Pepsi." This statement is an example of  the logical fallacy known as affirming  

百事可樂。”這個陳述是被稱為肯定選言的邏輯謬誤的一個例子

a disjunct. The error lies in the assumption  that a preference for Coke inherently excludes  

。錯誤在於這樣的假設：對可口可樂的偏好本質上排除了

the possibility of liking Pepsi. However, personal tastes are not  

喜歡百事可樂的可能性。然而，個人品味並不

mutually exclusive, and one can appreciate  different brands for different qualities. 

互相排斥，人們可以欣賞不同品牌的不同品質。

On the other hand, a Pepsi supporter might argue,  

另一方面，百事可樂的支持者可能會爭辯說：

"Pepsi is my absolute favorite,  which means Coke must taste awful." 

“百事可樂絕對是我的最愛，這意味著可口可樂的味道一定很糟糕。”

This is another instance of affirming a  disjunct. The belief that a fondness for  

這是肯定選言的另一個例子。相信對

Pepsi automatically translates to a disdain for  Coke is a flawed conclusion. Preferences are  

百事可樂的喜愛會自動轉化為對可口可樂的蔑視，這是一個有缺陷的結論。偏好是

subjective, and liking one product does not  necessarily mean disliking its competitors. 

主觀的，喜歡一種產品不一定代表不喜歡其競爭對手。

Both these instances show a common cognitive  error where individuals mistakenly assume  

這兩個例子都顯示了一種常見的認知錯誤，即人們錯誤地認為

that their preference for one option means an  automatic rejection of the alternative. This  

他們對一種選擇的偏好意味著自動拒絕另一種選擇。這種

fallacy overlooks the nuanced nature  of personal tastes and preferences.

謬論忽略了個人品味和偏好的微妙本質。