Logical Fallacy Detection with LLMs

Let's test logical fallacy detection quality of different LLMs

Page content

Comparing several versions LLMs: llama3 (Meta), phi3 (Microsoft), gemma (Google), mistral(open source) and qwen(Alibaba).

Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Emotions

What we test.

I’ve had some interest in Automated Logical Fallacy Detection for quite some time and in this experiment I’m testing how AI with different Large Language Models can detect logical fallacies in english text.

Let’s check out a bit of recent Laura Tingle (grammar is original):

Look, on first blush, it all sounds perfectly reasonable:
too many people, not enough houses.

But it is never that simple,
as a former home affairs minister should know.

Where it came from

In political debate and modern “journalism” we can frequenly notice sides using manipulative tactics and stright to your face - the logical fallacies in theur arguments.

These days both Canada and Australia expericence extream levels of net migration, which causing supressed wages, per-capita recession, capital shallowing, and drop in quality of life (hospital queues, road congestion, high rents, you name it.)

Recently australian opposition politician Peter Dutton brought the idea that because australian builders don’t build enugh homes for all newcomers, so would be good to cap immigrants intake. Though most of australians want this done for a long time, that’s a very new topic in public political debate - to mention the demand side in the economics, not only the supply one. Majority of politicians never talk about this.

After Peter Dutton’s speech we saw several eerrhh let’s call them criticss who didn’t produce reasonable arguments (to my opinion), but used some kinds of logical fallacies and smearing manipulations to attack P.Dutton. One of those responses was from ABC’s Laura Tingle in the article With his federal budget reply, Peter Dutton is now playing deadly simple but very dangerous politics.

There was a nice review of Laura Tingle’s article on Macrobusiness: Laura Tingle’s ”L Plate” immigration discussion. But L.Tingle’s article overall is an interesting example of modern argumentation. Can read more about how this publishing was discussed. here. Reminded me of “Yes” campaign for Voice to Parliament last 2023 year.

Neverthe less we just want to test Large Language Models on real-life example.

TL;DR

Please see updated table that includes these and new models in the Testing logical fallacy detection by new LLMs: gemma2, qwen2 and mistralNemo .

In my view the text sample

Look, on first blush, it all sounds perfectly reasonable:
too many people, not enough houses.

But it is never that simple,
as a former home affairs minister should know.

contains Strawman fallacy, Ad Hominem, Appeal to authority and Oversimplification.

I’ve tested several llama3, phi3, gemma, mistral and qwen models, how much GPU RAM they use and what they detect in this sample. I’ve run test on each model twice so there will be “V V” in the cell if both times model predicted particular fallacy, and “V” if only once. Here below are the results:

ModelVersion GPU RAM A2CS Straw man Ad homi-nem Red Herring Appeal to igno-rance Appeal to autho-rity False dicho-tomy Hasty Genera-lization Begging the Question Slippery Slope Post hoc ergo propter hoc Tu quo-que
l3:8b-i-q4_0 5.8GB V V V V V V
l3:8b-i-q8_0 9.1GB V V V V V V
l3:8b-i-fp16 9.1GB V V V V V
p3:3.8b 4.3GB V V V V V V
p3:3.8b-mini-4k-i-q8_0 5.8GB V V V V V V V V V
p3:3.8b-mini-i-4k-fp16 8.9GB V V V V V V
p3:14b 9.3GB V V V V
p3:14b-m-4k-i-q6_K 12.5GB V V V V V V
p3:14b-m-4k-i-q8_0 15.3GB V V V V V
mi:7b-i-v0.3-q4_0 4.3GB V V V V V V V V V
mi:7b-i-v0.3-q8_0 8.6GB V V V V V V
mi:7b-i-v0.3-fp16 14.7GB V V V
ge:7b-i-v1.1-q4_0 7.2GB V V V V
ge:7b-i-v1.1-q6_K 9.1GB V V V V V
ge:7b-i-v1.1-fp16 15.5GB V V V V V
qw:14b-chat-v1.5-q8_0 15.2GB V V V V V
qw:7b-chat-v1.5-fp16 15.5GB V V V V
qw:32b-chat-v1.5-q3_K_S 15.1GB V V V V
qw:32b-chat-v1.5-q3_K_M 15.4GB V V V V V V V V

Shortcuts in Logical Fallacy names: A 2 CS=Appeal to common sense

Shortcuts in model names:

  • l3=llama3
  • p3=phi3
  • i=instruct
  • m=medium
  • mi=mistral
  • ge=gemma
  • qw=qwen

Oversimplification=False dichotomy

As we see, most of the models see these Strawman fallacy, Ad Hominem, Appeal to authority correctly, but, overall they have many unbased subspictions and false positives.

