Stating the Obvious
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I don't know if this quite qualifies as a fallacy, but it's something I see fairly often. Someone will state something that is incredibly obvious in order to refute a comparatively complex position, as if to make it seem like that fact had not been thought of. However, in reality, someone with even a cursory understanding of the position will know that it's already been accounted for. The two specific ones I see most frequently:
A: Americans should have access to free healthcare.
B: You know healthcare isn't free, right? It's paid for with tax money!
Proponents of universal healthcare may use the term "free" to denote that it's free at point of service, but know that it's funded by the government.
A: We should build a power grid that uses more solar panels.
B: Solar panels only generate power when the sun's out. Good luck running your refrigerator at night!
Advocates for renewable energy sources have some awareness of the limits of the technology, and it's pretty well known that intermittent power sources like wind and solar need to be coupled with power storage and/or on-demand energy.
Comments on Question
Answers
2The second example is strawman fallacy . The initial argument was to "use more solar panels" not use exclusively solar panels.
The first example I think fits under logic chopping .
Stating the obvious is not a fallacy because often the obvious can be a reasonable refutation to the claim/argument. The problem is, when the "obvious" is not a proper refutation. The reason why it is not a proper refutation would be the fallacy or just perhaps factually incorrect. In your first example, as Darren pointed out, the fallacy might be one of equivocation . Person B might argue that it their comment is not fallacious, rather it is germane to their point. It can go either way.
In the second example, person B is just factually incorrect in their assumption that solar power means appliances don't work at night.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
With regard to your first example, the fallacy you’re suggesting is Equivocation; where a term is used in an argument more than once with different meanings of the term in each use. But I don’t think B is committing the Equivocation fallacy or any other fallacy.
Rather, B is pointing out that the desire for everyone to have access to free health care needs to be weighed against the fact that someone has to pay for it. If people are ok with higher taxes, then the government can give more services. Regardless of whether one agrees with A’s comment that it would be a good thing for all Americans to have access to free health care, B’s point is neither fallacious or trivial.