Fallacious denial of a conjunction claims that if an effect requires multiple conditions together, the absence of the effect implies one particular condition is false. But another condition may be missing.
Example
“Combustion needs fuel, oxygen, and heat.
There is no fire, therefore there is no fuel.”
(Oxygen or heat could be missing.)
Applied example (political)
“For peace you need dialogue, justice, and jobs.
There is no peace, therefore there is no dialogue.”
(Justice or jobs may be missing.)
Applied example (mystical)
“To heal you need faith, ritual, and guidance.
I did not heal, therefore I have no faith.”
(Another condition may be missing.)
Why it is fallacious
- It confuses necessary with sufficient conditions.
- It ignores other possible missing factors.
- It draws too much from absence.
How to spot it
- A premise is declared false because the effect is absent.
- It does not identify which condition failed.
- It ignores the combination requirement.
How to respond
- Point out that the absence of the effect does not identify the missing condition.
- Ask for evidence about the specific condition.
- Analyze each requirement separately.