My “Editor’s choice” model is phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-q6_K. It easily fits into 16GB RAM, and quite smart. The second place is for phi3:3.8b-mini-4k-instruct-q8_0.

Models’ exact responses

Reminding that we are analysing phrase:

Look, on first blush, it all sounds perfectly reasonable:
too many people, not enough houses.

But it is never that simple,
as a former home affairs minister should know.

Performing two tests.

Response from llama3:8b-instruct-q4_0

A delightful example of a loaded phrase!

This phrase contains several logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to common sense (or “appeal to intuition”): The phrase starts by saying “it all sounds perfectly reasonable”, implying that the obvious solution is to reduce the number of people or houses. This appeals to the listener’s emotional response rather than providing a logical argument.
  2. Strawman: The phrase sets up a simplistic and flawed opposing view (“too many people, not enough houses”) to make it easier to attack. In reality, the actual arguments may be more nuanced and complex.
  3. Ad hominem (attack on the person): By mentioning that “a former home affairs minister should know”, the speaker is attempting to discredit the opposing view by implying that someone with expertise in the field cannot possibly hold such a simplistic opinion.

Overall, this phrase uses emotional appeals, strawman arguments, and personal attacks to undermine the opposing viewpoint rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

A delightful example of a loaded phrase!

This phrase contains the following logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to common sense (or “appeal to intuition”): The phrase starts by saying “it all sounds perfectly reasonable”, implying that the obvious solution is to reduce the number of people or houses. This appeals to the listener’s emotional response rather than providing a logical argument.
  2. Strawman: The phrase sets up a simplistic and flawed opposing view (“too many people, not enough houses”) to make it easier to attack. In reality, the actual arguments may be more nuanced and complex.

However, I must correct my previous answers - there is no Ad hominem (attack on the person) in this phrase, nor is there an Appeal to Authority. The mention of “a former home affairs minister” is actually a Red Herring, meant to distract from the original argument by introducing an irrelevant fact or personal characteristic.

Overall, this phrase uses emotional appeals and sets up a simplistic opposing view to undermine the original argument, while also attempting to divert attention with a red herring.

Response from llama3:8b-instruct-q8_0

This phrase contains two logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to ignorance (also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam): The speaker is implying that because something “sounds” reasonable at first glance, it must be simplistic and not take into account all the complexities of the issue. This is a fallacious assumption, as there may be valid reasons why the situation appears simple on its face.
  2. Appeal to authority (also known as argumentum ad verecundiam): The speaker is trying to discredit someone’s opinion by implying that they are not credible because of their background or position, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.

The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” is an attempt to shut down the argument without engaging with its substance. It’s saying that only someone who has held a certain position can understand the issue, and that anyone else is not qualified to discuss it. This is an appeal to authority, as it relies on the speaker’s credentials rather than the validity of their arguments.

Note that these fallacies are often used together in this type of argument, as they both rely on an attempt to discredit or silence the opposing viewpoint without engaging with its substance.

This phrase contains two logical fallacies:

  1. Straw man (also known as argumentum ad strawman): The phrase “on first blush” implies that the speaker is presenting an oversimplified or inaccurate version of the opposing viewpoint, which they can then easily refute. This creates a false dichotomy and allows the speaker to ignore more nuanced or complex arguments.
  2. Appeal to authority (also known as argumentum ad verecundiam): The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” is an appeal to authority, attempting to discredit someone’s opinion by implying that only someone with specialized knowledge or experience can understand the issue.

The phrase “it all sounds perfectly reasonable: too many people, not enough houses” sets up a simplistic opposition between two ideas, making it easy to argue against. The phrase “But it is never that simple” then implies that there are complex factors at play that cannot be captured by this oversimplification, effectively discrediting the opposing viewpoint.

The combination of these fallacies creates an argumentative strategy that aims to discredit and silence the opposing viewpoint without engaging with its substance or presenting a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Response from llama3:8b-instruct-fp16

This phrase contains the following logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to authority: The speaker is implying that because someone is a former Home Affairs Minister, they should be taken seriously and their opinion carries weight. This is an appeal to authority, which is not necessarily a valid argument.
  2. False dichotomy (also known as the “either/or” fallacy): The phrase suggests that either it’s simply a matter of too many people and not enough houses, or there’s something more complex going on. However, this binary opposition oversimplifies the issue, which may have multiple factors at play.
  3. Strawman argument: The speaker is setting up a simplistic, naive position (“too many people, not enough houses”) that is easily debunked, in order to make their own argument seem more sophisticated and reasonable.

