The reply brief was fun, as plaintiffs were forced to defend an indefensible argument. From pages 5-6:
1.
Plaintiffs rely on a logical fallacy.
It is not unfair to summarize plaintiffs’ proposed
syllogism as follows:
1. There exist websites that offer coupons
where each coupon provides only a partial discount. PB26.
2. There exists legislative history that
criticizes a coupon settlement where the coupons offered provided only partial discounts.
PB24-25; PB28.
3. Therefore
all “coupons” provide only partial discounts.
4. Therefore
a voucher for a free product is not a “coupon.” PB29-31.
The formal fallacy in plaintiffs’ logic is even more
apparent in the following analogy:
1. There
exists a dog racing track where each racing dog is a greyhound.
2. Actor
Leonard Nimoy owns a dog that is a greyhound.
3. Therefore
all dogs are greyhounds.
4. Therefore
a collie is not a dog.
Nimoy’s
most famous character had a catchphrase for this.[5]
[5]
Cf. Leonard Nimoy, Highly Illogical on Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy (Dot Records 1968). Or, as Woody Allen once said, “All men are mortal. Socrates is a
man. Therefore all men are Socrates.” Love
and Death (United Artists 1975).
No comments:
Post a Comment