Crisis Management

This is the fallacious approach of many in a crisis:

1. We must do something.
2. Here is something.
3. Let’s do it.

It’s a bit like this false logic:

1. All cats have four legs.
2. My dog has four legs.
3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

Or:

1. To improve things, things must change.
2. We are changing things.
3. Therefore, we are improving things.

Gosh, that reminds me of some interesting bosses I’ve had in the past.

The examples provided illustrate a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent or, more generally, a type of faulty reasoning that involves making unwarranted assumptions based on insufficient or irrelevant criteria.

Explanation of the Fallacy

1. Crisis Response Example:

• Premise 1: We must do something.
• Premise 2: Here is something.
• Conclusion: Let’s do it. This reasoning is fallacious because it assumes that any action is better than no action, without evaluating whether the proposed action is appropriate or effective for addressing the crisis. The mere fact that an action is available does not guarantee its suitability or efficacy.

2. False Logic with Cats and Dogs:

• Premise 1: All cats have four legs.
• Premise 2: My dog has four legs.
• Conclusion: Therefore, my dog is a cat. This is a classic example of affirming the consequent. The logic here incorrectly assumes that sharing a characteristic (having four legs) implies sharing identity (being a cat). The conclusion is invalid because having four legs is not a unique characteristic of cats; many animals, including dogs, share this trait.

3. Change and Improvement Example:

• Premise 1: To improve things, things must change.
• Premise 2: We are changing things.
• Conclusion: Therefore, we are improving things. This reasoning again falls into the trap of affirming the consequent. It mistakenly assumes that all change leads to improvement. However, change can be neutral or even detrimental. Improvement requires specific beneficial changes, not just any change.

Summary

In each case, the fallacy arises from assuming that a shared attribute or action automatically leads to a specific outcome without considering other necessary conditions or evaluating the context. This type of reasoning overlooks the complexity and nuances involved in decision-making and logical deduction.

Kevin Harrington

I’m a UK-based B2B marketing consultant, specialising in strategic advice for SME business owners. I bring extensive hands-on expertise to every client engagement. Senior leadership roles across technology, media, payments, and publishing have shaped my practical approach. Highlights include serving as Chief Marketing Officer at The Panoply plc (now TPXimpact), Chief Commercial Officer at Tungsten Network, and Global Marketing Director at BBC Worldwide. Over the years, I’ve guided numerous SMEs through transformation and value creation. Helping businesses evolve and thrive is a genuine passion. Practical marketing insights and succession planning strategies are at the heart of what I do, as I believe growing a business’s asset value should be a rewarding and positive journey for every entrepreneur.

See Full Bio