Identify any examples of fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you
think these are fallacies, and identify which category they belong in, if they fit any category we’ve described.
1.Letter to the editor: “Andrea Keene’s selective morality is once againshowing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder
if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of
fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have,why they haven’t come out against them, too. The use of these drugs
frequently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one
of the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn’t this murder?”
2.In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of “I’d rather
be a widow.” The letter writer, a divorcée, complained about widows
who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a
widow than to be a divorcée, who are all “rejects” who have been “publicly
dumped” and are avoided “like they have leprosy.” Abby recognized
the pseudoreasoning for what it was, though she did not call it by our
name. What is our name for it?
3.Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering
closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists.
These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to
them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove.
Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the
edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even
grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open
for everyone to use.”
“Some Christian—and other—groups are protesting against the placing,
on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic figurines representing a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would
of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still,
we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality,
etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family?”
4.From a letter to the editor: “The counties of Michigan clearly need the
ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the
demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service. For
without these sources those demands will not be met, and it will be impossible to maintain services even at present levels.”
5.In February 1992, a representative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico
gave a radio interview (broadcast on National Public Radio) in which he
said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the
rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S.
mainland, the spokesman said that the Church could not support the use
of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the
spread of the disease. “If you could prove that condoms were absolutely
dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the Church could support their use.”
http://www.google.com/search?q=fallacies&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA
There are several good websites in these search results to help you identify fallacies. When you have done so, please feel free to repost and let us know what you have decided. Then someone here will be able to comment on your answers.
1. This passage contains the fallacy of "tu quoque" or the appeal to hypocrisy. It suggests that if the anti-abortionists haven't come out against the use of fertility drugs, then they are being hypocritical in their stance against abortion. This fallacy attempts to divert attention from the argument at hand by pointing out inconsistencies in the opponent's behavior.
2. The passage describes an example of the fallacy known as "ad hominem" or personal attack. The letter writer dismisses divorcées as "rejects" who have been "publicly dumped" and should be avoided. This fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
3. In this passage, the fallacy of "slippery slope" or "slippery slope fallacy" is present. The author argues that if the Park Commission closes North Park Drive for joggers and bicyclists, then they will eventually have to give up the entire park for their use exclusively. This argument assumes a chain reaction of events leading to an undesirable outcome without sufficient evidence.
4. The passage contains the fallacy of "circular reasoning" or "begging the question". It claims that the counties need additional sources of revenue to meet the demands of growth and maintain existing levels of service. However, it does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. The statement essentially assumes the conclusion of the argument without offering any justification.
5. This passage illustrates the fallacy of "appeal to possibility" or "appeal to ignorance". The Church representative argues against the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, claiming that they are not absolutely reliable. However, demanding absolute reliability for a measure while ignoring its effectiveness in reducing risks is an unreasonable standard. This fallacy dismisses potential solutions by focusing on their imperfections or limitations without considering their practical benefits.