Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    fallacies are accuarte for these examples.

    Not what you're looking for? Search our solutions OR ask your own Custom question.

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Outline for Fallacy Journal

    I. Teens' Miranda Rights

    A) No special treatment because of age (Supreme Court Says).

    B) Police did not have Michael Alvarado under arrest and was clearly
    outside of the 1966 Miranda ruling.

    C) After the interview was over, Michael Alvarado went home with his
    parents (voluntary).

    " To say that police can question children in an interrogation room and treat them as if they have the same perception about their freedom to leave as an adult is absurd. It takes them a few seconds for them to read the Miranda rights, but they circumvent it because they don't want people to invoke their rights." Tara K. Allen attorney who represented Michael Alvarado during the court proceedings.

    This fallacy is, Attacking the Person.

    II. " Slam Dunk" Weapons of mass destruction

    A) President Bush unimpressed with satellite intelligence.

    B) Not enough intelligence to "convince Joe Public."

    C) C.I.A. Director George Tenet reconfirmed W, M, D, with using
    the analogy of a "slam dunk case."

    Tenet reassured the President that "it is a slam dunk case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." President Bush said, "it is very important to have the C.I.A. director interpret 'slam dunk' a sure thing, a guaranteed.

    This fallacy is, Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium)

    III. Was 9/11 a prelude to war?

    A) Terrorists alone cannot be defeated in Iraq.

    B) Terrorists attacks are still occurring in other countries.

    C) The war in Iraq diverts from the real war: Terrorisms.

    Following the terrorist attacks in Turkey, U.S. Attorney General
    John Ashcroft quotes, "We should make no mistake in thinking that terrorism is somehow abating."

    This Fallacy is, Equivocation a product of semantic ambiguity.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com May 24, 2023, 1:24 pm ad1c9bdddf


    Solution Preview

    <br>I've made some comments and notes on your attachment, which ...

    Solution Summary

    The expert examines equivocation for a product of semantic ambiguity.