undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnkozyra12y ago0 comments

None whatsoever, the OP is making a gigantic leap based on a logical fallacy.

LinkedIn claims X number of users

Suggested connections by LinkedIn can be generated for users that do not even have a present LinkedIn account.

Therefor, the number X must include those users.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

coldtea12y ago· 2 in thread

You're using logical fallacy wrong. At best this is a logical error, not a clasifiable fallacy.

But it's far more likely that it's just an error of judgement, involving no formal or informal logic at all.

Namely, nobody, including OP, made the syllogism you present, with the neat "therefore, X must include" etc step.

They simply thought that it's very probable that this is what LinkedIn did to inflate their numbers.

DougBTX12y ago

Neither the article nor the title actually talk about inflating numbers, which is how I read it at first too. They only talk about actually increasing the number of users, by sending out invites: "Another example of the lengths LinkedIn will go to in order to increase its user base."

nkozyraOP12y ago

> You're using logical fallacy wrong.

Actually it's a wonderful example of affirming the consequent.

Had the initial accusation been "LinkedIn possibly using ..." this might carry some wait, but it was all presented in declaration as proof.

pessimizer12y ago

In this post, there is no claim that LinkedIn is claiming in any reported numbers the ghost users that it presents to people who allow it to import their contacts.

So what you have done here is called the straw man fallacy.

----

"[...]LinkedIn is misrepresenting who has an account and does this to entice such people to create one when they receive a 'would like to connect' email. In doing so, it misleads its users into thinking they are connecting with people who already use the service."

is the easily sustained claim.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse