<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A nearly ubiquitous form of fallacious reasoning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/</link>
	<description>12 tables, 24 chairs, and plenty of chalk</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 02:26:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A=B implies that 1=1, therefore&#8230; &#171; 360</title>
		<link>http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/#comment-10300</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A=B implies that 1=1, therefore&#8230; &#171; 360]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/?p=273#comment-10300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] implies that 1=1,&#160;therefore&#8230; By TwoPi  I&#8217;ve ranted in the past about the fallacy of trying to prove an identity by starting with the equation itself, then [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] implies that 1=1,&nbsp;therefore&#8230; By TwoPi  I&#8217;ve ranted in the past about the fallacy of trying to prove an identity by starting with the equation itself, then [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: infinity</title>
		<link>http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/#comment-430</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[infinity]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/?p=273#comment-430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I always hated seeing this correction on my homeworks/tests, but understood why it was there and when I was grading the other day, I wrote this correction down.  It&#039;s almost like you turn into your professors just like you turn into your parents...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always hated seeing this correction on my homeworks/tests, but understood why it was there and when I was grading the other day, I wrote this correction down.  It&#8217;s almost like you turn into your professors just like you turn into your parents&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ξ</title>
		<link>http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/#comment-427</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ξ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/?p=273#comment-427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not sure that the answer is to completely avoid it, but rather to emphasize the &quot;if and only if&quot; nature of the argument within the proof.  (Although I admit, even though I talk about that necessity to all my classes and take off points if it&#039;s left off, only about one such proof in fifteen &quot;proofs&quot; of this nature actually uses &quot;if and only if&quot; or  explicitly points out that each step is reversible.  It really is ingrained in many students that this type of argument is just fine as is.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that the answer is to completely avoid it, but rather to emphasize the &#8220;if and only if&#8221; nature of the argument within the proof.  (Although I admit, even though I talk about that necessity to all my classes and take off points if it&#8217;s left off, only about one such proof in fifteen &#8220;proofs&#8221; of this nature actually uses &#8220;if and only if&#8221; or  explicitly points out that each step is reversible.  It really is ingrained in many students that this type of argument is just fine as is.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Batman</title>
		<link>http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/a-nearly-ubiquitous-form-of-fallacious-reasoning/#comment-421</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Batman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threesixty360.wordpress.com/?p=273#comment-421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or, as one of my professors put it, &quot;It is good to be clever, but better to be correct.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or, as one of my professors put it, &#8220;It is good to be clever, but better to be correct.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
