Please take a look into the article "Nightmare in Green" in the link below and help me with the following tasks.
1) Can you help me determine if the author has committed any of these fallacies:
*Distraction fallacies - false dilemma, slippery slope, straw man
*Resemblance fallacies - affirming the consequence, denying the antecedent, equivocation, begging the question
*Emotion fallacies - appeal to force, appeal to pity, prejudicial language
You are most welcome.
The premise is the "foundation" of the argument. It is what grounds the rest of the thought process.
The premises in this paper are many; I gave you only two below.
The premise is what makes all arguments make sense; the paper, in other words, would make no sense without a premise.
The premises here are:
*industry is good
*primitive societies are bad
*authoritarianism is bad
*centralization of power is bad
From these premises, the writer then gives evidence to support the premises. He uses quotes, statistics, etc. to show you that his premises are true.
The conclusion is easy: environmentalists are bad.
Therefore, you have three components: the foundational premise, the evidence, and the conclusion.
All three exist in the paper. Our job is to see whether or not the premises and evidence, taken together, NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion. The fallacies, among other things, deal largely with whether or not the premises ALONE lead to the conclusion. There may be other factors other than what we are arguing, such as environmental legislation, which, in itself, might not lead to authoritarianism. The big fallacies here are that environmental legislation might not lead to authoritarianism because the people quoted here might be extremists, and are representative of the movement as a whole.
There is a use of empirical evidence - lots of quotes and statistics. That does help the author's ...
The fallacies in "nightmare in green" are examined. The premises, evidence and conclusions drawn from this are determined.