By pointing out these fallacies, the speaker is attempting to discredit the opposing viewpoint and create the impression that their own perspective is more nuanced and informed.

This phrase contains the following logical fallacies:

  1. False dichotomy (also known as the “either/or” fallacy): The phrase suggests that either the situation is straightforward (“too many people, not enough houses”) or it’s complex. However, this binary opposition oversimplifies the issue, which may have multiple factors at play.
  2. Appeal to authority: The speaker is implying that because someone is a former Home Affairs Minister, they should know better and their opinion carries weight. This is an appeal to authority, which is not necessarily a valid argument.

Note that there is no strawman argument in this phrase, as the opposing viewpoint (“too many people, not enough houses”) is presented fairly and without misrepresentation or exaggeration.

Response from phi3:3.8b

This statement primarily contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The speaker references the opinion of a former home affairs minister to argue against oversimplification without directly addressing the complexity mentioned or providing substantial evidence. While it hints at dismissing the previous argument due to perceived insufficiency in qualifications (implying that being a home affairs minister doesn’t necessarily equip one with expertise on housing issues), this approach can still be seen as an indirect appeal to authority, rather than a direct logical fallacy.

It’s worth noting that without additional context or content from the argument, it may also include elements of straw man (by oversimplifying and dismissing) if one interprets the statement in a way where the complexity mentioned is misrepresented as an unreasonable claim rather than a call for nuanced discussion. However, based on the provided phrase alone, the primary identified fallacy leans towards appeal to authority.

In the provided statement, several potential logical fallacies are present:

  1. Appeal to Authority: The speaker references their knowledge of what a former home affairs minister would say to discredit an oversimplified argument without directly addressing its merits or faults. This implies that expertise in one field (home affairs) automatically equates comprehensive understanding, which is not necessarily the case.

  2. Straw Man Fallacy: If interpreted as dismissing a simplified version of an argument, this could be seen as constructing a straw man - representing someone’s position inac Written in Latex? The answer would still depend on how it’s presented or the context in which you’re analyzing it.

  3. Ad Hominem: This fallacy is subtly present if one interprets “a former home affairs minister should know” as an attack against the individual making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It implies that disregarding the oversimplified viewpoint lacks credibility solely based on the speaker’s credentials, not because of any logical reasoning or evidence presented in support of a more nuanced approach.

  4. Overgeneralization: Implied by “it is never that simple,” suggesting all complex issues cannot be reduced to simplistic explanations, which might overlook instances where clear and straightforward solutions are possible.

These fallacies aren’t definitive without additional context or an extended argument. The phrase alone suggests a more nuanced examination would be required to accurately identify the presence of logical fallacies.

Response from phi3:3.8b-mini-4k-instruct-q8_0

This statement could potentially involve several logical fallacies, though it’s important to note the context might limit their application or clarity. Here are some possibilities based on the given phrase:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): The speaker implies that because a former home affairs minister would know better, any oversimplification must be incorrect without providing concrete evidence against it. This is an appeal to authority rather than directly addressing the argument’s merits or flaws.

  2. Straw Man Fallacy (Misrepresentation of Argument): The speaker might suggest that those who argue there are too many people and not enough houses are presenting a simple solution when, in fact, they may be advocating more complex solutions. By immediately dismissing the simplicity as incorrect without directly engaging with these potential alternative arguments, this could constitute a straw man fallacy if it’s an oversimplification of others’ positions.

  3. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): Implicit in this statement is a slight ad hominem element by focusing on the authority of the former minister rather than addressing the argument itself. It might suggest that only someone with their experience would understand the complexity, indirectly dismissing those who haven’t held similar positions as less credible without directly refuting their arguments.

  4. Hasty Generalization: The phrase could also imply a hasty generalization if it suggests that complex issues are universally oversimplified by everyone, including the former minister, though this interpretation is speculative and would depend on additional context not provided in the statement itself.

It’s crucial to examine these potential fallacies within the fuller discourse surrounding the argument for a more accurate assessment.

