Question

What is the difference between fallacies of relevance and fallacies of weak induction?

a) Fallacies of relevance focus on arguments that are logically invalid; fallacies of weak induction focus on irrelevant premises.
b) Fallacies of relevance involve introducing irrelevant points into an argument; fallacies of weak induction involve providing insufficient evidence for a conclusion.
c) Fallacies of relevance involve drawing incorrect conclusions; fallacies of weak induction involve providing false premises.
d) Fallacies of relevance involve providing insufficient evidence for a conclusion; fallacies of weak induction involve introducing irrelevant points into an argument.

Answer 1

The difference is that fallacies of relevance use irrelevant evidence, while fallacies of weak induction use relevant but insufficient evidence to support conclusions.

Step-by-step explanation:

Fallacies of weak induction involve providing insufficient evidence for a conclusion. Fallacies of relevance occur when evidence presented in an argument does not logically support the conclusion because the evidence is not actually relevant to the point being made. For example, an appeal to emotion is a common fallacy of relevance where emotional evidence is used in place of logical evidence. On the other hand, fallacies of weak induction happen when the premises provided are relevant to the argument yet not strong enough to support the conclusion drawn.

For instance, making a generalization based on limited experience would be a fallacy of weak induction, because while the evidence is relevant, it is insufficient to strongly support the conclusion.