I have the same question. In all of the previous questions, I believe Mehran identifies the flaw by name (e.g. fallacy of division, overlooking counter-evidence, biased opinion, etc.). What is the name of the flaw here?
Emil-Kunkinon October 9 at 12:45AM
I would say that the flaw here is that the argument makes a huge unwarranted assumption: that there are only two potential candidates. I wouldn't worry too much about naming categories of flaws, my view is that it doesn't get us anywhere. Rather, it's more important to be able to describe the flaw in the language of the argument. Here the argument is missing two critical premises: that the sources are indeed right, and that there are no potential candidates other than the two named.
