{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
    1. QUESTION

    Fallacies    

    Topic 2 Reading exercises from:

    Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic, 14th Edition. Routledge.

     

    4.3 INSTRUCTIONS

    Identify and explain the fallacies of relevance in the following passages:

    PROBLEMS

    1. If you can’t blame the English language and your own is unforgivingly precise, blame the microphone. That was the route Jacques Chirac took after his nuclear remark about a nuclear Iran. “Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous,” Mr. Chirac said with a shrug. The press was summoned back for a retake. “I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” Mr. Chirac offered, as if the record rather than the remark were the issue.

    —Stacy Schiff, “Slip Sliding Away,” The New York Times, 2 February 2007

     

    1. Nietzsche was personally more philosophical than his philosophy. His talk about power, harshness, and superb immorality was the hobby of a harmless young scholar and constitutional invalid.

    —George Santayana, Egotism in German Philosophy, 1915

     

    1. Like an armed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine marched down the halls of the American Congress and threw his shining lances full and fair against the brazen foreheads of every defamer of his country and maligner of its honor.

           For the Republican party to desert this gallant man now is worse than if an army should desert their general upon the field of battle.

    —Robert G. Ingersoll, nominating speech at the 
    Republican National Convention, 1876

     

    1. However, it matters very little now what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet, and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty procured for himself an universal hatred.

    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

     

    1. This embarrassing volume is an out-and-out partisan screed made up of illogical arguments, distorted and cherry-picked information, ridiculous generalizations and nutty asides. It’s a nasty stewpot of intellectually untenable premises and irresponsible speculation that frequently reads like a “Saturday Night Live” parody of the crackpot right.

    —Michiko Kakutani, “Dispatch from Gomorrah, Savaging the Cultural Left,” 
    The New York Times, 6 February 2007.

     

    1. I was seven years old when the first election campaign which I can remember took place in my district. At that time we still had no political parties, so the announcement of this campaign was received with very little interest. But popular feeling ran high when it was disclosed that one of the candidates was “the Prince.” There was no need to add Christian and surname to realize which Prince was meant. He was the owner of the great estate formed by the arbitrary occupation of the vast tracts of land reclaimed in the previous century from the Lake of Fucino. About eight thousand families (that is, the majority of the local population) are still employed today in cultivating the estate’s fourteen thousand hectares. The Prince was deigning to solicit “his” families for their vote so that he could become their deputy in parliament. The agents of the estate, who were working for the Prince, talked in impeccably liberal phrases: “Naturally,” said they, “naturally, no one will be forced to vote for the Prince, that’s understood; in the same way that no one, naturally, can force the Prince to allow people who don’t vote for him to work on his land. This is the period of real liberty for everybody; you’re free, and so is the Prince.” The announcement of these “liberal” principles produced general and understandable consternation among the peasants. For, as may easily be guessed, the Prince was the most hated person in our part of the country.

    —Ignazio Silone, The God That Failed, 1949

    1. According to R. Grunberger, author of A Social History of the Third Reich, Nazi publishers used to send the following notice to German readers who let their subscriptions lapse: “Our paper certainly deserves the support of every German. We shall continue to forward copies of it to you, and hope that you will not want to expose yourself to unfortunate consequences in the case of cancellation.”

     

    1. In While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within(2006), Bruce Bawer argues that “by appeasing a totalitarian [Muslim] ideology Europe is “imperiling its liberty.” Political correctness, he writes, is keeping Europeans from defending themselves, resulting in “its self-destructive passivity, softness toward tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease.” A review of the book in The Economistobserves that Mr. Bawer “weakens his argument by casting too wide a net,” and another reviewer, Imam Fatih Alev, says of Bawer’s view that “it is a constructed idea that there is this very severe difference between Western values and Muslim values.”

    —“Clash Between European and Islamic Views,” in Books, 
    The New York Times, 8 February 2007.

     

    1. To know absolutely that there is no God one must have infinite knowledge. But to have infinite knowledge one would have to be God. It is impossible to be God and an atheist at the same time. Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

    —“Argument Against Atheism,” 
    http://aaron_mp.tr­ipod.com/i­d2.html (2007)

    1. When we had got to this point in the argument, and everyone saw that the definition of justice had been completely upset, Thrasymachus, instead of replying to me, said: “Tell me, Socrates, have you got a nurse?”

