Editing False dilemma (section)

== Explanation and avoidance ==
Part of understanding ''fallacies'' involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to ''explain'' why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Walton |first1=Douglas N. |title=Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms |date=1987 |publisher=John Benjamins |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIFT |chapter=3. The logic of propositions |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=2 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220302001111/https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIFT |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Tomić"/> In the case of the ''false dilemma'', the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role. This tendency is to some extent built into human language, which is full of pairs of opposites.<ref name="Engel"/> This type of simplification is sometimes necessary to make decisions when there is not enough time to get a more detailed perspective.

In order to ''avoid'' false dilemmas, the agent should become aware of additional options besides the prearranged alternatives. [[Critical thinking]] and creativity may be necessary to see through the ''false dichotomy'' and to discover new alternatives.<ref name="Tomić"/>