The word "if" here inherently indicates that eating my vegetables will result in me getting dessert. Had it been phrased as something like "children who don't eat their vegetables don't get dessert", your observation could have been valid, but it does not apply to the exact sentence you gave as an example. Therefore, give me my dessert, mom.

>>17438360
If you eat your vegetables you also don’t get desert, you just don’t get desert in any scenario. The if doesn’t really have anything to do with it. The statement therefore was true.

>>17438354
>Which logical fallacy is the child committing?
Confusing the converse with the contrapositive.

>>17438375
>converse
*inverse

>>17438373
If you asked a sample of 1000 native English speakers, >98% would certainly expect dessert after eating vegetables. Therefore the statement cannot be called true and is a deliberate lie.

>>17438378
If you asked 1000 native English speakers the Monty Hall problem they’d get it wrong. The statement is intentionally misleading, but it’s analytically true.
If you don’t eat your vegetables you won’t get desert.
You don’t get desert.
Therefore the statement was true. The alternative that you will get desert if you eat your vegetables was never proposed, the mention of desert just put the idea in your head to assume this was a punishment and not just a matter of fact.

>>17438354
You give your child excellent healthy food.
They eat what they like and eat the rest.
You never offer them anything except excellent healthy food, and they always eat whatever they feel like from what is offered.
They grow into strong healthy well adjust adults.
What is this kind of parenting called?

>>17438435
same-sex couple parenting