           “Why do you ask such a question,” I said, “when you ought rather to be answering?”

           “Because she leaves you to snivel, and never wipes your nose; she has not even taught you to know the shepherd from the sheep.”

    —Plato, The Republic

     

    4.5 INSTRUCTIONS

    Identify and explain any fallacies of defective induction or of presumption in the following passages:

    PROBLEMS

    1. My generation was taught about the dangers of social diseases, how they were contracted, and the value of abstinence. Our schools did not teach us about contraception. They did not pass out condoms, as many of today’s schools do. And not one of the girls in any of my classes, not even in college, became pregnant out of wedlock. It wasn’t until people began teaching the children about contraceptives that our problems with pregnancy began.

    —Frank Webster, “No Sex Education, No Sex,” Insight, 17 November 1997

     

    1. A national mailing soliciting funds, by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), included a survey in which questions were to be answered “yes” or “no.” Two of the questions asked were these:

           “Do you realize that the vast majority of painful animal experimentation has no relation at all to human survival or the elimination of disease?”

           “Are you aware that product testing on animals does not keep unsafe products off the market?”

     

    1. If you want a life full of sexual pleasures, don’t graduate from college. A study to be published next month in American Demographicsmagazine shows that people with the most education have the least amount of sex.

    The Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 January 1998

     

    1. There is no surprise in discovering that acupuncture can relieve pain and nausea. It will probably also be found to work on anxiety, insomnia, and itching, because these are all conditions in which placebos work. Acupuncture works by suggestion, a mechanism whose effects on humans are well known.

           The danger in using such placebo methods is that they will be applied by people inadequately trained in medicine in cases where essential preliminary work has not been done and where a correct diagnosis has not been established.

    —Fred Levit, M.D., “Acupuncture Is Alchemy, Not Medicine,” 
    The New York Times, 12 November 1997

     

    1. In a motion picture featuring the famous French comedian Sacha Guitry, three thieves are arguing over division of seven pearls worth a king’s ransom. One of them hands two to the man on his right, then two to the man on his left. “I,” he says, “will keep three.” The man on his right says, “How come you keep three?” “Because I am the leader.” “Oh. But how come you are the leader?” “Because I have more pearls.”

     

    4.6 INSTRUCTIONS

    Identify and explain the fallacies of ambiguity that appear in the following passages:

    PROBLEMS

    1. …. the universe is spherical in form … because all the constituent parts of the universe, that is the sun, moon, and the planets, appear in this form.

    —Nicolaus Copernicus, The New Idea of the Universe, 1514

     

    1. Robert Toombs is reputed to have said, just before the Civil War, “We could lick those Yankees with cornstalks.” When he was asked after the war what had gone wrong, he is reputed to have said, “It’s very simple. Those damn Yankees refused to fight with cornstalks.”

    —E. J. Kahn, Jr., “Profiles (Georgia),” The New Yorker, 13 February 1978

     

    1. To press forward with a properly ordered wage structure in each industry is the first condition for curbing competitive bargaining; but there is no reason why the process should stop there. What is good for each industry can hardly be bad for the economy as a whole.

    —Edmond Kelly, Twentieth Century Socialism, 1910

     

    1. No man will take counsel, but every man will take money: therefore money is better than counsel.

    —Jonathan Swift

    1. I’ve looked everywhere in this area for an instruction book on how to play the concertina without success. (Mrs. F. M., Myrtle Beach, S.C., Charlotte Observer)

           You need no instructions. Just plunge ahead boldly.

    —The New Yorker, 21 February 1977

 

Subject Article Analysis Pages 5 Style APA

Answer

  • Fallacies of Relevance

    Fallacies of relevance occur when there is no real connection between an argument’s conclusion and the premises offered. In other words, the truth of the connection cannot be established through the argument’s premises. Nevertheless, it is still possible that such premises may have a degree of psychological relevance as to evoke attitudes that are likely to persuade the conclusion’s acceptance. This paper identifies the fallacies of relevance in the given passages.

