I think there's an issue with this. From wiki:
"an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying sense or logical framework"
This supports what I thought an ad hoc argument was. And then I read this main page and I was quite confused. If this is what the page is actually trying to say, then re-wording is necessary. If it isn't then either the Other Wiki is wrong, this page is wrong or they are both wrong.
From what I can tell from a quick browse of other webpages, they seem to agree with the Other Wiki definition, but I'm still not sure. Could someone who is confident in their understanding of an ad hoc argument please address this issue? If the Other Wiki is wrong, then that needs to be fixed as well and I'm willing to do that if someone can supply a source.
I agree with Sunajeshsja. The description needs to be better, and we need an example. If the thing exists, then an example of it must exist. As it is, I'm really not sure what's being said here.
Could we get an example please? I don't really understand the definition. I know the difference between "argument" and "explanation" (aka "justification"), but the definition is difficult for some users to grasp. I get confused when I read the trope.
Hide / Show Replies
Probably the reason there's not one is because it's hard to think of one. The best I can explain it is the second part (I'm assuming that's the difficult part; the first is nearly self-explanatory) is basically "B because A".
The second sentence is plagiarized, btw. It's from here. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
Moved to Logical Fallacies per TRS;
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1625493658078905900&page=4#comment-86
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.