What fallacies, if any, are present in the following passage? Can you please give reasons for your answer, that is, if you say that a fallacy has been committed, then show where the fallacy occurred, and explain why you think it is a fallacy?
The following is the paragraph.
Background: In this passage, William Thorsell is arguing that the waging of war is necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece,“The decisive Exercise of Power,” appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999. In the 1930’s the aversion to war in France and the United Kingdom was so pervasive that some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence. Dandies in the best schools developed ….eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was so obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for food men to do nothing for evil men to triumph…..Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don’t appear to “get is” when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter of non-recognition. They just can’t see the man for who he is, just as many people just couldn’t see “Mr. Hitler” for who he was ( the limits of the parallel noted. If you cannot recognize your enemy, you will not defeat him, except by luck of circumstance, and that will rarely do.
Please help. I am stuck on this questions.
Regards,
Andrew
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
At this site, go through the examples of different fallacies listed at the right. Then apply what you learn to this paragraph.
Let us know what you come up with.
You may just be working with these fallacies:
Fallacy Types
Ad hominem
Group Think
Guilt Trip
Hasty Generalization
Poisoning the well
Post hoc
Red Herring
Scare Tactics
Strawman
Wishful Thinking
Look up the descriptions of these in your text or in the site recommended by Writeacher.
Can you please provide an answer for this question?
Anyone have a proper answer for this?
Before identifying any fallacies in the passage, it's important to understand what fallacies are. Fallacies are errors in reasoning that can weaken an argument or make it invalid. They often occur when there is a flaw in the logic used to support a claim.
In the given passage, there are a few potential fallacies:
1. Sweeping generalization: The author states that "some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence." This statement makes a broad generalization about all pacifists based on the actions of a few. It does not provide evidence or examples to support this claim and therefore can be considered a sweeping generalization.
2. False analogy: The author draws a parallel between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, suggesting that not recognizing Saddam Hussein as an enemy is similar to not recognizing Hitler. However, the author admits that this parallel has its limits. The false analogy fallacy occurs when two things being compared are not sufficiently similar to draw meaningful conclusions. In this case, the comparison between Saddam Hussein and Hitler might not be valid, as the historical contexts and actions of the two are different.
It's important to note that the identification of fallacies can be subjective, and different readers may interpret the passage differently.