Well so are numerous other concepts "missing" from logical fallacies but a logical fallacy must have an error of logic while it attempts to make an argument. No argument = no errors to be made, so what's the argument?
Well so are numerous other concepts "missing" from logical fallacies but a logical fallacy must have an error of logic while it attempts to make an argument. No argument = no errors to be made, so what's the argument?
RE: Divide and conquer as a logical fallacy