Animal Farm Group

Question:


billkaulitzf...
Student
High School - 10th Grade

The discovery of hoofprints leading from the windmill into the hedge is proof that Snowball sabotaged the windmill. What is the fallacy in this logic?

Rate question:

Posted by billkaulitzfan13 on Monday November 26, 2007 at 9:02 PM and tagged with animal farm.

Answers:


  1. blacksheepunite Teacher
    High School - 12th Grade

    eNotes Editor

    I'm not positive, but this seems like a non-sequitur in that it does not follow from the evidence at hand that Snowball sabotaged the windmill.

     Just because there are footprints there, there is no reason to believe that the footprints belonged to Snowball; furthermore, there is also no reason to believe that the owner of the footprints was also the perpetrator of the crime.

    Rate answer:

    Posted by blacksheepunite on Monday November 26, 2007 at 9:36 PM


  2. sullymonster Teacher
    Community / Jr. College

    eNotes Editor

    Non-sequitor is a usable answer.  Another consideration is the similar Fallacy of the Consequent, also known as Affirming the Consequent.  This type of fallacy specifically looks at a piece of evidence and draws a conclusion that may appear to be logical, but is presented with no proof.  For example, if it's raining, the streets are wet.  The streets are wet.  Therefore it's raining.

    In this case, the hoofprints are near the windmill.  Snowball has hoofs.  Therefore, Snowball was near the windmill.  This type of fallacy ignores other possibilities.

    Sources:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

    Rate answer:

    Posted by sullymonster on Tuesday November 27, 2007 at 5:47 AM