Children are much more susceptible to violent programming because they have not yet developed the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
For example, in more than 40% of programs with violence, the "bad" violent characters are never punished; and only 4% of violent programs portray a theme that promotes nonviolence.
Moreover, more than half of the violent interactions on television show no pain, and almost 40% of violent interactions show good guys behaving violently.
But when a child resorts to gunfire to correct what he sees as an injustice, is it unreasonable to think that repeated exposure to violent incidents on television—25% of which involve guns —might have provided encouragement to act that way?
IDENTIFY ANY FALLACIES OR RHECTORICAL DEVICES
We'll be glad to check your answers.
is there anyway to attach papers?
No.
Just type the name of the fallacy you think each example illustrates.
Based on the information provided, there seem to be a few fallacies and rhetorical devices in the given statement:
1. Hasty generalization: The statement assumes that all children are more susceptible to violent programming and draws a conclusion based on this assumption. However, susceptibility can vary among children, and not all children may be equally affected by violent programming.
2. False cause: The statement implies a causal relationship between exposure to violent incidents on television and children resorting to gunfire to correct perceived injustices. While exposure to violence can potentially influence behavior, it is not the sole determinant, and other factors such as family environment, peer influence, and personal disposition also play significant roles.
3. Appeals to emotion: The statement uses emotionally charged language, such as mentioning children resorting to gunfire and injustices, to provoke a strong emotional response and potential agreement with its argument.
4. Generalization and exaggeration: The statement presents statistics (e.g., more than 40% of programs with violence do not punish bad characters and only 4% promote nonviolence) without clear context or sources, which can lead to a generalization or exaggeration of the issue at hand.
5. Cherry-picking data: The statement selectively focuses on negative aspects of violent programming while ignoring any potential positive effects or the influence of other factors outside of television.
It's important to critically evaluate arguments and consider different perspectives when analyzing statements that make claims about cause and effect relationships or the influence of media on behavior.