The Abh magic touch concealer fifth color is a popular product in the world of makeup. This concealer is known for its ability to provide flawless coverage and a natural finish. One of the main reasons why the Abh magic touch concealer fifth color is highly regarded is because of its formulation. It contains a blend of high-quality ingredients that work together to hide imperfections, dark circles, and blemishes. The product is also infused with skincare benefits, such as hydrating and nourishing properties, to improve the overall health of the skin. Another key feature of this concealer is its extensive shade range.
But even taking this silly argument seriously, proving that the accused is wood does NOT demonstrate logically that she is a witch. This is a False Cause, for being wood is not necessarily the result of being a witch; otherwise, wooden bridges and all wooden things would be constructed of witches. In other words, a witch may be wood, but not all wood comes from witches. So even if the accused turns out to be wood, that might be the result of a cause quite different from what the villagers allege. In other words, demonstrating that something is wood does not prove a “witchy” origin. It simply suggests a woody one.
We are introduced to King Arthur Graham Chapman pretending to ride a horse through the English countryside, with his trusty valet Patsy Terry Gilliam following along as a private Foley studio creating the clatter of hooves with two halves of a coconut. Drawing out answers from the villagers, the Lord of the Manor establishes that if the accused equates to a duck, then that equates to being wood, which equates to being a witch.
Another key feature of this concealer is its extensive shade range. The fifth color is specifically designed to complement medium skin tones. The brand understands that one size does not fit all, and so they have created a wide variety of shades to cater to different skin tones and undertones.
INDY RE-ENTRY FOCUS
Mistakes in reasoning are common in everyday life. From politics to commercials to serious business discussions, logical fallacies arise to derail our thinking and smash our arguments. But we often jump willingly to our conclusions. We don’t recognize our reasoning mistakes, and that’s a pity. So here is something that you can use, while Monty Python entertains.
To help you keep your own reasoning on track, here is a wonderful video clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail that illustrates at least four rather nasty but common logical fallacies: name-calling, undistributed middle term, false cause, and false authority. My explanations below will elaborate on the video’s fallacies so that you may follow the action and understand why others jump to conclusions. Your mission? That’s simple. Don’t follow the video’s example in your own life—where it really matters!
Fallacy 1: Name Calling (the Personal Attack)
Villagers bring to the Lord of the Manor (the knight who owns the land) a woman they believe to be a witch. To make her appear guilty, they dress her as a witch, even adding to her face a crooked carrot to simulate a deformed nose. The Lord of the Manor asks the villagers how they know that she is a witch. They point to her appearance, but they are forced to admit that they dressed her to look that way. To recover from this failed attempt, one villager claims that she turned him into a newt. Since he obviously isn’t a lizard now, the villager claims, with some embarrassment, that he simply got better.
These all qualify under the heading of the Fallacy of Name Calling (ad Hominem: to the man), a fallacy that attempts to undermine what another claims or argues by discrediting that person’s character or motives, typically by attributing charges of wrongdoing, immoral behavior, or untrustworthiness. This is a fallacy because a person’s character or motives are irrelevant to the truth of his or her statements. Even if a person has a reason to lie, the truth of what he or she says depends upon whether or not the statements accurately describe the real world, not the person’s virtue or lack of it. Even the most virtuous can have lousy observation skills or misinterpret what’s before them. The truth of a statement, what logicians call soundness, depends upon accuracy, not morality.
Fallacy 2: Undistributed Middle Term (Cf., Equivocation and False Analogy)
As the villagers push the accused before the Lord of the Manor, we get a lesson in faulty class inclusion. Proper class inclusion assumes that if one group is included in another, then the members of both will necessarily share common characteristics. We expect that because the included group is simply a subdivision within the same class. The shared characteristics are “universally distributed” within the class, so all members of any included class must also have them. That’s what logicians mean by a “distributed middle term.” For example, look at this logically valid argument:
“Reptiles are cold-blooded animals. This snake is a reptile. Consequently, it is a cold-blooded animal.” (Reptiles constitute a class characterized by being cold-blooded. The snake is included as a subclass of this larger class. Consequently, we logically conclude that it has the same characteristic)
The Fallacy of an Undistributed Middle Term occurs when the items we compare are not members of the same class but merely seem to share an incidental characteristic. The logical mistake occurs when the two classes are equated on the basis of the incidental, common characteristic. This is equivocal. For example, both rams and bulls have horns, but these animals belong to different classes. The horns are only an incidental similarity. Equating the two classes of animals would be a mistake. Though they both have horns, this fact does not put them in the same class, any more than a car and a horse sharing the same color could be classified as the same things. In fact, the horns of these two animals are not really the same, just similar. The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term makes a shared, similar feature the illicit basis for equating two different classes of things. Like this:
“Rams have horns. Bulls have horns. Consequently, Rams are Bulls.”
Watch what happens as the Lord of the Manor tells the villagers that there are ways to determine if the accused is a witch. He explains that witches burn (a characteristic). Why do they burn? Well, wood also burns (the same characteristic), so witches are made of wood (that equates two classes of different items on the basis of an incidental but shared characteristic). This is the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term. Following this form of reasoning would allow us to easily lose our way logically. (For example, Mr. Smith has two feet; Mrs. Smith has two feet. Consequently, Mr. Smith is Mrs. Smith).
