Find extra options or reason badly: An investigation of children's reasoning with incompatibility statements

The false dilemma or dichotomy is a logical fallacy that occurs when interlocuters accept the premises in an incompatibility statement as being jointly exhaustive (i.e., leaving no third option), whereas that is in fact not the case. Brisson et al. [Memory & Cognition (2018), Vol. 46, pp. 657-670] investigated this fallacy in an adult sample and discovered a content effect that influenced participants' performance. The current study aimed to elaborate on these findings by establishing whether similar patterns could be observed with children. A number of age-appropriate incompatibility premises were constructed. For every item, four different inferential problems were presented (Affirm First, Affirm Second, Deny First, and Deny Second) with three potential answers to choose from (X, not X, or uncertainty regarding X). A sample of 192 volunteer children, with ages ranging from 8 to 13 years, was collected. Statistical analysis showed no significant effect for participants' age but did reveal main effects for premise validity and the amount of available "third options" (possibilities outside of the presented dichotomy). These results are a clear replication of the general effects on adults found by Brisson et al. Affirm inferences were also easy for children, Deny inferences were difficult (even more so than for adults), and content had a profound effect on participants' performance. Whenever more third options could be generated, children were less likely to fall into the false dilemma fallacy. Our findings thus further support the idea that reasoning with incompatibilities is influenced by the same semantic retrieval processes that have been previously related to human conditional reasoning.