solarbubblewate

And now we illustrate the 2nd-order of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

1. Situation X in my mind is jaywalking. 2. We should legalize Situation X. 3. Therefore, we should legalize jaywalking. (Accidentally?) Omitted: Situation Y is jaywalking. Should we legalize Situation Y?

Another wiki describing the term:

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Parallel_Construction

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is particularly prevalent. However, in practice it is usually hidden in implications rather than explicitly stated. For example:

1. Murder is a crime. 2. We should be tough on murder. 3. Therefore, we should be tough on crime. (Deliberately) Omitted: Jaywalking is a crime. Should we be tough on jaywalking?

Two of my favorites are "Affirming the Consequent" and the logically equivalent "Denying the Antecedent". How about you?