En1420 Exercise 3
LORENZO BROWN EN1420 exercise 3.1
Identify the Logical Fallacies
1. Mabel is not qualified to lead the school board because she used to drink liquor in her 20s.
A. Ad Hominem; This is under Ad Hominem because the arguer is supporting her claim by pulling information from the her personal life instead of using the knowledge they know about the subject being a leader.
2. A child can be either an athlete or a good student.
a. Either-or; this is under the Either-or category because the argument comes in two different parts. The first stating that a child could be an athlete, and the other stating that they could be a good student. The arguer also uses the term “either this or that” to support their claim.
3. Any change in health care will lead to socialism; we don’t want to live in a socialist country, so we can’t reform health care.
a. Begging the question; This is the “begging the question” fallacy to support their argument. What they are saying in both the claim and the support can be reformed into one sentence which would then leave them with no actually support of the argument being made. In other words, the arguer completely restates the argument in the support.
4. All teenagers text while they drive; therefore, we should raise the driving age to 21.
a. Hasty Generalization; This is the “hasty generalization” fallacy because they are saying that because teenagers text and drive, they need to change the drinking age to 21. Stating that teens text and drive, that doesn’t mean that all teenagers are going to drink while driving and texting.
5. If we don’t all drive hybrid cars, the world will end in the next decade because of environmental damage.
a. Slippery Slope; this is the “slippery slope” fallacy because the arguer is stating that if we don’t do one thing, then the next thing is bound to happen. Not driving hybrid cars does ruin the environment yes, but that does not mean that if we don’t all do it the world is going to end within the next decade.
Identify the Logical Fallacies
1. Mabel is not qualified to lead the school board because she used to drink liquor in her 20s.
A. Ad Hominem; This is under Ad Hominem because the arguer is supporting her claim by pulling information from the her personal life instead of using the knowledge they know about the subject being a leader.
2. A child can be either an athlete or a good student.
a. Either-or; this is under the Either-or category because the argument comes in two different parts. The first stating that a child could be an athlete, and the other stating that they could be a good student. The arguer also uses the term “either this or that” to support their claim.
3. Any change in health care will lead to socialism; we don’t want to live in a socialist country, so we can’t reform health care.
a. Begging the question; This is the “begging the question” fallacy to support their argument. What they are saying in both the claim and the support can be reformed into one sentence which would then leave them with no actually support of the argument being made. In other words, the arguer completely restates the argument in the support.
4. All teenagers text while they drive; therefore, we should raise the driving age to 21.
a. Hasty Generalization; This is the “hasty generalization” fallacy because they are saying that because teenagers text and drive, they need to change the drinking age to 21. Stating that teens text and drive, that doesn’t mean that all teenagers are going to drink while driving and texting.
5. If we don’t all drive hybrid cars, the world will end in the next decade because of environmental damage.
a. Slippery Slope; this is the “slippery slope” fallacy because the arguer is stating that if we don’t do one thing, then the next thing is bound to happen. Not driving hybrid cars does ruin the environment yes, but that does not mean that if we don’t all do it the world is going to end within the next decade.