The provided phrase can be analyzed for several potential logical fallacies. Let’s examine them in detail:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): The speaker references the knowledge of a former home affairs minister, suggesting that their expertise automatically negates any simplicity in understanding issues like population-housing imbalance. This argument implies authority should always be heeded, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate an oversimplified view without further evidence.

  2. Straw Man Fallacy (Misrepresentation of Argument): The phrase might set up a straw man fallacy by presupposing that anyone who suggests too many people and not enough houses is advocating for simplicity in the issue, thereby dismissing their potential complex arguments without directly engaging with them.

  3. False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy): The phrase implies a false dichotomy by suggesting there are only two states of understanding – it’s either perfectly simple or not at all, leaving out the possibility that issues can be complex yet comprehensible with proper analysis and discourse.

  4. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): There is a subtle ad hominem undertone in relying on the former minister’s authority as proof against oversimplification, which indirectly criticizes those who might not share the same level of expertise without addressing their arguments directly.

  5. Hasty Generalization: The phrase could be interpreted to make a hasty generalization about complex problems if it implies that all such issues are inherently oversimplified, which would require more context for proper evaluation.

Understanding these potential fallacies requires considering the broader conversation and how this statement interacts with other arguments presented by or in reference to the former home affairs minister’s viewpoint.

Response from phi3:3.8b-mini-instruct-4k-fp16

This phrase may imply a couple of potential logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): The speaker suggests that their claim about the issue being “never that simple” is validated by referencing the experience or supposed expertise of a former home affairs minister, without providing specific evidence from this authority directly related to the current discussion.

  2. Straw Man Fallacy (Misrepresenting an Argument): The phrase might be hinting at a straw man fallacy if it were leading someone to believe that “too many people, not enough houses” is always oversimplified or never complex. However, without further context about the preceding arguments, this can’t be definitively identified as a fallacy in the given phrase alone.

It does not directly contain other common logical fallacies like Ad Hominem (attacking someone’s character), False Dichotomy (presenting two opposing options when more may exist), or Slippery Slope, based on this snippet alone.

The phrase provided might suggest the following potential logical fallacies with added complexity:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): As in Instruction 1, this phrase could be seen as an Appeal to Authority by implying that a former home affairs minister’s perspective is authoritative on the issue at hand without presenting direct evidence or arguments from them.

  2. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): If “never that simple” assumes that any argument about housing and population must be complex, it could be begging the question by presuming what it’s attempting to prove without providing independent support for complexity.

  3. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): If the speaker suggests that because a former home affairs minister has not explicitly stated otherwise, there must be an element of complexity or nuance beyond “too many people, not enough houses,” it could be seen as appealing to ignorance.

  4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident): The phrase might also fall into the trap of hasty generalization if it implies that all matters related to housing and population are inherently complex based on a limited example or anecdotal evidence from one individual’s perspective, even though such complexity is not universally applicable.

It should be noted that without additional context surrounding how this phrase fits into the larger argumentative framework, some of these interpretations remain speculative.

Response from phi3:14b

This statement contains two potential logical fallacies:

  1. Argumentum ad Hominem (attacking the person instead of addressing their argument): The speaker undermines the credibility of the person they’re disagreeing with by pointing out that “a former home affairs minister should know better,” instead of focusing on refuting the idea itself.

  2. Oversimplification/False Dilemma: By stating, “it is never that simple,” the speaker implies there are more complexities to the housing issue than just ’too many people and not enough houses,’ but doesn’t explain or argue these other factors. This can be seen as an attempt to dismiss the original argument without proper evidence or reasoning, leading towards oversimplification fallacy.

same

This statement contains two potential logical fallacies:

  1. Argumentum ad Hominem (attacking the person instead of addressing their argument): The speaker undermines the credibility of the person they’re disagreeing with by pointing out that “a former home affairs minister should know better,” instead of focusing on refuting the idea itself.

  2. Oversimplification/False Dilemma: By stating, “it is never that simple,” the speaker implies there are more complexities to the housing issue than just ’too many people and not enough houses,’ but doesn’t explain or argue these other factors. This can be seen as an attempt to dismiss the original argument without proper evidence or reasoning, leading towards oversimplification fallacy.

Response from phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-q6_K

The statement contains two potential logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): This fallacy occurs when someone relies on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure instead of providing solid evidence and reasoning to support their argument. In this case, mentioning a “former home affairs minister” is used as if it should automatically lend credibility to the speaker’s claim that the housing issue isn’t simple without presenting any actual evidence for why that might be true.