    Passage No. 1: The Red Herring

    The effectiveness of this fallacy lies in distraction. In this passage, distraction becomes evident where Jacques Chirac is quoted to have distracted the press (hence the broader public audience to whom his speech was directed) from the issue of nuclear Iran to the fact that he did not pay attention to being on record.  By so uttering, he deflected attention from the issue of interest to himself not paying attention to being on record, hence the fallacy of the red herring.

    Passage 2: The Straw Man

    In this passage, one would expect the author to say more and as such, give reasons to support the claim that Nietzsche was personally more philosophical than his philosophy. Instead, the premises given appear irrelevant to the conclusion as to Nietzsche being more philosophical, hence the fallacy of the straw man. In other words, the claim about the person of Nietzsche as first described is nit justifiable from what follows about him.

    Passage 3: Appeal to the Populace

    In the given speech, Robert Ingersoll appeals to popular belief about what would be expected in terms of behavior towards and treatment of James Blaine, hence argument ad populum. Clearly, the orator appears to be trying to win popular assent (precisely of Republicans) by arousing their feelings. It is a classic example of a speaker trying to mobilize public sentiment even when the argument lacks intellectual merit.

    Passage 4: Argumentum ad hominin (Argument against the Person)

    The argument inflicts serious personal damage (to the person of the king of England) and leaves no opportunity or chance for exposing the contextual fallacy or chastising the author. Here, the character of the king of England is attacked, yet it remains (as it should) logically irrelevant to the falsity or truth of what is being said; it is also not logically relevant to the correctness or accuracy of the reasoning used. The argument largely comes out as a proposal made by a radical so the allegations made therein (while they may still be plausible) are not relevant to the proposal’s merit.

    Passage 5: Missing the Point (Ignoratio elenchi)

    In this passage, the premises do not connect clearly to the conclusion intended; one would expect the premises to illuminate why the volume merits to be described in the manner done but that does not happen. The author misses the point as he tries to refute the claim originally made about the so-called embarrassing volume.

    Passage 6: Argumentum ad baculum (The Appeal to Force)

    In this passage, there is a veiled threat against anybody who will not vote for “the Prince” since it alleged no such person will be allowed (by the Prince) to work on the land. He is projected as a popular candidate for the position he is seeking but ironically a threat has been issued against anyone who will not vote for him. It emerges he is the most hated person in that part of the country and as such would not be easily voted for, but the proposition made suggests a danger (of eviction from the land) for those who will not vote for him, hence the fallacy of appeal to force (not necessarily physical in this case).

    Passage 7: Argumentum ad baculum (The Appeal to Force)

    While the contextual objective is to ensure German readers maintain their subscriptions, there is a veiled threat of “unfortunate consequences” for those who may decide to opt out. The Nazi publishers are forcing themselves on their readership while threatening of unfortunate consequences.

    Passage 8: The Straw Man

    The argument revolves around clearly conflicting European and Islamic views. Bruce Bawer as well as the reviewers commit the fallacy of the straw man in their way of presenting or describing opposing views as ones that lack merit and as such can easily be torn down. In a political argument as Bawer’s, one would expect him to offer more nuanced and reasonable distinctions and more narrowly describe contextual exceptions, but he fails to do this. By and large, Bawer seems to contend that his views are absolute or categorical but from the propositions of the two reviewers, he might have only succeeded in destroying a straw man.

    Passage 9: The Red Herring

    At the start of the argument, it is clear the subject of interest is infinite knowledge about God and how such may inform knowing that indeed there is God. However, what follows is a distraction concerning the comparison between God and an atheist. The arguer urges the readership to attend to the issue of comparison (between God and an atheist), which is only an aspect associated with the original topic. While it may have merit, it is not relevant the original dispute’s truth, hence a fallacy of the red herring.

    Passage 10: Circumstantial Argument Against the Person

    Thrasymachus deliberately moves to paint Socrates’ nurse as one who has failed in her duties just because she leaves him (Socrates) to snivel, does not wipe his nose and has not taught him to know the shepherd from the sheep. Assuming these are things Thrasymachus has observed in Socrates, it is fallacious to use Socrates’ personal circumstances as the basis or premise for the nurse’s failure.

     

References

Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?