10.7: Chapter Exercises

Chapter Exercises

The task in this exercise set is to spot any of the fallacies we have studied thus far. To make things more interesting, it may be that some passages do not commit any fallacy at all. Identify any fallacies by name, then explain in your own words and in detail what is wrong with the reasoning in those cases where it is bad.

1. Before the elections last November, some Democrats argued that the Republican revolution had to be stopped. After all, they said, the Republicans want to phase out health care for the elderly and on top of that, they want to take school lunches away from kids.
2. Before the elections last November, some Democrats claimed that the Republican revolution had to be stopped. After all, they said, almost all the Republicans in Congress are rich and they only care about making things better for themselves.
3. If twenty is greater than ten, it is certainly greater than eight and twenty is greater than ten.
4. We really do have to conclude that R Kelly is guilty. After all, he couldn’t provide any alibi for where he was when the crimes were committed—he claims he was not the man on the video tape engaged in sexual acts with a person who says they are fourteen—and the defense never suggested who else might have committed the crime if the defendant didn’t.
5. Those who want to allow trans people to serve in the military forces hold an unreasonable and unacceptable position. They want trans people to be automatically accepted into the military, and want no restrictions on sexual relationships, whether on or off duty.
6. There is no way there was Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. If they had, someone would have been able to prove it by now.
7. From a letter condemning hunting: “Please . . . don’t try to ennoble your psychotic behavior by claiming that you are trimming the herd for the benefit of the herd.”
8. Champions of campaign finance reform have a hopeless view. They seem to think that if there were limits on contributions to political candidates there would be no more corruption in politics and the poor could also afford to run for office. But we will always have corruption, and it will always be easier for the rich to get elected.
9. Who are you to say that I drink too much? You aren’t exactly Ms. Sobriety yourself.

Answer

1. Straw Man fallacy. The Democrats in question were not personally attacking Republicans, so it is not an ad hominem fallacy. But their characterization of the Republicans’ position is unfair; it distorts their view in a way that makes it appear much more frightening, and hence easier to attack.
2. Ad hominem fallacy. Here the Democrats in question were attacking the Republicans themselves, rather than their arguments.
3. This argument affirms the antecedent, and so it is valid. Both premises are true, so it is also sound. It is not a very interesting argument, but there is nothing substantive that is wrong with it. It’s thrown in here just to remind you of fallacies we saw near the beginning of the course.
4. Taken just by itself, this argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. The mere fact that Kelly can’t show that he is innocent does not show that he is guilty. In a larger context, where we know of positive evidence against Kelly, the lack of alibi does become a problem for him.
5. Straw Man fallacy. This passage is an unfair, distorted characterization of the views of most people who think that trans people should be allowed to serve in the armed forces.
6. Taken just by itself, this commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. The fact that evidence hasn’t turned up doesn’t mean that it won’t. But in a larger context, if people have been looking very hard in the places where evidence would be (if it exists at all) and they have come up empty, it gives some support to the claim that they are is innocent.
7. Attack on the person (ad hominem)
8. Straw Man, combined with an Either/or fallacy. Why?