What is a feature of appeal to moderation?
•
It relies on the idea of compromise but does not result in a logical outcome.
•
It rushes to a conclusion, even though there is very little evidence.
•
It assumes that everyone should have the same popular opinion.
•
It assumes one thing causes another, even though there is no evidence linking the two
What definition of "appeal to moderation" have you been given? Have you read and understood it? Please post it here so we are all working from the same text.
I'll be happy to check your answer.
A feature of appeal to moderation is that it assumes that the truth or best solution lies somewhere in the middle or through compromise. However, it is important to note that this feature does not necessarily result in a logical outcome. In other words, just because a compromise is reached does not mean that it is the most logical or reasonable solution. It is possible for the truth to lie on one extreme or the other, or even outside of the proposed range of compromise.
To identify a feature of appeal to moderation, you need to look for an argument that promotes compromise as the only valid or acceptable solution, without considering other possibilities or evaluating the arguments objectively. This fallacy assumes that the middle ground is always the right answer, without taking into account the merits or evidence supporting different positions.
It is worth noting that the other options mentioned in your question are not specific features of appeal to moderation but rather characteristics of different fallacies. Rushing to a conclusion with little evidence is an example of the hasty generalization fallacy, assuming that everyone should have the same popular opinion is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, and assuming causation without evidence is an example of the false cause fallacy. These are all separate fallacies with distinct characteristics.