MS. Sue , Thank for your response. Can you once more check to see if I have matched these (7) fallacy statements correctly .
1 . I don't care if she is the top psychiatrist in the state ! Her theory on sibling rivalry is extreme. How can we believe anything she says if she subscribes to theories of that nature ? (Scare tactics fallacy )?
2 .From one politician about another . " He's a tow -faced , liberal , anti-family , anti-values idealist !" (Ad hominem /genetic fallacy) ?
3. It's disgraceful that a member of the Elks Lodge would go out to fast food restaurants every night . Tthe Elks believe in family values , including home -cooked meals . (Straw Man fallacy)
4. Sure , I've heard that it's better to not eat cheeseburgers every day , but it's extra protein and protein is good for you .( argument from popularity fallacy ) ?
5 . From one mom to another : " I can't believe Shelia lets her kids watch that garbage ! I always knew she wasn't very strict . Now our kids will be over there watching that junk , too !" (Red herring fallacy )?
6. From a conspiracy theorist : " Come on , everyone knows that the government has lied to us in the past . This case isn't any different ."(argument from outrage fallacy ) ?
7. From a teenager confronted by his parent about breaking curfew : Why do we have to keep harping on this curfew thing ? Let's talk about that A grade I'm getting in algebra. (inconsistency ad hominem fallacy ) ?
1. I think there could be a more accurate fallacy to describe this one. Does one belief affect other unrelated beliefs?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
5. I wonder if there isn't a better fallacy for this one. Is there something about a "foot in the door" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
The others look good.
1. In statement 1, the fallacy is not scare tactics. It is actually a form of ad hominem fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. The speaker is rejecting the credibility of the top psychiatrist's theory on sibling rivalry solely based on their subscription to other theories that are considered extreme.
To check this, you should examine whether the argument attacks the person's credibility or character, rather than engaging with the substance of their theory.
2. In statement 2, you correctly identified the fallacy as ad hominem/genetic fallacy. The speaker is attacking the other politician personally by using derogatory labels and not addressing the actual arguments or policies they hold.
To check this, you should look for personal attacks rather than focusing on the arguments or ideas being presented.
3. In statement 3, the correct fallacy is not the straw man fallacy. It is actually a fallacy known as the false association fallacy or guilt by association fallacy. The speaker is implying that because a member of the Elks Lodge goes to fast food restaurants, they are not adhering to the values of the organization.
To check this, you should examine whether the speaker is making a false connection between the actions of an individual and the values of a group.
4. In statement 4, the fallacy is not argument from popularity. It is actually a fallacy known as the appeal to tradition fallacy. The speaker is justifying the consumption of cheeseburgers every day based on the belief that protein is good for you and that it has been a common practice.
To check this, you should look for an argument that relies on the idea that something is justified or beneficial simply because it has been done traditionally or is popular.
5. In statement 5, you correctly identified the fallacy as a red herring fallacy. The speaker is diverting the conversation away from the original topic (Shelia letting her kids watch garbage) by introducing the idea of their own kids being influenced as well.
To check this, you should look for an argument that distracts from the main issue by introducing an unrelated or irrelevant point.
6. In statement 6, you correctly identified the fallacy as an argument from outrage fallacy. The speaker is implying that because the government has lied to us in the past, it must also be lying in the current case.
To check this, you should look for an argument that relies on the emotional reaction of outrage without addressing the specific claims or evidence in the current case.
7. In statement 7, the fallacy is not an inconsistency ad hominem. It is actually a form of red herring fallacy known as diversion or shifting of the burden of proof. The teenager is attempting to divert the conversation away from the curfew issue by bringing up their good grade in algebra.
To check this, you should look for an argument that tries to shift the focus of the discussion to a different topic in order to avoid addressing the original issue.