🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
non_sequitur
Non sequitur (Latin: 'it does not follow') is the broad formal fallacy in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. While many specific fallacies are technically non sequiturs, the term is applied when the logical gap is stark and cannot be classified under a more specific fallacy category. The conclusion may be true or false independently, but the argument provides no valid logical path from premises to conclusion, and the disconnect is too fundamental to be attributed to a missing premise.
"She's an excellent mathematician, so she'll make a great manager." (Mathematical ability does not entail management ability without substantial additional premises.)
A politician declares: 'I grew up in a small town and know what hard work means. Therefore, my tax policy is the right one for this country.' — Personal background has no logical connection to the correctness of a specific fiscal policy.
An ad campaign claims: 'Nine out of ten dentists recommend brushing twice a day. That's why you should trust our brand of running shoes.' — Dental professional endorsement of a hygiene habit has no bearing on the quality of athletic footwear.
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Does the argument present premises and draw a conclusion?
Type: binaryIs there a logical gap between the premises and the conclusion — does the conclusion not follow from the premises?
Type: binaryIs there no unstated premise that could reasonably bridge the gap between premises and conclusion?
Type: binaryNon sequitur (Latin: 'it does not follow') is the broad formal fallacy in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. While many specific fallacies are technically non sequiturs, the term is applied when the logical gap is stark and cannot be classified under a more specific fallacy category. The conclusion may be true or false independently, but the argument provides no valid logical path from premises to conclusion, and the disconnect is too fundamental to be attributed to a missing premise.
Humans are association machines — we readily connect ideas that co-occur in experience even when no logical relationship exists. The confident presentation of premises followed by a conclusion triggers an assumption of logical connection that may not exist.
Explicitly state what logical steps would be needed to get from the premises to the conclusion. If the gap cannot be bridged with reasonable assumptions, the argument is a non sequitur.
Ubiquitous in political speeches, advertising, everyday conversation, and social media posts where confident assertions substitute for logical argumentation. Also common in job interviews and performance reviews where irrelevant qualities are cited.
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. Unlike whataboutism, the diversion need not involve the accuser's behavior; any tangential topic suffices.
Assuming cause-and-effect because events are correlated or sequential (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
If A then B; B; therefore A. (Invalid modus ponens reversal).
If A then B; not A; therefore not B. (Invalid modus tollens reversal).
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.