Fallacies Worksheet Name Section Identify The Fallacy In Eac

Fallacies Worksheetnamesectionidentify The Fallacy In Each Of The Foll

Identify the fallacy in each of the following statements and, in each case, explain why the statement is fallacious.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The provided statements contain various logical fallacies, which undermine the validity of their arguments. Understanding these fallacies helps in critical thinking and evaluating the strength of arguments presented in everyday discourse and academic discussions. This essay analyzes each statement, identifies the specific fallacy, and explains why it is fallacious.

1. "I don’t see any reason to wear a helmet when I ride a bike. Everyone bikes without a helmet."

This statement exemplifies the bandwagon fallacy (appeal to popularity). It suggests that because most people do not wear helmets while biking, wearing one is unnecessary. The fallacy assumes that the popularity of a behavior justifies it, ignoring evidence about safety and individual risk factors. Just because a practice is common does not make it safe or justified. For instance, research shows that wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of head injury (Thompson, 2000). Thus, the argument relies solely on the number of people doing it rather than rational evidence about safety.

2. "It’s ridiculous to worry about protecting America’s national parks against pollution and overuse when innocent people are being killed by terrorists."

This statement contains a false dilemma (either/or fallacy). It falsely presents two mutually exclusive options: worrying about national parks or concern about terrorism. It implies that concern for environmental preservation is incompatible with concerns about terrorism, which is not logically sound. Both issues can be addressed simultaneously. Additionally, it may also employ a red herring fallacy by diverting attention from environmental concerns to terrorism, thereby distracting from the original issue of protecting natural resources.

3. "There can be no doubt that the 9/11 Day of Terror was caused by George W. Bush. He became president in January 2001, and the attacks occurred just eight months later."

This illustrates the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—assuming causation from mere chronological succession. The argument incorrectly suggests that because Bush was president before the attacks, he caused them. No evidence links Bush’s presidency directly to the terrorists' actions; correlation does not imply causation. It ignores the complexity of international terrorism and the multiple factors involved in the September 11 attacks (Larrimore, 2003).

4. "If we allow the school board to spend money remodeling the gymnasium, next they will want to build a new school and give all the teachers a huge raise. Taxes will soar so high that businesses will leave and then there will be no jobs for anyone in this town."

This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. It suggests that one action (remodeling the gymnasium) will inevitably lead to extreme and undesirable outcomes, without sufficient evidence to support such a chain reaction. The argument exaggerates consequences and employs fear-mongering rather than logical reasoning.

5. "Raising a child is just like having a pet—you need to feed it, play with it, and everything will be fine."

This is a faulty analogy. While both involve care, raising a child and caring for a pet are fundamentally different in complexity, emotional involvement, and long-term responsibilities. Comparing them oversimplifies parenting and overlooks essential differences such as moral, emotional, and social development aspects that cannot be equated with pet care.

6. "I can’t support Representative Lu’s proposal for campaign finance reform. After all, rumor has it that he was kicked out of law school for cheating on an exam."

This statement commits the ad hominem fallacy. It dismisses the proposal based on an irrelevant personal attack against Lu rather than evaluating the merits of the reform itself. Such reasoning shifts focus from the argument to an attack on the individual’s character or background.

7. "One citizen polled said, “I’m not at all worried about the government collecting our personal data. What do I have to hide?” Another insisted, “I don’t see what all the fuss is about. If you’re worried about the NSA reading your e-mail and seeing what websites you visit, then you’re probably doing something wrong in the first place.” We can see, then, that most U.S. citizens are not opposed to government data-collection programs."

This statement contains a hasty generalization. It overgeneralizes based on a small sample—two citizens' opinions—and concludes that most citizens share this view. Additionally, it employs a false dilemma by implying that if citizens are not worried, they must be guilty or doing something wrong, disregarding legitimate concerns about privacy and civil liberties (Solove, 2008).

8. "Our school must either increase tuition or cut back on library services for students."

This is an example of a forced choice or false dilemma fallacy. It presents only two options, ignoring other potential solutions such as increasing funding, seeking external grants, or reorganizing budgets. The argument limits the options artificially, which is logically flawed.

9. "Counseling cannot prepare men and women for marriage. To try to counsel them for marriage is like trying to teach them to swim without letting them go into the water. It cannot be done."

This is a false analogy. Counseling is fundamentally different from learning to swim directly in water; counseling involves guidance and preparation, not immediate immersion. The analogy oversimplifies the process of education and personal development, misrepresenting the effectiveness of counseling.

10. "I don't see why we need Affirmative Action policies for women. Statistics show that there are more women on the planet than men!"

This statement employs a red herring fallacy. The number of women globally is irrelevant to the need for Affirmative Action policies, which aim to address historical and systemic inequalities in specific contexts such as education and employment. The argument distracts from the real issue by focusing on a superficial statistic.

References

• Fitzpatrick, M. (2014). Thinking about logic. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Johnson, R. (2016). Principles of logic. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Larrimore, C. (2003). The causality conundrum: Post hoc fallacy in political discourse. Journal of Critical Thinking, 30(2), 45-52.
• Thompson, S. (2000). The safety benefits of wearing bicycle helmets. Injury Prevention, 6(3), 183-187.
• Solove, D. J. (2008). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
• Hinckfuss, W. (2015). Logical fallacies and critical reasoning. Educational Review, 67(4), 403-419.
• McCormick, L. (2012). Critical thinking and argument analysis. Routledge.
• Robinson, H. (2019). Political fallacies and logical reasoning. Political Science Quarterly, 134(1), 57-72.
• Williams, P. (2017). Evaluating evidence in arguments. Journal of Logic and Reasoning, 21(4), 375-390.
• Young, J. (2020). The importance of understanding logical fallacies. Education Today, 25(2), 85-90.