I would like fallacies identified for the statements I have attached, using the following:
ad homimen, begging the question, complex question, equivocation, false cause, and false dilemma.
1. This vehicle was attacked by someone. Look at the damage to it. It's all caused by exceptionally well-aimed blasts. The vehicle must have been attacked by Imperial Stormtroopers. Only they have that kind of aim.
2. Some people are worried because of what they've heard from obstructionists who want nothing more than to make health care reform impossible so that they can win political points, even if that harms that American people. These critics say that my health care plan will lead to "death panels." Or that it will cover insurance for illegal immigrants. Those claims are just not true.
The commits an Ad hominem. In this case, attributing criticisms of health care reform to "obstructionists" who just want to "score political points." The argument gives no actual reason for thinking that the criticisms are misplaced.
3. Liberals want to take away our rights to own guns. Some people complain that this violates our constitutional rights as Americans. And I agree with those people, of course - I mean, it's as clear as can be I the Constitution. But forget about the Constitution for a minute. Suppose I just dropped out of the sky - no political system, no Bill of Rights, no nothing. I would have the right to defend myself and my family, right? And here these liberals want to say that I don't have the right- that I can't defend myself against robbers or murderers or whatever. And that's just crazy, regardless of what you think about the Constitution.
4. THOMAS HUXLEY: Based on the theory of evolution, I believe that humans are descended from apes.
BISHOP E. R. WILBERFORCE: Do you? Was the ape your grandmother or your grandfather?
Straw man. A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's position or argument in order to make it look ridiculous or easy to refute. In this exchange, Bishop Wilberforce commits a straw ma fallacy because Huxley is not claiming that his (Huxley's) grandparents were apes. Huxley is claiming only that the extremely distant ancestors of humans were apes.
5. Batman is clearly a criminal. Why else does he wear a mask? Why does he conceal his identity? He hides who he is because he is an outlaw! And think about this: Whenever we hear about Batman or see pictures of him, he is with criminals! Only criminals would spend so much time with other criminals!
6. A politician is someone who tells you what you want to hear and then does whatever he or she wants to do. That's why politicians can't be trusted.
This argument defines a politician as someone who says one thing and then does something else; then, based solely on that definition, it concludes that politicians can't be trusted.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:01 am ad1c9bdddf
When addressing this issue, you have to make sure first that you have the correct definitions of those categories; so here are the defintions:
Ad hominem - is the attempt to undermine the authority of the writer or of the exposed point of view without bringing any substantial argumentation as concerns the content of the discourse.
Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") - means basing your argument on a fallacious assumption and then concluding bu restating this assumption. In other words, it's merely stating something without bringing any solid argumentation to your statement.
A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer.
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense.
A false cause fallacy occurs when one cites to sequential events as evidence that the first caused the second (but there isn't any logical relation between their occurrence)
The argument generally looks like this:
Event A happened.
Event B happened after ...
The expert identifies fallacies for statements. The vehicles which must have been attacked by imperial storm-troopers is given.
Identify Fallacy in argument
The following passages contain fallacies. Identify them where they occur, explain why it is fallacious.
1) "People in Hegins, Pennsylvania, hold an annual pigeon shoot in order to control the pigeon population and to raise money for the town. This year, the pigeon shoot was disrupted by animal rights activists who tried to release the pigeons from their cages. I can't help but think these animal rights activists are the same people who believe in controlling the human population through the use of abortion. Yet, they recoil at a similar means of controlling pigeons. What rank hypocrisy."
2) TERRY: I failed my test, but I gave my prof this nifty argument. I said, "Look, suppose somebody did 0.0001 percent better than I, would that be a big enough difference to give him a higher grade?" And he had to say "no". So then I said, "And if someone did 0.0001 percent better than that second person, would that be a big enough difference?" And he had to say "no" to that, too, so I just kept it up, and he never could point to the place where the difference was big enough to give the other person a higher grade. He finally saw he couldn't justify giving anyone a better grade. HARRY: Well? What happened? TERRY: He had to fail the whole class.
3) "I can safely say that no law, no matter how stiff the consequence is, will completely stop illegal drug use. Outlawing drugs is a waste of time."
4) Medical research that involves animals is completely unnecessary and a waste of money. Just think of the poor creatures! We burn and blind and torture them, and then we kill them. They don't know what is going to happen to them, but they know something is going to happen. They are scared to death. It's really an outrage.
5) "Louis Harris, one of the nation's most influential pollsters, readily admits he is in the polling business to 'have some impact with the movers and shakers of the world.' So poll questions are often worded to obtain answers that help legitimize the liberal Establishment's viewpoints."
6)Two favourite scientists of the Council for Tobacco Research were Carl Seltzer and Theodore Sterling. Seltzer, a biological anthropologist, believes smoking has no role in heart disease and has alleged in print that data in the huge 45-year, 10,000-person Framingham Heart Study—which found otherwise—have been distorted by anti-tobacco researchers. Framingham Director William Castelli scoffs at Seltzer's critique but says it "has had some impact in keeping the debate alive." Sterling, a statistician, disputes the validity of population studies linking smoking to illness, arguing that their narrow focus on smoking obscures the more likely cause—occupational exposure to toxic fumes. For both men, defying conventional wisdom has been rewarding. Seltzer says he has received "well over $1 million" from the Council for research. Sterling got $1.1 million for his Special Projects work in 1977-82, court records show.View Full Posting Details