Fallacy of exclusive premises
The fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
E Proposition: No planets are dogs.
O Proposition: Some dogs are not pets.
O Proposition: Therefore, some pets are not planets.
Explanation of Example 2:
In this example we can more clearly see that the physical difference between a dog and a planet has no correlation to the domestication of dogs. The two premises are exclusive and the subsequent conclusion is nonsense, as the transpose would imply that some pets are planets.
The verisimilitude of the final statement is not relevant in this fallacy. The conclusions in both examples are uncontroversial; however, both are argued on fallacious logic and would not hold up as valid arguments.
Comment fallacy in fallacy of exclusive premises on Reddit to explain this fallacy. ?