Summary
The court in R. V Bush identified a fallacy of presumption, specifically Begging the Question, where knowledge of an act was assumed to imply knowledge of its unlawfulness. In Green v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, the fallacy was treating a pro tanto reason as conclusive, assuming an arms length price always equals market value. Lastly, in a legal liberty scenario, if Peter has the liberty to pay Mary £50, Mary has no right to demand it, indicating no legally enforceable claim.Full Conversation
what type of fallacy is this?
This seems to be a form of the fallacy of presumption, specifically "Begging the Question" or circular reasoning. The argument presumes as proven the very point that is in question, i.e., the knowledge of unlawfulness.
Consider the following excerpt from Green v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [*] UKFTT * (TC):
“While a sale between parties acting at arm's length may provide evidence of the market value, it is a logical fallacy to assume that an arm's length price must equal the market value.”
Which of the following sentences best describes the “logical fallacy” referenced in this passage?
It denies the antecedent
It treats a pro tanto reason as if it were a conclusive one
It treats a conclusive reason as if it were a pro tanto one
It relies on an illicit inversion of the a conditional
The logical fallacy referred to in this passage is most likely "It treats a pro tanto reason as if it were a conclusive one". This refers to the mistaken assumption that because an arm's length price can be evidence of market value, it must always equate to the market value.
Which of the following statements is true?
If Peter has, relative to Mary, a liberty to pay her £*, then Mary has, relative to Peter, a no right that Peter pay her £*
If Peter has, relative to Mary, a liberty to pay her £*, then Mary has, relative to Peter, a right that Peter pay her £*
If Peter has, relative to Mary, a liberty to pay her £*, then Mary has, relative to Peter, a no-right that Peter not pay her £*.
If Peter has, relative to Mary, a liberty to pay her £*, then Mary has, relative to Peter, a claim-right that Peter not pay her £*
The true statement is: If Peter has, relative to Mary, a liberty to pay her £*, then Mary has, relative to Peter, a no right that Peter pay her £*. This implies that Mary does not have a legally enforceable claim to demand £* from Peter.
TRY ME!
Ask Your Question For Free