We Can T Fire Freida For Stealing From The Company?

1. We can’t fire Freida for stealing from the company. She has always been a great team player.
This statement is an appeal to pity. This type of argument is based on emotion and empathy, rather than logic. It is clear that the person tries to convince others to not fire Freida for stealing solely based on his opinion of her being “a great team player,” which is an emotional argument, not a logical one.
2. Don’t listen to Sam’s opinion on global warming! He’s a tree hugger!
This statement is an ad Hominem argument. This type of argument tries to invalidate the writer of another argument, not the argument itself. The person made this argument against Sam to nullify Sam’s opinion, not directly disproving Sam’s argument.
3. Kim forgot to wear
This argument concludes that a claim is true just because the person that made the claim is an authority. In the example, the person concludes that Gold Bond Powder works just because Shaquille O’Neil, a very famous athlete, recommends it.
5. We must ban fossil fuels immediately. Otherwise, the world will end. This statement is an either-or argument. This type of argument claims only two alternatives, which may be more. This argument claims that either the world will end because fossil fuels are not banned, or that the world will not end because fossil fuels are banned. This argument does not explain why these are the only two alternatives.
6. The decrease in smoking can be attributed to increased restrictions on smoking in public. This statement is oversimplifying. This argument claims a causal relationship of something without including necessary information. This statement argues that a decrease in smoking is caused by increased smoking restrictions. The decrease in smoking explained in the statement is very likely to be cause by a variety of factors, not just the increased in smoking restrictions. This example does not provide the necessary evidence to argue of a causal link between the decrease in smoking and increased
It has not been proven that online sales are more successful than in-store sales, so online sales must not work. This statement is argument from ignorance. This type of argument claims that something is valid because it has not been disproved, or something is not valid because it has not been proven to be true. The example claims that doing online sales would not be more successful than in-store sales just because it has not been proven to be, which does not provide enough evidence for the claim.
8. Everyone I know relies on the internet for information, so the internet must always be right. This statement is an ad populum argument. This type of argument claims something is true just because many people think it is. The writer concludes that the internet is always right because everyone the writer knows relies on the internet for information, which is not a good basis for his claim.
9. The new business failed because it didn’t sell enough products. This statement is a circular argument. This type of argument assumes the reason of something that it tries to prove. This statement only tells that the business did not sell enough products and that it failed, but it did not explain why the business did not sell enough products and eventually