Fallacious Arguments - Essay Example

? Fallacious Arguments Teacher               Fallacious Arguments Lindsey and Malik were the happiest couple I knew, until after Lindsey decided to go to University instead of having a baby. So obviously it all went downhill because Lindsey abandoned the traditional female role.” Premise 1) Lindsey decided to go to university instead of having a baby. 2) The relationship between her and Malik went downhill. Conclusion: Lindsey abandoned the traditional female role. Fallacy: Oversimplified cause fallacy According to the speaker, everything was going well with the relationship between Lindsey and Malik. However, sometime later, the relationship went downhill. This was also the time when Lindsey decided to go to university. The fallacy that the speaker commits here is the oversimplified cause fallacy. First, the speaker believes that since the relationship went downhill at the same time that Lindsey went to university, then the university thing must have been the reason behind the failure of the relationship. However, these may have only been a coincidence, and that nobody could really actually say that two events happening together in close succession would be both a cause and an effect. Second, the speaker falsely labels Lindsey’s decision to go to university as something that violates the traditional female role. Perhaps, the speaker equates female tradition with submission to the male gender or prioritizing one’s boyfriend instead of going to school. Either way, the meaning of “traditional female role” is vague. The fallacy is therefore committed as the speaker labels this decision of Lindsey’s to go to university as something that violates the traditional female role, and somehow hastily ascribing to this abandonment of the traditional female role as the cause of the failure of a relationship. 2. Mayor Ford: Reporters from the Toronto Star, and Globe and Mail newspapers have claimed that I use crack cocaine, and that my brother dealt drugs in the 80’s. But those reporters are just a bunch of maggots. So, nobody should listen to those little sleaze bags. Premise 1) The reporters of certain newspapers claim that Mayor Ford uses cocaine and implicates his brother in this. 2) These reporters are a “bunch of maggots” and “little sleaze bags.” Conclusion: Nobody should listen to them, or what they are saying is not true. Fallacy: Ad hominem According to the mayor himself, the reporters of the various newspapers whom he named were accusing him of using drugs and even implicate his brother in this. However, instead of stating whether these accusations are true or not, or instead of giving his statement on the matter, the mayor decided to resort to committing the fallacy of ad hominem by calling these reporters a “bunch of maggots” and “little sleaze bags” – which are extremely derogatory terms. These bad names were used by the mayor in order to discredit these reporters and to somehow make the reader feel that these reporters do not deserve to be heard at all. Thus, the tendency of those who will believe the mayor’s statement will be to refuse to believe the reporters. The mayor is perhaps committing this fallacy deliberately in order to evade the true issue, or perhaps the possible truth that he really was a crackpot. 3. Keesha: I’ve just started using Weight Watcher’s weight loss program. You should really try it. Martin: Why Weight Watchers? Aren’t there lots of different weight loss programs out there? Keesha: Well maybe, but I know Weight Watchers is the best because the sales associate at Weight Watchers told me that their program is the only way to lose weight safely and effectively. Premise 1) The sales associate at Weight Watchers told Keesha that their program is the only way to lose weight safely and effectively. 2) Weight Watchers is the best. Conclusion: Keesha has started using Weight Watcher’s weight loss program. Fallacy: Inappropriate Appeal to Authority According to Keesha, the Weight Watchers weight loss program is one program that is really effective and her only source of information here is the sales associate also at the Weight Watchers company. The claim is really a fallacious one because there is no reason why the sales associate’s claims are reliable or not. The reliability of the Weight Watchers weight loss program is not in the words of a sales associate (who is obviously in favor of it and who would obviously endorse it) but in statistical data. Obviously, Keesha was somehow fooled by the authority of the sales associate. 4. “Human life is a precious gift, and no one ever has the right to take it away. One who murders another human being destroys that gift. That’s the reason that I’m in favour of capital punishment for those convicted of murder, and believe that all convicted murderers should be put to death.” Premise 1) Human life is a precious gift. 2) One who murders another human being destroys that gift. Conclusion: Those who destroy human life must be put to death. Fallacy: Inconsistency Obviously, the speaker here is a pro-life advocate who is seemingly inconsistent with his beliefs. First, he defines human life as a gift, and that he defines a murderer as someone who destroys such a gift. The thing is that it does not follow that he should advocate capital punishment, for the destruction of life does not logically mean a corresponding punishment. Moreover, even if there were a punishment, it should not be capital punishment, because capital punishment in the context of the pro-life speaker is basically inconsistent. If he were a true advocate of life, he would not opt for the destruction of life in any way, even if it were the life of a murderer. 5. “If we let Obama get away with the health insurance mandate, what’s next? He’ll probably force us to buy hybrid cars, and solar panels. Next thing you know he’ll be telling us what brands of soap and toothpaste we have to buy. Pretty soon we’ll have to fax our grocery list to Michelle Obama, before she’ll give us permission to have a shower or make a sandwich.” Premise 1) If Obama gets away with the health insurance mandate, he will force us to buy hybrid cars and solar panels. 