Ok, you are logically right, fine. It may be closer to ad baculum, or affirming the consequent, appeal to the probable.
If you don't take ALA you will stumble. ad baculum...
Stumbling is bad, therefore it must be caused by lack of ALA as to take ALA is good. hmmmmm....
Of course we have not proven ALA to be a cause of not stumbling.. so...
Or it could be begging the question, in other words the assuming that stumbling is caused by lack of ALA, it could be lack of B3, or C or B5, or just old age :) -- the latter cause is of course a subtle form of logical fallacy as well. (<-- on a serious note, B.T.Q. is the closest "fallacy"...)
It also may be denying the antecedent.. not necessarily is stumbling caused by lack of ALA.
However assuming taking ALA is invalid, it may still be straw man, as one would easily see that it is bad to stumble, so the straw man becomes the stumbling.. irrespective of the fact that there is no proven connection between the stumbling and the ALA ...
It could also be a false dilemma.
On the other hand, ALA is a natural substance, so it must be good for us. It is bad to stumble, so it must be that ALA prevents in some way that bad thing ... :)
*************************************
I have heard that ALA is good for lowering blood sugar...
This is not to say that ALA does not cause a person not to stumble.. in all fairness it probably has a hand in that ...
************************************** |
