Need In-Text Citation: What Are The Two Extremes To Consider

Need In Text Citationwhat Are The Two Extremes That One Must Avoid In

What are the two extremes that one must avoid in evaluating fallacies? Explain them. (80 words) Explain three of the fallacies from the textbook, and then provide instances from your own life where you have witnessed these fallacies at work. (225 words) Analyze President Bush speech in terms of the fallacies that you can detect in the speech. Use the words in the speech to explain how the fallacies are used, and also explain why you think they are fallacies. (This is the website the speech) (550 words) Use book as reference of website for in-text citation Reference: Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Paper For Above instruction

In evaluating fallacies, the two extremes that should be avoided are rigidity and relativism. Rigidity involves adhering dogmatically to a particular viewpoint, ignoring contrary evidence or reasoning, while relativism dismisses the significance of logical standards altogether, believing that all perspectives are equally valid regardless of evidence or reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2012). Maintaining a balanced approach requires recognizing valid arguments without becoming dogmatic or dismissive. This ensures a fair assessment of arguments and fallacies, promoting critical thinking rather than fallacious reasoning.

Several fallacies from the textbook illustrate common errors in reasoning. The first is the straw man fallacy, where an argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. For instance, I once encountered a debate where someone claimed that environmentalists oppose all development, which was an exaggeration of their position. The second fallacy is the false dilemma, which presents only two options when others exist. An example is when a friend argued that we either support a particular political candidate or oppose progress, ignoring alternative candidates. The third is ad hominem, attacking the person rather than the argument. I witnessed this during a heated online discussion where comments targeted the individual's character rather than their ideas. These fallacies distort reasoning and hinder productive dialogue.

Analyzing President Bush’s speech reveals numerous fallacious appeals. For example, in the speech, Bush repeatedly invokes patriotic duty, asserting that opposing his policies is akin to betraying the nation. This is an emotional fallacy, specifically an appeal to patriotism, designed to evoke loyalty and suppress dissent (Paul & Elder, 2012). Additionally, Bush employs straw man fallacies by misrepresenting critics’ positions, portraying them as unpatriotic or naive, which they are not. This misrepresentation simplifies opposition and shifts the debate from substantive policy issues to emotional loyalty. Moreover, he makes false dilemmas by suggesting that America must choose between their security or chaos, ignoring other possibilities for diplomatic solutions. These fallacies are effective rhetorical tools but undermine logical reasoning, as they manipulate emotions and distort opposing viewpoints, leading to an uncritical acceptance of his arguments (Speech, 2003). Understanding these fallacies helps to critically analyze political discourse and recognize manipulative strategies.

References

• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Speech by President George W. Bush. (2003). [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=56767