2) He and Michelle Obama will dictate us on what we should buy as consumers. Conclusion: We should not let Obama get away with the health insurance mandate. Fallacy: Slippery Slope According to the speaker, we should not accept the Obama health insurance mandate, or at least the Senate should not approve it. The reason that the speaker gives to support this argument is not on the flaws of the health insurance mandate but rather on the possibility that if we let this happen, there will most likely be a series of other stuffs that the President will endorse and will make us approve. The problem is that the speaker is obviously exaggerating. It is not likely that Obama will endorse hybrid cars or solar panels next, although these are beneficial. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Michelle Obama and the President himself would dictate us what groceries to buy. The speaker must obviously be thinking that that the Obama health insurance mandate is the first step to the violation of freedom. These are all exaggerations – or slippery slope. 6. “I dated a blond once, and you know what? They really are dingbats.” Premise 1) I dated a blond once. 2) She was a dingbat. Conclusion: All blonds are dingbats. Fallacy: Post hoc fallacy The speaker states that he has been with a blond and then he calls all of them dingbats. He commits the post hoc fallacy, which is making conclusion or generalizing from just one example. There is no reason to conclude about anything unless this is proven by several examples or instances (sample size) that is proportional to the total population. Concluding that all blonds are stupid just because one of them was is simply a matter of ignorance, thus the speaker commits the fallacy. 7. “Listen, we can’t postpone having sex until after marriage. That’s just not the way most people do things these days.” Premise 1) Obviously, you (the person that the speaker is talking to) want to postpone having sex until after marriage. 2) Most people cannot postpone sex these days. Conclusion: We should not postpone sex either. Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right The speaker is saying that he and the person he is talking to must have sex now even before they are married. The reason he gives for this is not about the goodness of sex but rather on the idea that everybody does it anyway. This means that the acts of so many people who have sex before marriage make this wrong a right. Premarital sex is still morally wrong, and the fact that it does not have any goodness makes the speaker resort to this type of fallacy. 8. Doug Ford: The Globe and Mail has alleged that I dealt drugs in the 1980’s, citing unnamed sources. But they are simply going after my character, because they can’t challenge our record: We have the strongest fiscal record of any large city in North America. We’ve saved the taxpayers over a billion dollars. But they want to talk about something that allegedly happened 30 years ago? So it’s ridiculous to take their allegations seriously. Premise 1) The Globe and Mail cited the speaker’s involvement in drugs. 2) He or his local government has two achievements: We have the strongest fiscal record of any large city in North America. We’ve saved the taxpayers over a billion dollars. Conclusion: The allegations about the drugs are ridiculous. Fallacy: Red Herring The speaker is obviously is a politician being criticized by the media about alleged drug involvement. However, instead of elaborating on the issue and instead of proving the falsity of the media’s claim, the politician sidetracks his opponent by presenting something good about the government yet something very much unrelated to the issue. Thus, he commits the red herring fallacy. 9. “A recent telephone survey of randomly selected people revealed that 75 percent of the Canadian population watch at least one soap opera per day. Indeed, to ensure accuracy in the data, the way they conducted the study was to make calls between 1:00pm and 4:00pm in the afternoon, and then ask what show the respondent was actually watching at that time.” Premise 1) A recent telephone survey revealed 75% of all Canadians watch at least one soap opera per day. 2) The survey was conducted between 1-4pm. Conclusion: The survey is valid and indeed, the information is true and reliable. Fallacy: Hasty generalization The speaker or the text above makes the claim that 75% of all Canadians watch at least one soap opera everyday. The text further says that the survey was conducted between 1-4 pm and so all the people called were asked what program they asked. Although this was a good scheme, it would be impossible to ask all of the members of the standard population sample to answer all the questions. The number should have been bigger in order to convince people that the results were indeed valid. 10. “Dogs are warm blooded, nurse their young, and give birth to puppies. Humans are warm blooded and nurse their young. Therefore, humans give birth to puppies, too.” Premise 1) Dogs are warm blooded, nurse their young, and give birth to puppies. 2) Humans are warm blooded and nurse their young Conclusion: Humans give birth to puppies, too Fallacy: Equivocation The speaker states three facts about dogs: they are warm-blooded, they nurse their young, and they give birth to puppies. He then also states that humans are warm-blooded and nurse their young too. This is true. However, when the speaker concludes that the third attribute of dogs is also true with humans, it would be most fallacious. The fallacy of equivocation is committed because the speaker believed that having these two characteristics necessarily led to the third. What he did not know is that the sequence works only among animals. Read More