discussion of different logical fallacies

Assignment 1 Logical fallacies are everywhere, and can be surprisingly persuasive to those who are unaware of their existence. One logical fallacy is red herring, which throws in a random, unrelated idea to throw off the audience. For example, a recent article criticized the anti-gun protesters not because they were violent but because they were “rude to adults.” A more effective means of engaging the protesters would have been to have a reasoned argument based on their actual political points of view.

Saying they were “rude” has nothing to do with the central argument, which is related to gun control. Another logical fallacy is begging the question, which is commonly used also in the gun control debate. For example, gun advocates will claim that gun control is bad because all Americans have the right to own guns because of the Second Amendment. Referring to the Second Amendment is fine, because it is the grounds for Constitutional law.

In this sense, the Inadequate Authority logical fallacy is also being invoked in this case. The means by which the Second Amendment is interpreted is the crux of the issue. Even when the audience does agree that the Second Amendment is an important right, that right does not necessarily include textual evidence supporting the possession of automatic weapons and assault rifles. To strengthen this argument, it would be best to dissect it and reach common ground about the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.

Appeal to emotion is one of the most common logical fallacies. Advertisements use appeals to emotion. What is less obvious is the way that journalists use appeal to emotion to sway public opinion against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), gluten, and other products that have been billed as unhealthy to the consumer when in fact science has not proven these things to be unhealthy. To strengthen the arguments for public health and safety, it would be best to simply cite meta-analyses of scientific evidence.

Assignment 2 I am unfortunately guilty of using a number of different logical fallacies, but the one I use the most might be begging the question, combined with an appeal to emotion. The reason why I revert to begging the question and to emotional appeals is simple: it is easier to use tautologies and appeal to emotion than it is to do the research and discover the factual evidence that would make the most logical case.

For example, I was once trying to persuade someone that they should listen to rap music and was appalled that they did not like it. When I made the argument, I tried to convince the person that they had not yet listened to all the different types of hip hop and that they therefore did not have the grounds to have an opinion—which is a perfectly logical thing to say.

However, my friend countered by saying that they had indeed been exposed to even underground hip hop and simply did not like the genre. When faced with the—for me—shocking realization that not everyone shared my taste or was as interested in being challenged by different types of music, my argument fell apart. At this point in the conversation, I started to use emotional appeals, which weakened my case. I almost used an ad hominem, by making a slight.