Identify the correct fallacy of relevance committed by the following arguments, explain how it is used in the example, and determine what is wrong with the reasoning. (ex. What should have been said or argued?
1) Convicted murder Johnny Palko has argued that he did not receive a fair trial.But palko is a viciious thug who's psent most of his adult life behind bars. Why should we even listen to a parasite?
2) I see nothing unethical in paying bribes to foreign officials to obtain business favours. That's the way business is done in many parts of the world. Like they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/writing-the-paper/fallacies
See the "table of contents" of fallacies at the right; read carefully.
http://teachers.cmsfq.edu.ec/high/english/Department%20Resources/Articles%20on%20Teaching%20English/A%20List%20Of%20Fallacious%20Arguments.htm
Let us know what you decide for each of these.
I'm really not sure right now, give me some time until 8:00 pm.
1) The fallacy of relevance committed in this argument is an ad hominem attack. The person making the argument is attacking the character of convicted murder Johnny Palko instead of addressing the issue of whether or not he received a fair trial. This fallacy diverts attention from the actual argument being made.
What is wrong with the reasoning:
Instead of addressing the argument about receiving a fair trial, the person making the argument dismisses Johnny Palko's claims based on unrelated character traits, such as being a "vicious thug" and spending time behind bars. This reasoning is flawed because it avoids engaging with the substance of Palko's claim and attacks his character instead.
What should have been said or argued:
The person should have addressed the argument directly by evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by Johnny Palko to support his claim of not receiving a fair trial. They should have engaged in a rational discussion about the fairness of the trial, considering the evidence and legal principles involved, rather than resorting to personal attacks.
2) The fallacy of relevance committed in this argument is cultural relativism. The person argues that paying bribes to foreign officials to obtain business favors is acceptable because it is a common practice in many parts of the world. However, cultural practices do not necessarily determine what is ethical or acceptable behavior. The argument relies on the assumption that if something is commonly done in a particular culture, it must be morally acceptable.
What is wrong with the reasoning:
The reasoning is flawed because it appeals to cultural norms as a basis for determining ethical behavior, rather than considering universally accepted ethical principles. Just because a practice is common in a particular culture does not make it morally justified or ethically acceptable. This argument fails to address the ethical implications of paying bribes and instead attempts to justify it based on cultural relativism.
What should have been said or argued:
The person should have engaged in a discussion about the ethical implications of paying bribes to foreign officials, considering the potential harm caused, violation of laws and principles of fairness and transparency. They should have examined the ethical standards and principles that are universally accepted, rather than relying solely on cultural norms to justify their view.