Fallacies Analysis Prompt
Fallacies Analysis Prompt
List the premises and conclusion of the following arguments
Restating any rhetorical questions as declarative sentences
Replacing emotive language with more purely cognitive language.
Identify any assumptions
List them as separate premises.
Identify the type of argument – is it a generalization, a categorical syllogism, etc.?
Finally, identify any fallacies it commits. (There may be more than one.)
Argument 1: Pro-abortion liberals are wrong to make ‘choice’ the ultimate issue. No one has absolute freedom of choice sanctioned by law. One can choose to rob a bank, or to kill their one-year-old child, but it is not legal. Why should a woman have the legal right to take the life of her unborn child?
Premises:
Freedom to abort are wrong to make ‘choice’ the final issue.
No one has absolute freedom of choice sanctioned by law
One can choose to rob a bank, or to kill their one-year-old child, but it is not legal.
Assumption & Conclusion: Woman should not have the legal right to take the life of her unborn child.
Type of argument: generalization
Fallacy: Hasty generalization, begging the question, equivocation
Argument 2: Erwin Chemerinsky is wrong to support gay marriage. The most fundamental sociological unit is the union of one man with one woman, and not any other kind of arrangement you may be able to dream up. It is impossible for same-sex unions to produce the same results as heterosexual unions (that is, children) which is why counterfeits are not treated the same as the genuine article, and therefore society has a vested interest in promoting only heterosexual unions. No society is under any obligation to treat two things that are irrevocably different as if they were the same.
Premises:
Erwin Chemerinsky is wrong to support same sex marriage
The most basic sociological principal is the marriage of one man with one woman, not any other kind of arrangement
It is impossible for same sex marriage to product the same result
List the premises and conclusion of the following arguments
Restating any rhetorical questions as declarative sentences
Replacing emotive language with more purely cognitive language.
Identify any assumptions
List them as separate premises.
Identify the type of argument – is it a generalization, a categorical syllogism, etc.?
Finally, identify any fallacies it commits. (There may be more than one.)
Argument 1: Pro-abortion liberals are wrong to make ‘choice’ the ultimate issue. No one has absolute freedom of choice sanctioned by law. One can choose to rob a bank, or to kill their one-year-old child, but it is not legal. Why should a woman have the legal right to take the life of her unborn child?
Premises:
Freedom to abort are wrong to make ‘choice’ the final issue.
No one has absolute freedom of choice sanctioned by law
One can choose to rob a bank, or to kill their one-year-old child, but it is not legal.
Assumption & Conclusion: Woman should not have the legal right to take the life of her unborn child.
Type of argument: generalization
Fallacy: Hasty generalization, begging the question, equivocation
Argument 2: Erwin Chemerinsky is wrong to support gay marriage. The most fundamental sociological unit is the union of one man with one woman, and not any other kind of arrangement you may be able to dream up. It is impossible for same-sex unions to produce the same results as heterosexual unions (that is, children) which is why counterfeits are not treated the same as the genuine article, and therefore society has a vested interest in promoting only heterosexual unions. No society is under any obligation to treat two things that are irrevocably different as if they were the same.
Premises:
Erwin Chemerinsky is wrong to support same sex marriage
The most basic sociological principal is the marriage of one man with one woman, not any other kind of arrangement
It is impossible for same sex marriage to product the same result