I invite Norman and Goku to read more carefully.
Goku; I didn't mentioned my sodoku score or evolution in this thread, Popoi brought it up as an ad-hominem attack. My defence is that showing evidence you have an ability key to reasoning and arguing things out (deduction) is a correct thing to do, rather than just claiming abilities. Providing "101" quiz scores, is evidence, as I passed critical thinking tests which actually were not "easy" level. So why argue against the evidence? If you were good at evaluating arguments your response would have been this; "Popoi that was a personal attack, mike didn't mention his score, you're bringing in an issue so as to muddy the waters".
Norman, in context the example I gave wasn't meant to be difficult, it was meant to show that we use deduction in order to find such errors, by showing that the form, (the structure of the syllogism) is not formally valid. Popoi claimed that deduction wasn't essential in making someone a good arguer, so I only had to show that we used deduction to spot whether arguments are good or bad. That is the context of what I said, the context wasn't an attempt to show off, by producing the most "deep" logic I could find, telling me that you have taken my comment out of context, which a good reasoner/arguer, wouldn't do.
Both you and Goku have shown you aren't good reasoners here;
In this example, you and Goku don't seem to realise where the form is wrong which is actually what I was dicussing not the example. It is that the middle term is not distributed in the conclusion, meaning it breaks the modus ponen and tollens, rules. It has nothing to do with the example, the mistake will still be there no matter what the example, so it's not only important to know the difference between apples and oranges, you also have to know that the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, has been committed because the form is wrong. LOL!
The most common type of that fallacy is this;
All Ps are Xs.
All Ms are Xs.
Ergo all Ps are Ms.
It isn't only fallacious if it is wrong, it is specifically fallacious because you break the ponen/tollens directional rules, by concluding something about two antecedents.
This will take some explaining. The ponen rule is always true, you can always qualify the secondary premise, as being true in the consequent, if it is true in the antecedent, as long as the consequent always follows and the second premise always qualifies. This means there is a LEFT TO RIGHT DIRECTION to the structure of the syllogism, no matter how lengthy the premise is. By example think up an example of the longest possible ponen, this makes it easier to understand the directional rules to the structure of a syllogism;
If you are a man,(extreme atecedent) then you are a human,
If you are human then you are a mammal
If you are a mammal then you are a vertebrate.
If you are a vertebrate then you are a eukaryotic organism.(extreme consequent)
Bob is a man, therefore Bob is a eukaryotic organism.
Can you see the left-to-right direction? So then only one error (and you thought it simple) is to say for example, "Bob is a vertebrate therefore he is a man", because that breaks the rule of left-to-right inference. For example Bob might be a rodent. However, if all of the conditional implications in isolation, are 100% true, and the form of the syllogism 100% correct structure, then you can always conclude from the one example, that if they qualify as the extreme antecedent then they qualify as the extreme consequent.
But no, that certainly isn't the only thing you can deduce as to how something qualifies as valid, because you can also use the modus tollens rule of negation in it's one-directional, right-to-left, capacity, to also conclude that "if Bob is not a eukaryotic organism, then Bob is not a man".
But you can never say this;
"if you are a man you're human
If you're a woman you're human
Therefore if you're a man you're a woman"
Because you have broken both rules of formal validity, it has nothing to do with women not being men. Lol! If you think it only is a matter of simplicity, then you haven't studied conditional implications, the soundness of syllogisms and the rules of formal validity.
So if you think it simple, here are a few more errors deduction helps to spot;
If P then Y.
Y, ergo P. (fallacious; Affirmation of the consequent)
If P then Y.
Not P, ergo not Y. (fallacious; denial of the antecedent)
X is a P
Y is a P
ergo X is Y or the same as Y. (undistributed middle term)
All X are P
No D are X
Ergo no D are P (Illicit process of the major term)
All A are B
All A are X
Ergo all X are Z (illicit process of the minor term)
Norman: Wow, man....this is some deep, deep logic stuff. Give me a little bit, I need to really think this one through
I wasn't trying to provided "deep logic stuff" anyway. If someone asks you for something to eat as they're a nad hungry, and you give them a banana, would it make sense if I said, "Oh you are a Master chef, there Norman, you make the professionals look silly!"
That would be absurd, for you would have totally missed the ENTIRE point.
Giving an easy example of a fallacy doesn't mean anything I am afraid, because in real life most fallacies are not stated explicitly, you have to spot subtle fallacies in form, where they are hidden behind semantics, evasion, equivocation, rhetoric and sophistry.
Yes Norm, even one simple deduction can bring down an entire case, like wen you provided a whole bunch of scientifically technical data for a dating process which wasn't even used to date Mt St Helens rock. It was like you had found me in Bob's stolen car, and declared me a thief victoriously, only to later find out that Bob had in fact not had his car stolen but he had lent it to me.
That was an example of how a simple deduction was hidden behind the varnish of technical scientific jargon, but I won the debate because I had to sift through science information in order to find out your error, of which you did not even know you had made. So just because something is simple, doesn't mean it follows that it is easy. And that is one of the biggest things in the EvC debate, evolutionists hiding fallacies behind technical jargon.