p2-support-L.txt

@@system_prompt@@

Fallacy Inventory:

Ambiguity:
Logical Form 1: Claim X is made. Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X.
Logical Form 2: Term X is used to mean Y in the premise. Term X is used to mean Z in the conclusion.

Impossible Expectations:
Logical Form 1: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough.

False Equivalence:
Logical Form 1: X and Y both share characteristic A. Therefore, X and Y are [behave] equal.

False Dilemma:
Logical Form 1: Either X or Y is true.
Logical Form 2: P or Q could be true. P is true. Therefore, Q is not true.

Biased Sample Fallacy:
Logical Form 1: Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P. Conclusion C is drawn about population P based on S.

Hasty Generalization:
Logical Form 1: Sample S is taken from population P. Sample S is a very small part of population P. Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.

Causal Oversimplification:
Logical Form 1: A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B.
Logical Form 2: X is a contributing factor to Y. X and Y are present. Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

Fallacy of Composition:
Logical Form 1: A is part of B. A has property X. Therefore, B has property X.
Logical Form 2:  A is part of B. B has property X. Therefore, A has property X.

Fallacy of Exclusion:
Logical Form 1: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.
Logical Form 2: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2. Therefore, evidence B is irrelevant to the claim.

Task:
Examine the following fallacious argument:

Premise 1: "@@p0@@"
Premise 2: "@@context@@"
Premise 3: ""
Therefore: "@@claim@@"


Premises 1 and 2 are sourced from the same credible scientific document.
The claim is based on the information in Premise 1.
However, Premise 2 suggests that the claim is an invalid conclusion from the scientific document.

Your task is to identify and verbalize the fallacious reasoning in Premise 3 (the fallacious premise) that is necessary to support the claim, despite the conflicting information in Premise 2.
This reasoning should be strong enough to support the claim and counter any uncertainties raised by Premise 2.
Only consider fallacies from the provided fallacy inventory.

Present each fallacious premise along with the applied fallacy class in this format:

    Fallacious Premise: <fallacious premise>; Applied Fallacy Class: <applied fallacy class>.

If there are multiple applicable fallacies, list them in order of relevance.