Fallacy

         A little introduction to part of my job scope, I’m involved in banking industry projects, and one of it is MEPS. Transactions between different banks have to use MEPS as a switch channel. Since each bank has their own privacy, many times we’re solely depending on MEPS to reply on transactions rejection investigation.          Here’s an event where Fallacy is applied.
          Everytime if a bank perform system maintenance and probably unable to joined the MEPS network, they’ll inform MEPS in advance and MEPS will forward the notifications to all banks. But there’re times when circular wasn’t given. There’s an occasion where me and my colleague argues over bank ‘C’ connectivity with our bank, according to my knowledge, bank ‘C’ has sent out notifications that their system will not be ready for a period of time, but my colleague defended that their connectivity is ok, and persuaded me that there’s no official circular sent from MEPS. Hence I have to personally perform the physical transaction to obtain the transaction rejected ATM slip as a proof. Lucky that I have a bank ‘C’ account with me.
-          This is a “Burden of Proof Fallacy”