Bong Lover said:
VGKing said:
Bong Lover said:
VGKing said:
There is all this evidence in the form of rumors and leaks combined with the info given(or not given) out today + taking into account the costs that a Kinect 2.0 would add + researching what type of RAM would best suited an App-focused platform = The next XBox is using DDR3.
I made a logical conclusion from all this information I have gathered. It wasn't a random guess or what I hope is true. I just layed out to you how I came to this conclusion. No mistakes were made on my part.
|
Hmmm, I didn't anticipate this to be so difficult to understand. Let me try to simplify.
It doesn't matter what all kinds of evidence is saying. The point is that no matter if your conclusion turns out to be true or not, the argument you built to show it is invalid. What's more, it's been known to be invalid for over 2000 years.
So, stop trying to think of this as you being right about which machine is stronger, the actual specs of the two machines is completely irrelevant to wether your argument is sound or not. Unfortunately, the case you built is logically invalid, and it will remain invalid for 10 000 years and beyond. That is my point. I want you, and everyone else on this site, to stop making arguments that are logically incorrect.
|
My argument was correct. I formed a LOGICAL conclusion based on info we knew.
Think of it like this, gunshots are heard, neighbor calls the cops, dead wife is found, gun is found with fingerprints of the husband, husband is nowhere to be found. 1 + 1 = 2
|
Your argument was not correct, as it is relying on a well known logical fallacy. The fallacy has it's own name if you want to know more about it: affirming the consequent
Think of it like this, what does these three arguments have in common?
If Xbox One is weaker than PS4 Then Microsoft will not boast of the specs.
Microsoft did not boast of the specs.
Therefore Xbox One is weaker than PS4.
If the husband murdered his wife Then his fingerprints were on the gun
His fingerprints were on the gun
Therefore the husband murdered the wife
If it is raining Then the streets are wet
The streets are wet
Therefore it is raining
All three arguments are logically incorrect and based on a fallacy. You formed a conclusion, but it was not a logical conclusion from your premise.
|
This is getting annoying. You're implying that my whole argument was based on If A Then B; B, => AIt's not. I didn't think I needed to clarify this. I explained in my previous comments exactly how I came to my conclusion and the comment you're obsessing about is only one of the many points that led me to most logical conclusion.
Going by to my previous analogy, further investiation finds that the husband has a history of violent behavior and multiple arrests.
