Question

...
ryan

Which fallacies are these?

Hello All! I have 3 fallacies I am unsure of what they could be... Here they all are

1.) "This whole abortion debate about when human life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking about the rights of the baby."

2.) "In her testimony to the grand jury, the whistleblower said that the CEO of the Goldman Sachs conspired with other senior officers of the company to defraud investors. Therefore, since this whistleblower is in a position to know and has no reason to lie, we can conclude that these officers did indeed engage in such a conspiracy."

3.) "Dean Danny has repeatedly argued that any student would benefit from an engineering degree. But what would you expect him to say? After all, he’s the dean of the College of Engineering and Science."


If had a list of 50 and these are the only 3 that have stumped me very badly. If anyone knows what type of fallacy any of these could be that would be of great help! Thanks, guys!
asked on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 10:54:05 PM by ryan

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

1.) Appeal to Ridicule and Begging the Question. Even if the debate is "ridiculous," it says nothing about the positions being offered. It begs the question that the organism in question is a "baby" and that it has rights.

2.) Generally, a non-sequitur as the conclusion does not follow. We can conclude such a thing because the whistleblower could be mistaken, or many other possibilities. This also might fall under Jumping to Conclusions.

3.) Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)

answered on Thursday, Nov 14, 2019 06:50:26 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments