Top Law Schools

For instance:

We cannot do X. Since our only other choice is to do Y, we should consider how best to accomplish Y.

We have 2 premises.

1. We cannot do X.
2. Only other choice is to do Y

Would we be able to attack this as a false choice? Or, am I to accept as fact that the only other choice is to do Y. It seems that I would simply accept that idea as fact.

But, I ask, can a false dilemma be inferred from a premise, such as our second one? Or do we concede the idea without evidence. We are to accept premises as fact without evidence to its backing. So it would seem to be that we cannot infer a false choice from that statement above.

.

this thread is a false dilemma

VasaVasori wrote: "X and Y are two ways to accomplish A, and we can't do X, so we'll have to do Y. - This argument is most vulnerable to criticism because... it fails to consider that there is another way to accomplish A."

Yeah, the difference between what you said and what the OP said (as you noted) is the 'only' in the OP's question. If the LSAT said that, then you'd be forced to accept that Y is the only other option, and therefore that's the option you must go with (assuming that you have to take some action).

However, every time I can think of on the LSAT, it presented it as two options without noting that they were the only options available. It's actually a pretty big tip-off that it's an exclusivity fallacy question.

I was under the impression that all explicit premises are true. So the situation you pose would be valid.