🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
accident_fallacy
The accident fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case whose circumstances make the rule inapplicable. The fallacy treats the general rule as absolute and exceptionless, ignoring the particular features of the case at hand that constitute a legitimate exception. It is the opposite of the converse accident (hasty generalisation), which moves from specific cases to general rules.
"Freedom of speech means everyone can say anything they want. Therefore, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre should be permitted."
A student argues: 'The school rule says every student deserves to be heard and respected. Therefore, the teacher must let me finish my two-hour personal monologue during a 50-minute class, because cutting me off would violate my right to be heard.'
A driver insists: 'The law says I must stop at red lights, but the rule exists to prevent collisions. It's 3 AM, the roads are completely empty, and I can see for miles — so the rule simply doesn't apply to me right now.'
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Does the argument apply a general rule or principle to a specific case?
Type: binaryDoes the specific case have exceptional circumstances that the general rule was not designed to cover?
Type: binaryWould a reasonable person recognise that the general rule should not apply in this particular case?
Type: binaryThe accident fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case whose circumstances make the rule inapplicable. The fallacy treats the general rule as absolute and exceptionless, ignoring the particular features of the case at hand that constitute a legitimate exception. It is the opposite of the converse accident (hasty generalisation), which moves from specific cases to general rules.
General rules are cognitively efficient — they reduce decision-making complexity. Once a rule is accepted as valid, extending it to edge cases feels like consistent reasoning rather than fallacious overextension.
Acknowledge the validity of the general rule while pointing out the specific features of the case that make it an exception. Show that the rule was never intended to cover such circumstances.
Common in legal reasoning when precedent is applied mechanically, in ethical debates where principles are treated as absolute, and in policy discussions that ignore local context or special circumstances.
Drawing broad conclusions from limited, unrepresentative, or anecdotal evidence.
Applying rules, standards, or principles to others while claiming an exemption for oneself or one's position without adequate justification for the exception.
Presenting only two options when many more exist.
Altering a generalization's definition to exclude a counter-example.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.