual in question has been sexually abused. Hence the question begging.