  2. Strawman Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies their opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute. In this case, the phrase “too many people, not enough houses” presents a simplified version of the issue at hand – that there is simply a shortage of housing for the number of people needing it. The speaker then dismisses this view as naive (“on first blush”) without addressing its actual merits or providing an alternative argument, which can be seen as setting up and knocking down a strawman version of the opposing position instead of engaging with the real issue at hand.

This statement contains several potential logical fallacies:

  1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): The speaker uses the opinion of a former home affairs minister to support their claim without providing solid evidence and reasoning for why the housing issue isn’t simple, relying instead on the authority figure’s supposed knowledge.

  2. Strawman Fallacy: By presenting an oversimplified version of the opposing argument (“too many people, not enough houses”), the speaker can easily dismiss it as naive without addressing its actual merits or providing a counterargument that addresses the real issue at hand.

  3. False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy): The statement implies there are only two possible perspectives on this complex housing problem, either it seems reasonable to assume people have insufficient housing due to overpopulation or the former home affairs minister knows it’s more complicated. This ignores other possibilities and oversimplifies a multifaceted issue into an unrealistic binary choice.

  4. Hasty Generalization: The statement assumes that just because there are “too many people” and “not enough houses,” the situation is inherently complex, without considering that there might be other factors contributing to this housing problem or providing evidence for why it’s more complicated than it seems at first glance.

  5. Equivocation: The use of the phrase “on first blush” implies a superficial understanding of the issue and suggests that further examination would reveal its complexity, but doesn’t clearly define what is meant by simple or complex in this context, potentially leading to confusion about the actual argument being made.

Response from phi3:14b-medium-4k-instruct-q8_0

This phrase contains two potential logical fallacies:

  1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): The speaker indirectly questions the credibility of the “former home affairs minister” by implying they are not knowledgeable or capable enough to understand the complexities of housing shortage issue, which is irrelevant to addressing the actual argument about the lack of houses for too many people.
  2. Oversimplification: The speaker simplifies a complicated social issue (housing crisis) into just two factors - “too many people and not enough houses,” without considering other possible contributing elements such as economic, political, or geographical aspects.

This phrase contains several potential logical fallacies:

  1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): The speaker indirectly questions the credibility of the “former home affairs minister” by implying they are not knowledgeable or capable enough to understand the complexities of housing shortage issue, which is irrelevant to addressing the actual argument about the lack of houses for too many people.
  2. Oversimplification: The speaker simplifies a complicated social issue (housing crisis) into just two factors - “too many people and not enough houses,” without considering other possible contributing elements such as economic, political, or geographical aspects.
  3. Appeal to Authority: By mentioning the former home affairs minister’s supposed expertise on the matter, the speaker tries to add weight to their argument through an appeal to authority rather than presenting substantial evidence supporting their stance.
  4. False Dilemma (Black-and-White Fallacy): The statement implies that there are only two options - either it is simple with too many people and not enough houses, or the former home affairs minister should know better. This ignores other potential explanations and solutions to the problem.

Response from mistral:7b-instruct-v0.3-q4_0

The phrase you provided doesn’t inherently contain any specific logical fallacies. However, the use of rhetorical devices or informal fallacies may be present depending on the context and subsequent arguments. Here are a few possibilities:

  1. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Implied): By mentioning that the former home affairs minister should know it’s not that simple, there might be an implication that the minister is somehow incompetent or biased, without providing evidence to support this claim. However, this is not explicitly stated and may just be a rhetorical device rather than a fallacy.

  2. Hasty Generalization (Implied): The phrase “too many people, not enough houses” could be used as a premise for a generalization about the overall housing issue without presenting sufficient evidence or examples to support this claim. This would be a hasty generalization if it is presented as a broad and definitive statement based on incomplete or insufficient data.

  3. Appeal to Authority (Implied): The use of “a former home affairs minister” suggests that their expertise lends credence to the argument that the situation is more complex than initially perceived. However, if the phrase does not provide additional reasoning or evidence to support this claim, it may not be a strong argument.

  4. Slippery Slope (Implied): If the subsequent arguments or points made after this statement assume that acknowledging a housing issue will lead to catastrophic consequences without providing solid evidence for this assumption, it could be considered a slippery slope fallacy.

Ultimately, without more context and additional information about the arguments being made, it’s challenging to definitively identify any specific logical fallacies within the provided phrase. It’s always important to consider multiple perspectives and evaluate evidence when analyzing arguments for potential fallacies or biases.

