Can someone please take a look at my question and provide some feedback?
Thanks
The question:
What fallacies, if any, are present in the following passage? Give reasons for your answer, that is, if you say that a fallacy has been committed, then show where the fallacy occurred, and explain why you think it is a fallacy?
The passage:
Canadian military men die in foreign fields because Canada declared war on other countries, not vice versa. There mere fact that we fought does not necessarily make our cause or causes virtuous.
Few Canadians really paused long enough to really investigate the reasons for our foreign adventures.
I had a long talk with a veteran of World War II. He was a hand-to-hand-combat instructor and a guard at Allied headquarters in Italy. I questioned him on the reason for Canada’s involvement. He replied unhesitatingly that we fought because Britain told us to. That was the only reason.
It is quite clear that the only reason for world wars is that countries that have no business in the conflict get involved.
Answer:
This passage contains deductive fallacy. The deductive fallacy is a deductive argument in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed support.
The author’s position is that Canada should not be involved in war when it does not concern them. The subject is introduced with a strong statement that is sure to generate an emotional response from any war veteran; “Canadian military men died in foreign fields because Canada declared war on other countries, not vice versa”.
To build his case the author refers to a discussion with a WW II veteran. The author uses this conversation with the veteran to build rapport with the reader. The technique of introducing another subject that is superficially similar is termed “red herring”. The purposed of “red herring” is the author is trying to get the reader to accept his position.
The passage concludes that the only reason for world wars is for countries who are not involved in the conflict to get involved.
There are several fallacies in this passage. The first fallacy can be found in the first sentence. The author’s reason for military men dying in foreign fields is because of Canada declaring war. We know that this is fallacy, some military men may have died in foreign fields for other reasons. The author is assuming that all the military men that died in foreign fields had the same views as him.
In reading the passage it is unclear if the author is writing from personal experience as a war veteran or from the perspective of Canadians. The author makes reference to “we” several times throughout.
A second fallacy is noted with the comment “That was the only reason”. The word “only” is a fallacy indicator word and narrows the premises for war to single reason; because “Britain told us to”. “The only reason” is stated a second time which leads the reader to believe that the author’s position is adamant.
You've written a powerful answer.
You may also want to address another factual error. What statistics does this author give for saying that "Few Canadians . . . paused long enough to investigate . . ."?
Citing one supposed interview with one person lends anecdotal interest to this report, but of course cannot be assumed to be the opinion of more than one person.
This is a straw man fallacy.
William Thorsell is arguing that the waging of war is a necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece, "The Decisive Exercise of Power," appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999.
There are several fallacies in this passage. The first is appeal to force in the first paragraph. If you believe in x Countries right to fight, then military men will die. Therefore you should not believe that war is virtuous. It plays on the emotion that people will die.
Next the first paragraph begs the question as the conclusion that fighting does not make the cause virtuous needs to be proven just as much as the premise military men dying in foreign countries was caused by Canada declaring war.
Few Canadians really paused...is a fallacious argument that appeals to authority. If everyone in Canada investigated the reasons for foreign adventures then Canada would not have gone to war.
The third paragraph is straw man as it was on the word of the veteran of WWII that the only reason Canada went to war was because Britain told them to.
The last sentence is a false dilemma because this is not the only reason for world war. Sometimes other countries need to get involved because....(lots of other reasons to cite).
payday loans
online loans for bad credit
no credit check payday loans instant approval
payday advance
speedy cash payday loans online
The passage contains several fallacies. One fallacy is a deductive fallacy, where the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed support. In this case, the author's position is that Canada should not be involved in wars that do not concern them. However, the author's argument lacks sufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
Another fallacy in the passage is the use of a "red herring" technique. The author introduces a conversation with a World War II veteran in order to build rapport with the reader and gain support for their position. This diversionary tactic distracts from the main argument and does not provide logical reasoning for the author's point.
Additionally, the author makes a hasty generalization by assuming that all military men who died in foreign fields did so because Canada declared war on other countries. This assumption overlooks the possibility that there may have been other reasons for their deaths.
Furthermore, the author's use of the word "only" in the statement "That was the only reason" is a fallacy indicator word. It narrows down the premises for war to a single reason without considering other factors that may have contributed to Canada's involvement.
In conclusion, the passage contains fallacies such as deductive fallacy, red herring, hasty generalization, and fallacy indicator words. These fallacies weaken the author's argument and undermine the validity of their claims.