Talk:Fallacy of exclusive premises

Some fish are not whales?
Um, all fish are not whales. Angryapathy (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the example to address this. Dcwaterboy (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "All fishes are not whales," is an E proposition without existential import in Boolean logic.--478jjjz (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is still confusing the example. The minor premise, Some Fish are not whales, is only true if "Fish" is intended in a non-scientific sense, as in sea creatures, or things that live in water.  However, the major premise is only true if "Fish" is intended in a scientific sense, as clearly there are indeed mammals that live in water.  Thus, regardless of the intention to use it as an example of a syllogistic fallacy, we never reach a clear understanding of why, due to encountering a Fallacy of Equivocation in the premises themselves.  This example needs to be changed to something that is *only* a Fallacy of Exclusive Premises. Memige (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A better example
I feel like the two examples given, although good demonstrations of the fallacy, might confuse readers because the conclusions are both true. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in fallacies but I have been able to come with something which I hope is a valid EEO-4 fallacy: 1. No water are potatoes 2. Some potatoes are not H2O 3. Therefore, some H2O is not water Should I replace the second example with this? I feel like it would be reckless to do so without a second opinion.EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)