The phrase you provided doesn’t explicitly contain any specific logical fallacies. However, the use of rhetorical devices or informal fallacies may be present depending on the context and subsequent arguments. Here are a few possibilities:

  1. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Implied): By mentioning that the former home affairs minister should know it’s not that simple, there might be an implication that the minister is somehow incompetent or biased, without providing evidence to support this claim. However, this is not explicitly stated and may just be a rhetorical device rather than a fallacy.

  2. Hasty Generalization (Implied): The phrase “too many people, not enough houses” could be used as a premise for a generalization about the overall housing issue without presenting sufficient evidence or examples to support this claim. This would be a hasty generalization if it is presented as a broad and definitive statement based on incomplete or insufficient data.

  3. Appeal to Authority (Implied): The use of “a former home affairs minister” suggests that their expertise lends credence to the argument that the situation is more complex than initially perceived. However, if the phrase does not provide additional reasoning or evidence to support this claim, it may not be a strong argument.

  4. Slippery Slope (Implied): If the subsequent arguments or points made after this statement assume that acknowledging a housing issue will lead to catastrophic consequences without providing solid evidence for this assumption, it could be considered a slippery slope fallacy.

  5. Red Herring (Possible but less likely): Mentioning the former home affairs minister as an authority figure might distract from the actual argument being made by introducing an irrelevant detail or red herring. However, in this case, the mention of the minister seems to be relevant to the context since they have expertise on housing issues.

Ultimately, without more context and additional information about the arguments being made, it’s challenging to definitively identify any specific logical fallacies within the provided phrase. It’s always important to consider multiple perspectives and evaluate evidence when analyzing arguments for potential fallacies or biases.

Response from mistral:7b-instruct-v0.3-q8_0

The phrase you provided does not inherently contain any explicit logical fallacies. However, if someone were to argue further using this statement as a foundation and commit one of the following fallacies, then they could be making a fallacious argument:

  1. Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to criticize or refute. For example, if someone were to argue that the original statement is only reasonable for people who don’t consider environmental factors or urban planning, they would be committing a strawman fallacy.

  2. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the arguments themselves. For instance, if someone were to say, “Who are you to question the former home affairs minister? You’re just some amateur,” that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

  3. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: Drawing a general conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. If someone were to argue that because the former home affairs minister disagrees with the original statement, it must be incorrect for everyone, that would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

The given phrase itself does not contain any explicit logical fallacies. However, if someone were to make an argument using this statement as a foundation and commit one of the following fallacies, then they could be making a fallacious argument:

  1. Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to criticize or refute. For example, if someone were to argue that the original statement is only reasonable for people who don’t consider environmental factors or urban planning, they would be committing a strawman fallacy.

  2. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the arguments themselves. If someone were to say, “Who are you to question the former home affairs minister? You’re just some amateur,” that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

  3. Hasty Generalization Fallacy: Drawing a general conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. If someone were to argue that because the former home affairs minister disagrees with the original statement, it must be incorrect for everyone, that would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

Response from mistral:7b-instruct-v0.3-fp16

The phrase you’ve provided doesn’t seem to contain any explicit logical fallacies. However, it does suggest a subtle appeal to authority (ad verecundiam), as it implies that the listener should trust the opinion of a former home affairs minister because of their position. This isn’t necessarily a fallacy, but it’s important to note that while authority can lend credibility, it doesn’t automatically make an argument or statement true. The actual reasoning and evidence provided in the subsequent discussion are still crucial for a valid argument.

The phrase you’ve provided doesn’t contain any explicit logical fallacies. However, it may implicitly suggest an appeal to authority (ad verecundiam) by implying that the listener should trust the opinion of a former home affairs minister due to their position and experience. This is not necessarily a fallacy, but it’s essential to remember that while authority can lend credibility, it doesn’t automatically make an argument or statement true. The actual reasoning and evidence presented in the subsequent discussion are still crucial for a valid argument. Additionally, the phrase “it is never that simple” could potentially be seen as a hasty generalization if not properly supported with specific reasons in the following discourse.

Response from gemma:7b-instruct-v1.1-q4_0

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The former home affairs minister’s experience is used to dismiss the argument without establishing any logical connection between their experience and the premise.

Ad hominem: The argument attacks the former home affairs minister’s authority rather than addressing the actual issue.

same

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The former home affairs minister’s experience is used to dismiss the argument without establishing any logical connection between their experience and the premise.

Ad hominem: The argument attacks the former home affairs minister’s authority rather than addressing the actual issue.

