This post is one in a series on the logical fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. This one is on circular reasoning and begins with petitio principii, literally meaning “assuming the initial point.” It is better known as begging the question. Continue reading
This post is one of a series on fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. One of these is the “bandwagon” argument in which one argues that the majority view is correct simply because it is the majority view. But majorities, even a majority of appellate courts, may be wrong. Continue reading
This post begins a series on logical fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. My thanks to D.Q. McInerny and his book, Being Logical, for naming these fallacies and for its clear examples.
A statute that I dealt with a while back applied when a child is harmed. Counsel for one of the parents cited cases applying the statute to parental beatings, arguing that the statute did not apply because the parent did not beat the child. Problem was that the statute did not limit who it applied to or the type of harm required. Continue reading