This fallacy is committed when a general proposition is used as the premise for an argument without attention to the (tacit) restrictions and qualifications that govern it and invalidate its application in the manner at issue.
The premise for this argument is that once natural selection generated the set of genes that build our big, smart human brains, those genes became "fixed" in the human population; virtually everyone receives the same set, and precious few variants affect intelligence.
The premise for this argument is that methane, the major component of natural gas, is relatively clean; deriving one British Thermal Unit (BTU) of energy from burning natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as a BTU from coal.
The latter alternative was the premise for the participants' argument in support of routine HIV status disclosure since life-saving ARTs are now provided free of charge to all eligible persons in the country.
In many ways Gregory was a philosopher's theologian, because he began with propositions from Scripture as premises for his arguments and proceeded deductively.
Likewise, Fred Adams (2010) has argued that one should distinguish between the empirical premise in arguments for the embodiment of cognition, and a requisite logical-metaphysical premise, and that the latter of these is seldom supported.
Compatibilists must either identify a false premise in the argument for theological fatalism or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
But it seems then that a different premise in the argument for the moral insignificance of the distinction would be in trouble.
You could use this depiction of everyday thought as a premise in an argument for revisionism, on the grounds that our folk concepts are too confused to serve as constraints (Murphy 2006 makes this argument with respect to psychiatry).
However, a number of critics have claimed that Davidson's rejection of conceptual relativism and its underlying dualism between conceptual scheme and empirical content is inconsistent with one or another premise in his argument for anomalous monism.
While it is not beyond criticism (see the entry on Morality and Evolutionary Biology), I will assume this premise, for the sake of argument, without further elaboration.
