Fallacies in critical thinking

Harold states the consequence in the second premise where he links the statement to the consequence associated with the previous premise already obtained (Holt, 2006). Harold’s third premise is a faulty step because he does not have enough support for his claim and conclusion, which makes his claim fallacious (Holt, 2006). In enhancing this fallacy, Harold reasons from an acceptable causal link in order to deduce effects from consequences in coming up with a conclusion. All these features are evident in the fallacy of affirming the consequent that also incorporates a certain degree of assumption.
In responding to Harold, I employed fallacist’s fallacy. The response uses fallacist’s fallacy because it concludes that the truth value in Harold’s argument is false based on the premise that his argument contains a fallacy (Holt, 2006). Even though Harold may be true in claiming that Dr Russell favors the new procedure as effective, this does not evidence that Dr Russell actually favors the new procedure.