Editing False dilemma (section)

== Definition ==
A ''false dilemma'' is an [[informal fallacy]] based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.<ref name="Tomić"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Dowden |first1=Bradley |title=Fallacies: 6. Partial List of Fallacies |url=https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDilemma |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=3 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603000334/https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDilemma |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Vleet"/> In its most simple form, called the ''fallacy of  bifurcation'', all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an [[argument]], i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is [[Unsound (logic)|unsound]], i.e. not both valid and true. Fallacies are usually divided into ''formal'' and ''informal'' fallacies. [[Formal fallacy|Formal fallacies]] are unsound because of their structure, while informal fallacies are unsound because of their content.<ref name="Vleet">{{cite book |last1=Vleet |first1=Van Jacob E. |title=Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide |date=2010 |publisher=Upa |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/VLEILF |chapter=Introduction |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=28 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228035654/https://philpapers.org/rec/VLEILF |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hansen |first1=Hans |title=Fallacies |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=13 March 2021 |date=2020 |archive-date=29 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210329182946/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Tomić"/><ref name="Engel">{{cite book |last1=Engel |first1=S. Morris |title=With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies |date=1982 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ENGWGR |chapter=4. Fallacies of presumption |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=1 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220301065815/https://philpapers.org/rec/ENGWGR |url-status=live }}</ref> The problematic content in the case of the ''false dilemma'' has the form of a [[disjunction|disjunctive claim]]: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives.<ref name="Tomić">{{cite journal |last1=Tomić |first1=Taeda |title=False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition |journal=Argumentation |date=2013 |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=347–368 |doi=10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0 |s2cid=144781912 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TOMFDA |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=10 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114245/https://philpapers.org/rec/TOMFDA |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Sometimes a distinction is made between a ''false dilemma'' and a ''false dichotomy''. On this view, the term "false dichotomy" refers to the false disjunctive claim while the term "false dilemma" refers not just to this claim but to the argument based on this claim.<ref name="Tomić"/>