"If that wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be against the law" may commit which fallacy?
Although this is not my area of expertise, I don't see any fallacy. Not illegal = Legal. If it is legal, it is not "against the law."
The statement "If that wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be against the law" appears to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, also known as begging the question. This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, thereby creating a circular or tautological argument. In this case, the statement assumes that "illegal" and "against the law" mean the same thing, which effectively begs the question and doesn't provide any meaningful reasoning or evidence.
The statement "If that wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be against the law" commits the fallacy of circular reasoning, also known as petitio principii or begging the question. Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion is simply restating the premise without providing any additional evidence or support.
To understand this fallacy, let's break down the statement:
1. "If that wasn't illegal" - This is the premise or conditional statement.
2. "it wouldn't be against the law" - This is the conclusion drawn from the conditional statement.
The problem here is that the conclusion assumes the truth of the premise, without offering any external evidence or justification. Simply restating that something wouldn't be against the law if it wasn't illegal doesn't add any new information or logical support to the argument. It creates a circular loop of reasoning.
An argument committing the fallacy of circular reasoning is logically flawed because it does not provide valid evidence or logical reasoning to support its conclusion. To avoid this fallacy, one must present independent evidence or reasoning to support their claims, rather than relying on circular logic.