Are there any fallacies here?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
This section of a debate is based off one that I had some time ago. Person A will represent me while Person B will represent someone I know.
A: So, with the observable fact that commuters very rarely travel through this remote stretch of road at times between 10 pm and 5 am, police shouldn't be enforcing this area strictly at night and thus should allow street racers to have some of their fun here.
B: But what if someone passes by?
A: ... As I said, there's literally next to no traffic here.
B: But what if someone passes by? What kind of death probability do you find acceptable if someone passes by?
A: Uh, 1%?
B: YOU WANT 1 OUT OF 100 PEOPLE WHO USES THIS ROAD TO GET SOMEWHERE TO DIE?!
Minus my arguably controversial opinion, are there any fallacies made in this particular section by both parties? Personally, I feel that the "what if someone's there" is probably a weak argument, but when it comes to the death probability section it feels like a loaded question.
A: So, with the observable fact that commuters very rarely travel through this remote stretch of road at times between 10 pm and 5 am, police shouldn't be enforcing this area strictly at night and thus should allow street racers to have some of their fun here.
B: But what if someone passes by?
A: ... As I said, there's literally next to no traffic here.
B: But what if someone passes by? What kind of death probability do you find acceptable if someone passes by?
A: Uh, 1%?
B: YOU WANT 1 OUT OF 100 PEOPLE WHO USES THIS ROAD TO GET SOMEWHERE TO DIE?!
Minus my arguably controversial opinion, are there any fallacies made in this particular section by both parties? Personally, I feel that the "what if someone's there" is probably a weak argument, but when it comes to the death probability section it feels like a loaded question.
Answers
2Person A) The premises refer to observable facts related to "commuters" only. There may very well be chickens crossing the road, which is another reason to enforce road laws.
Person B) "Death probability" is vague, persons sometimes die while driving and an accident is subsequent to death. Death may be of a chicken crossing the road having a heart attack. So the question is not fallacious, just not a well-formed argument.
Person B) "Death probability" is vague, persons sometimes die while driving and an accident is subsequent to death. Death may be of a chicken crossing the road having a heart attack. So the question is not fallacious, just not a well-formed argument.
Let's ignore your 1% acceptable commuter death rate answer in favor of fun street racing :)
Looks like a simple non-sequitur:
This does not follow from the conversation. Here is why:
1) You don't "want" people to die; you find the rate acceptable.
2) This rate applies to commuters, not all people using the road.
Looks like a simple non-sequitur:
YOU WANT 1 OUT OF 100 PEOPLE WHO USES THIS ROAD TO GET SOMEWHERE TO DIE?!
This does not follow from the conversation. Here is why:
1) You don't "want" people to die; you find the rate acceptable.
2) This rate applies to commuters, not all people using the road.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course