Now what the duck’s weight has to do with it is anyone’s guess. Of course, this is an example of the same fallacy. Two different things may have the same weight, but that shared quality does not make them the same. Take a survey. What would people prefer: a pound of duck feathers or a pound of gold? If someone tells you that the two are the same, don’t go into business with that person. You’ll be sorry.
The Undistributed Middle Term can deflect any reasoning into pure silliness.
Fallacy 3: False Cause
In fact, this is what happens in the video. Wood floats, the Lord of the Manor says. He then asks what else floats? King Arthur, who has been observing in the background, confidently answers that it is a duck. The Lord of the Manor affirms that answer as the correct one. What does this mean? Drawing out answers from the villagers, the Lord of the Manor establishes that if the accused equates to a duck, then that equates to being wood, which equates to being a witch. This reasoning, however, is an example of the False Cause fallacy (Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc: after this, therefore because of this).
Why? Even if we take the humorous argument seriously, not all wooden items are witches. In fact, the Lord of the Manor says this explicitly, “And what do you burn other than witches.” The answer? “Wood,” says one of the villagers, to the Lord of the Manor’s approval. The video also admits that some bridges are made of wood, without directing the villagers to burn all wooden bridges on the charge of witchcraft. Clearly, the Lord of the Manor and the villagers know that not all wood comes from witches. Consequently, what the Lord of the Manor must be claiming is that when one becomes a witch, that “witchy” quality turns the person into wood.
But even taking this silly argument seriously, proving that the accused is wood does NOT demonstrate logically that she is a witch. This is a False Cause, for being wood is not necessarily the result of being a witch; otherwise, wooden bridges and all wooden things would be constructed of witches. In other words, a witch may be wood, but not all wood comes from witches. So even if the accused turns out to be wood, that might be the result of a cause quite different from what the villagers allege. In other words, demonstrating that something is wood does not prove a “witchy” origin. It simply suggests a woody one.
Fallacy 4: False Authority
The Lord of the Manor proposes a simple diagnostic test for the accused. If the accused weighs the same as a duck, that proves she is a witch. Why? Sharing the duck’s weight makes her equivalent to wood, for a duck is equivalent to wood. If she is wood, then she is a witch. So he proposes to use his weighing scales to test her. With a duck on one side and the accused on the other, the scales measure both to be identical. This proves, according to the Lord of the Manor, that the accused is a witch.
But accepting this conclusion requires one to assume that the Lord of the Manor knows what he is talking about. Nothing in evidence confirms such expertise. In fact, quite the opposite. His logic has already proven quite faulty. Moreover, his rank in society and personal land holdings don’t offer him insight into the paranormal. He is, consequently, a False Authority (the fallacy Ad Verecundiam: to authority). Moreover, using the results of the measurement as evidence assumes the authority of the scales. Even if one accepts the silly premise of the test, this will not permit assuming that the scales are accurate. Consequently, what the measurement means is uncertain. Relying upon the unchecked scales, therefore, is also an example of False Authority.
So there you have some fallacies committed on purpose–for your viewing pleasure–by Monty Python. To follow up on other logical fallacies that can get you into trouble, you might find the link below useful.
Some embedded content has been omitted:
This ensures that everyone can find the perfect match for their complexion. The Abh magic touch concealer fifth color is also applauded for its application. The formula is lightweight and creamy, making it easy to blend into the skin without feeling heavy or cakey. Its smooth texture allows for effortless application and buildable coverage, depending on the level of desired concealment. Furthermore, this concealer possesses long-lasting properties. It is designed to withstand the rigors of daily activities, such as sweat and humidity, without compromising its performance. This ensures that the coverage remains intact throughout the day, providing a fresh and flawless look. In conclusion, the Abh magic touch concealer fifth color is a highly regarded product due to its exceptional formulation, shade range, seamless application, and long-lasting qualities. Its ability to provide flawless coverage and a natural finish makes it a staple in many makeup routines..
Reviews for "The Abh Magic Touch Concealer Fifth Color: The Secret to a Photo-Ready Complexion"
- Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with the ABH Magic Touch Concealer in the fifth color. First of all, the shade range was very limited and none of the colors matched my skin tone properly. Secondly, the formula was not as creamy and blendable as I expected. It felt heavy on my skin and settled into my fine lines and creases, making me look older. Overall, I would not recommend this concealer if you're looking for a natural, seamless finish.
- Emily - 1 star - The ABH Magic Touch Concealer in the fifth color was a complete letdown for me. The product claims to provide full coverage, but it barely covered my dark circles and blemishes. I had to layer it multiple times, which made it look cakey and unnatural. Additionally, the packaging was flimsy and the product started to dry out within a few weeks of use. I would not repurchase this concealer and I don't think it's worth the price.
- Michael - 2 stars - I had high hopes for the ABH Magic Touch Concealer in the fifth color, but it fell short of my expectations. The shade range is limited and the fifth color turned out to be too pink for my skin tone. The formula felt heavy and greasy on my skin, and it didn't blend well with my other makeup products. It also settled into my fine lines and emphasized my dry patches. Overall, I was disappointed with this concealer and I would not purchase it again.
- Jessica - 3 stars - While the ABH Magic Touch Concealer in the fifth color wasn't the worst concealer I've tried, it didn't wow me either. The coverage was decent, but it didn't stay put throughout the day and started to fade after a few hours. The formula also felt slightly drying on my skin and I had to moisturize heavily beforehand. The shade range could definitely be improved, as none of the colors matched my skin tone perfectly. Overall, it's an average concealer that didn't meet my expectations.