Djokovic won his tennis match because he played well, not because he agreed to marry a fan. The fan's response, while related to Djokovic, does not actually address whether he deserved to win based on his gameplay. An irrelevant conclusion fallacy occurs when an argument is made but does not truly pertain to the original issue discussed.
Djokovic won his tennis match because he played well, not because he agreed to marry a fan. The fan's response, while related to Djokovic, does not actually address whether he deserved to win based on his gameplay. An irrelevant conclusion fallacy occurs when an argument is made but does not truly pertain to the original issue discussed.
Djokovic won his tennis match because he played well, not because he agreed to marry a fan. The fan's response, while related to Djokovic, does not actually address whether he deserved to win based on his gameplay. An irrelevant conclusion fallacy occurs when an argument is made but does not truly pertain to the original issue discussed.
Irrelevant Conclusion is the informal fallacy of presenting
an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Example: A reply by an excited fan
Question:- Did Djokovic deserved the win as he was on top of his
game today? Answer by an excited girl fan: He totally deserved it as he agreed to marry me when I asked the same during the game today. Explanation
• The girl comes to a conclusion that doesn’t answer to the initial
argument even if it is related to it. • She seems to be missing the point that a player wins a tennis game through his skills. A Tennis player reads the game of the opponent and a forms a strategy to defeat him. • The serve and the shots played are all aligned to the strategy made by the player to defeat the opponent. • A reply made by a tennis player to a fan has nothing to do with his winning.