Response from gemma:7b-instruct-v1.1-q6_K

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The speaker assumes that because the current situation (too many people, not enough houses) existed in the past (former home affairs minister’s knowledge), it is still the sole cause of the problem.

Ad hominem: The speaker attacks the former home affairs minister’s expertise instead of addressing the actual issue.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The speaker assumes that because the current situation (too many people, not enough houses) existed in the past (former home affairs minister’s knowledge), it is still the sole cause of the problem.

Ad hominem: The speaker attacks the former home affairs minister’s expertise instead of addressing the actual issue.

Generalization: The speaker concludes that the problem is not simple based on the former home affairs minister’s knowledge, without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this generalization.

Response from gemma:7b-instruct-v1.1-fp16

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The speaker assumes that because the current situation (too many people, not enough houses) existed previously, it is the sole cause of the problem.

Ad hominem: The speaker attacks the former home affairs minister’s expertise and experience rather than addressing the actual issue.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The speaker assumes that because the current situation (too many people, not enough houses) existed previously, it is the sole cause of the problem.

Ad hominem: The speaker attacks the former home affairs minister’s expertise and experience rather than addressing the actual issue.

Tu quoque: The speaker implies that the former home affairs minister is responsible for the current housing shortage, without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim.

Response from qwen:14b-chat-v1.5-q8_0

The phrase provided doesn’t explicitly contain any classical logical fallacies. However, there are some implications and rhetorical techniques used:

  1. Straw man (implied): By saying “it all sounds perfectly reasonable,” the speaker might be assuming an overly simplistic argument from the other side.

  2. Ad hominem (implied): The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” implies that the speaker’s credibility is based on their past position, which could be considered an ad hominem attack.

  3. Appeal to authority: The reference to a former home affairs minister suggests that the speaker is relying on the perceived expertise of someone in that position.

Overall, while the phrase doesn’t contain any classical logical fallacies, it does employ various rhetorical techniques and implications that can be seen as informal fallacies.

The phrase provided mostly employs rhetorical techniques rather than classical logical fallacies. However, there are some potential implications:

  1. Straw man (implied): The speaker starts by seemingly acknowledging an opposing argument – too many people and not enough houses. However, they then proceed to challenge the simplicity of this argument without directly addressing or refuting it.

  2. Appeal to authority: The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” suggests that the speaker’s perspective is informed or validated by the experience and expertise of a former government official. While not inherently a logical fallacy, reliance on appeals to authority can weaken an argument if the authority figure’s position or credibility is questioned.

In summary, while the phrase doesn’t contain any classical logical fallacies, it does rely on rhetorical techniques and implications that could be seen as informal fallacies.

Response from qwen:7b-chat-v1.5-fp16

The phrase you provided doesn’t explicitly contain a logical fallacy. However, there are some subtle points to consider:

  1. Appeal to authority: The phrase suggests the speaker, a former home affairs minister, has the knowledge to识破 simplicity in this issue. While they might have expertise, their word alone is not a logical fallacy.

  2. False dichotomy: The statement implies that there’s only one option - either too many people or not enough houses. This oversimplifies the complex factors involved in housing supply and demand.

In summary, while the phrase doesn’t contain an explicit logical fallacy, it does present some subtle reasoning issues.

The phrase you provided doesn’t directly contain any explicit logical fallacies. However, there are some subtle points to consider:

  1. False dichotomy (present in the statement): The claim that “too many people, not enough houses” is the only complex issue implies a false choice between two alternatives when in reality, there may be multiple factors at play.

  2. Appeal to authority (subtle): The phrase suggests that the former home affairs minister’s expertise should be taken as an authority on the matter. While their knowledge might be valuable, the phrase doesn’t explicitly contain an appeal-to-authority fallacy.

In conclusion, while the phrase doesn’t directly have logical fallacies, it does present a false dichotomy and could potentially lean towards an appeal to authority.

Response from qwen:32b-chat-v1.5-q3_K_S

The phrase contains at least two logical fallacies:

  1. Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”): This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character or qualifications of a person rather than addressing their argument directly. In this case, the statement is not about the actual content of what the former home affairs minister said but rather质疑他们的身份 (“a former home affairs minister should know”). It implies that their past position alone discredits their opinion without engaging with the substance of their argument.

