posted by Alex L. .
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."
See the "table of contents" of fallacies at the right; read carefully.
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.