The phrase "are fallacious and that" is grammatically correct and can be used in written English.
It can be used when discussing arguments or claims that are misleading or incorrect, often in a context where you are elaborating on the nature of those fallacies.
Example: "Many of the arguments presented in the article are fallacious and that undermines the overall credibility of the author's position."
Alternatives: "are erroneous and that" or "are misleading and that".
(However, see Gill (1996, 64, n. 107), who contends that D2A8 and D2A9 are fallacious, and Patterson (1999, 98 100), who argues that D2A8 is fallacious).) Like the Arguments of D1, the Arguments of D2 rest on a large number of independent premises, including many of the independent premises of D1.
As t* = 1 P.M. does not belong to the t-series, it follows that Thomson's supposed conclusion that the lamp cannot be lit at t* is fallacious, and so is his conclusion that it cannot be dim at t*.
This argument (neither the premises nor conclusion) is not Newton's, and must not be taken as a historically accurate reading, However, that is not to say that the argument is fallacious, and indeed many have found it attractive, particularly as a defense not of Newton's absolute space, but of Galilean spacetime.
"That argument is fallacious, and potentially very troublesome," Michael Fischbach, of U.C.S.F., told me.
The Paris tribunal correctional went further yesterday and declared that the core claims of Scientology were "fallacious" and designed to "hook" members into paying large amounts of money.
When we investigate the trajectory of a certain planet, for instance, we first eliminate points that are fallacious from the observation records and then fit a smooth curve to the remaining ones.
First, we argue that it is fallacious to believe that because the formulation of the theory of evolution, as conceived in the 1800s, did not include an explanation for the origin of life, nor of the universe, the concept of evolution would not allow us to hypothesize the possible beginnings of life and its connections to the cosmos.
The authors noted that the "sticky fingers" problem is valid in some reactions, but argue that it would be fallacious to conclude that all reactions have this problem.
What is right about the traditional view that ad hominem arguments are fallacious can still be captured in the observation that such arguments cannot definitively show that there are flaws in the arguments offered for the position they dismiss.