  2. Appeal to simplicity (also known as “false dichotomy” or “black-and-white fallacy”): This fallacy occurs when a complex issue is oversimplified into two straightforward options, often dismissing other possible factors or complexities. The statement suggests that the argument about too many people and not enough houses is being presented as a simple cause-and-effect relationship (“too many people, not enough houses”), and by saying “it is never that simple,” it implies that the critique is overlooking additional factors or complexities without actually discussing them.

In summary, the phrase employs an ad hominem attack on the speaker’s credibility and an appeal to simplicity by dismissing the complexity of the issue being discussed.

My previous response was incorrect in identifying the specific logical fallacies present in the given phrase. Upon reevaluation, I find that there might be an argumentative strategy at play rather than explicit logical fallacies:

  1. Strawman: This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresent an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. In this case, the speaker seems to acknowledge the initial, seemingly reasonable argument about too many people and not enough houses but then implies that a former home affairs minister should know better than to believe such a simple explanation, suggesting that the original point was oversimplified or misleading.
  2. Appeal to authority: The phrase uses the title “a former home affairs minister” as if their background automatically confers expertise or credibility that discounts the straightforward argument about housing and population. This can be seen as an appeal to authority, where the assumption is made that a person in a specific position must have a deeper understanding of the issue.

However, it’s essential to note that these are not traditional logical fallacies but rather ways to criticize or downplay someone else’s argument without directly addressing its content. To accurately label them as fallacies would require more context on how the statement was used in an actual debate or conversation.

Response from qwen:32b-chat-v1.5-q3_K_M

The phrase you’ve provided does not explicitly exhibit any specific logical fallacy within its content. However, there could be an underlying suggestion of a few potential fallacies based on the tone or implications:

  1. Ad hominem: The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” might imply that because someone held a particular position (in this case, home affairs minister), they are expected to have knowledge or wisdom on the issue. This could be an ad hominem fallacy if it’s used to dismiss their opinion without addressing the actual argument being made.

  2. Appeal to authority: This is related to the ad hominem and occurs when someone’s argument is accepted solely because of their position, status, or authority rather than the merit of the argument itself. The phrase implies that a former home affairs minister’s understanding should be inherently valid, without examining the substance of their claim.

  3. False dichotomy: If the speaker is implying that there are only two possibilities (too many people or not enough houses) and any suggestion that it’s more complex than that is wrong, they might be committing a false dichotomy fallacy by oversimplifying a multifaceted issue.

  4. Strawman argument: This fallacy occurs when someone presents an exaggerated or distorted version of their opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute. If the speaker is misrepresenting the opposing view as simplistic (“too many people, not enough houses”) and then dismissing it, they could be committing a strawman fallacy.

  5. Appeal to simplicity (argumentum ad verecundiam): The suggestion that something “sounds perfectly reasonable” on “first blush” might be an appeal to simplicity, implying that the most straightforward explanation is necessarily correct. This discounts the possibility of complexity and the need for further examination.

Remember that these potential fallacies depend on the broader context in which the statement is made and how it’s used in an argument. Without more information, it’s difficult to say which, if any, are present.

The phrase you provided doesn’t inherently exhibit any specific logical fallacy within its content but could suggest a few potential ones based on the context or implications:

  1. Ad Hominem: The phrase “as a former home affairs minister should know” might imply that because someone held a particular position, they are expected to have knowledge or wisdom on the issue. This could be an ad hominem fallacy if used to dismiss their opinion without addressing the actual argument being made.

  2. Appeal to Authority: By relying on the status of a former home affairs minister as a basis for dismissing the simplicity of the argument, the speaker might be committing an appeal to authority fallacy, assuming that their position automatically validates their perspective.

  3. False Dichotomy: If the speaker is implying that there are only two possibilities (too many people or not enough houses) and any suggestion that it’s more complex than that is wrong, they could be committing a false dichotomy by oversimplifying a multifaceted issue.

  4. Strawman Argument: The presentation of the argument as “too many people, not enough houses” might be seen as a strawman if the speaker misrepresents the opposing view to make it easier to refute or dismiss.

  5. Appeal to simplicity (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): The phrase “on first blush, it all sounds perfectly reasonable” could imply that the most straightforward explanation is necessarily correct, dismissing the need for further examination and potentially committing an appeal to simplicity fallacy.

Remember, these potential fallacies are inferred from the snippet provided, and without additional context or how this statement fits into a broader conversation, it’s challenging to determine which, if any, of these fallacies are present. Fallacies often become clearer when examining the entire argument being made, including the speaker’s intentions and their response to counterarguments.

Thank you my friend for your interest in this topic, if you’d like to read some more here you are: