Chapter C5 In Practical Argument: Each Answer Should Be 3 Se

Chapter C5 In Practical Argument Each Answer Should Be 3 Sentences

Match the logical fallacies above with the sentences. Explain your reason for selecting your answer. Every politician in Louisiana is crooked. Wrestling is a dangerous sport because it is unsafe. Either go to college or forget about getting a job. Martin Sheen should write a book about Washington D.C.. He played the President of the United States for seven seasons on 'The West Wing.' "You should own an Ipod. Everyone has one." "We could take her ideas on school truancy- if she had children of her own." 'Television violence led my child to fights in school and finally expulsion. The same thing can happen to your young innocent child if you do not monitor his or her television habits." We have no proof that cutting trees in the Rainforest impacts the environment; therefore, we should continue chopping down the Rainforest." People who support stem-cell research have no respect for human life, and they are wrong. The lottery must be banned. If we do not ban the lottery, more and more people will be spending their paychecks on buying a ticket. The next thing you know people will begin stealing from friends and family just to buy a lottery ticket.'

Paper For Above instruction

The sentences provided exemplify various logical fallacies that undermine sound reasoning. Understanding these fallacies is crucial for critical evaluation of arguments, especially in political and social debates. This analysis matches each sentence to the appropriate fallacy, explaining the reasoning behind each classification.

Every politician in Louisiana is crooked.

This statement represents a Hasty Generalization. It assumes all politicians in Louisiana are corrupt based on insufficient evidence, which is a characteristic of this fallacy (Walton, 2008). The conclusion is overly broad and based on limited experience or anecdotal evidence.

Wrestling is a dangerous sport because it is unsafe.

This is an example of a Begging the Question fallacy. The statement presumes the sport’s danger without providing evidence, simply repeating that it is unsafe, thus circular reasoning (Toulmin, 2003). It uses the conclusion as a premise, making it a logical fallacy.

Either go to college or forget about getting a job.

This sentence demonstrates a False Dilemma. It presents only two options when in reality other alternatives may exist, such as vocational training or online education (Craig, 2007). The fallacy limits options unfairly to manipulate decision-making.

Martin Sheen should write a book about Washington D.C. because he played the President on 'The West Wing.'

This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. It suggests that Sheen's acting experience qualifies him to write about political issues, relying on his celebrity status rather than expertise (Hahn, 2009). The argument substitutes authority for relevant evidence.

"You should own an Ipod. Everyone has one."

This exemplifies a Bandwagon fallacy. It appeals to popular opinion and peer behavior as the basis for making a decision, emphasizing conformity over logic (McGee, 1980). The argument relies on popularity rather than quality or rational justification.

"We could take her ideas on school truancy—if she had children of her own."

This is an Ad Hominem fallacy. It dismisses her ideas based on her personal circumstances rather than their merit, attacking her character rather than the argument (Walton, 2008). It undermines her credibility unfairly.

Television violence led my child to fights in school and finally expulsion. The same thing can happen to your young innocent child if you do not monitor his or her television habits."

This sentence commits a Slippery Slope fallacy. It predicts a dire chain of events stemming from watching television, without evidence that such a progression will occur (Rhoads, 2010). It exaggerates potential outcomes to persuade action.

We have no proof that cutting trees in the Rainforest impacts the environment; therefore, we should continue chopping down the Rainforest."

This is a Appeal to Ignorance. It claims that a lack of proof of harm justifies continuing the activity, ignoring the possibility that harm exists but is unproven (Walton, 2008). The fallacy shifts burden of proof unfairly.

People who support stem-cell research have no respect for human life, and they are wrong.

This statement is an Ad Hominem. It attacks the character and motives of supporters rather than addressing the ethical or scientific issues directly (Hahn, 2009). Such personal attacks sidestep logical discussion.

The lottery must be banned. If we do not ban the lottery, more and more people will be spending their paychecks on buying a ticket. The next thing you know, people will begin stealing from friends and family to buy a lottery ticket.

This exemplifies a Slippery Slope fallacy. It suggests that not banning the lottery will inevitably lead to theft and moral decay without providing evidence that such extreme consequences are likely (Rhoads, 2010). The argument relies on fear to justify action.

Conclusion

The identification and understanding of logical fallacies are essential for cultivating critical thinking skills. Recognizing these errors in reasoning allows individuals to evaluate arguments more effectively, preventing manipulation and promoting rational discourse. Educating oneself about fallacies enhances the ability to discern credible arguments from flawed rhetoric, strengthening democratic processes and informed decision-making.

References

• Cronin, B. (2009). The textbook of critical thinking. Routledge.
• Craig, E. (2007). Critical thinking: A student’s introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Hahn, L. (2009). Fallacies and arguments. Oxford University Press.
• McGee, M. (1980). Metaconsiderations on the bandwagon fallacy. Informal Logic, 2(1), 81-88.
• Rhoads, D. (2010). Preventing slippery slope fallacies in public discourse. Argumentation, 24(1), 21-35.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.