DU Logicians, Need Help Naming a Fallacy

[ProudLib72]

This came up the other day. I know well enough that it is a fallacy, put I'm having difficulty nailing down the exact name of the fallacy.

Here goes:

George likes cats.
Cats are animals.
Therefore, George must like all animals.

It seems like generalization, but examples I've been looking at don't quite match up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. It's a syllogism

[ProudLib72]

7. Yes, I wrote it as such

If reversed, then it is true. The way it is written here is not true. So the question is, what makes it untrue this way?

[oberliner]

2. Sounds like association fallacy

Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

[Aristus]

3. I think that's just a straight-up logical fallacy.

You used a linear, logical progression to come to the conclusion, but the conclusion is fallacious.

[leftieNanner]

4. It's backwards

George likes all animals
Cats are animals
Therefore, George likes cats.

[triron]

5. that would be logically true

[unblock]

6. Fallacy of composition.

http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/composition.htm

[ProudLib72]

8. I thought fallacy of composition was

Hydrogen is not wet
Oxygen is not wet
Therefore H2O must not be wet

Fallacy of composition is one that seems similar. Now you see my quandary? I never studied logical fallacies in a formal setting, and they all seem so appealing to me!

[unblock]

12. Whenever you take a property of an element of a set and attribute it to the entire set

That's the fallacy of composition.

Oxygen is a gas at room temperature,
Oxygen is a member of the set of elements in h2o,
Therefore h2o is a gas at room temperature.

George likes cats
Cats are members of the set of all animals
George like all animals

Same structure.

[yonder]

16. I've been trying to learn more about informal fallacies. That would be my answer too. Dunno though.

Fallacy of composition:

If one person in a group stands to get a better view, then all people who stand would get a better view. False

[Xipe Totec]

9. You need the illustrated book of bad arguments

https://almossawi.com/bookofbadarguments.html

But yours, specifically, is generalization from the particulars.

[ProudLib72]

17. That looks like a REALLY good book

I teach my composition students a few each semester, but we never go very deep. I wonder if they would like an illustrated book with pigs and rabbits committing heinous logical fallacies. I wish we offered a critical thinking class.

[Xipe Totec]

20. I liked it so much I gave it as a gift to my college age niece. nt

[ProudLib72]

21. I just ordered a copy!

I have a 15 year old niece who might find it useful (once I'm finished with it )

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

10. The only conclusion one can draw is

George likes some animals.

[Exotica]

11. It is a fallacy of degree. It goes from non universal statements in the

first two clauses, to a universal statement in the third.

[Shrek]

13. Illicit major n/t

[ProudLib72]

18. That looks very much like my syllogism. Thanks!

1. All dogs are mammals
2. No cats are dogs
3. Therefore, no cats are mammals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_major

[janx]

14. It is a non sequitur in the form

of an illogical
syllogism. Illogical
because the logic and categories are backwards.

[Major Nikon]

15. You can have a lot of fun with associative logic

God is love
Love is blind
Ergo Stevie Wonder is god.

[ProudLib72]

19. Oh no! I feel a thread about tRump using associative logic coming on

Not starting it here and now, though.

[Wounded Bear]

22. A camel is always a mammal...

but a mammal ain't always a camel.

[ProudLib72]

23. Fake News!

Sometimes a camel is a cigarette!

[Wounded Bear]

24. Got me there...