Perhaps I wrote it in a manner that was less precise than I though it is. I'll use Wikipedia example: Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand. since it's probably the easiest way of putting it into words. In the examples you gave, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I'll use the following formal forms: p => (q => r) - Here is a truth table (p => q) => r - Truth table (p => (q => r)) ^ (r => p) - Truth table ((p => q) => r) ^ (r => p) - Truth table On the side note, excuse me to paraphrase Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation (at least I think that he said it) "Picking one fallacy over another as 'a better one' is like asking 'what type of brain cancer do you like the most'" ;D. Seriously though, if I got your post incorrectly please tell me. And, if in doubt, I'm not making fun of you. Wellington is in New Zealand.
Well, that's indeed different. Thanks for correction. I've spent some time thinking about it and I have to say that I would rather put circular reasoning as: p -> p as the simplest possible case. Yours also works, but permits whole case to actually be false. I'm trying to make some good example based on what you wrote to have it a bit clearer, just as an exercise. If you happen to have an example as some form of 'word problem' I would like to see it. Before you'll ask: yes, it pains me to admit it but I can be that shitty with English ;/. My recent preparatory IELTS exam made me realised how many moronic mistakes I can make, so that's partially a help request if you happen to have the will and time to do it.
Thou and Yahtzee appear to be thinking too much in binary. Surely there are degrees to which brain cancer and fallacies can affect one badly?[As] [a] side note, excuse me to paraphrase Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation (at least I think that he said it) "Picking one fallacy over another as 'a better one' is like asking 'what type of brain cancer do you like the most'" ;D. Seriously though, if I got your post incorrectly please tell me. And, if in doubt, I'm not making fun of you.
Thanks for corrections in quote! Much obliged :). As of thinking in binary, maybe a bit but it rarely hurts me. In this case, perhaps it could seem like I'm trying to be unnecessarily thick but it is pretty close to my stance. I know that not everything is binary, however I don't really 'feel' one fallacy as better or worse than the other. Some are a bit harder or annoying to deal with, and if that's the case I would agree with you completely.