The arguer uses arguments to evoke pity in the readers (“…each of those cuts hurt, depriving seniors, for example, of their full share of renters assistance…”) to make them believe that the author’s position is the right one. “Despite the almost incomprehensible budget problem, (governor) said, California won’t have to skimp on fighting fires because of a $1. 7-billion reserve built into the budget for exactly this kind of emergency… Schwarzenegger built this year’s reserve on cuts from the general fund.
Each of those cuts hurt, depriving seniors, for example, of their full share of renters assistance and keeping counties from being able to test water quality at beaches. “ Argument in Standard Form P1. This year’s reserve is built on cuts from general form. P2. Those cuts made the state limit other expenses. So, there is still deficit in the state’s budget, and Californians should worry about it. Name of the Fallacy: Scare Tactics Definition: an irrelevant threat of harm to advance one’s conclusion.
Explanation: This argument tries to convince the reader to support the arguer’s position that the only way to limit budget cuts is increasing taxes, describing scary alternatives to this decision ((Cuts) can be avoided only by raising taxes — or by leaving the state unprepared for an earthquake, terrorist attack or more fires “) “The state now faces deeper and more fundamental cuts. They can be avoided only by raising taxes — or by leaving the state unprepared for an earthquake, terrorist attack or more fires. “ Argument in Standard Form P1. The state now faces cuts. P2. They can be avoided by raising taxes.
So, taxes should be raised in order to avoid budget cuts. Article 2 – Hands-free: no less crash, but more cash Name of the argument: Ad Hominem – Attacking the Motive Definition: An attack on the source of an argument rather than on the argument itself. An attempt to undermine a case by suggesting that its arguer only advances it out of her self-interest Explanation: The arguer tries to convince reader that the decision made by California’s government to ban drivers talking hand-held phones was wrong by assuming that the motive for this decision was to raise budgets by fining the drivers
“California’s new law forcing motorists to use hands-free devices has resulted in heaps of new government revenue from 5,634 traffic tickets written in four months in Orange, San Diego and parts of Riverside and Imperial counties. At $90 a pop after added assessments, perhaps that was the intended consequence”. Argument in Standard Form P1. 5,634 traffic tickets were written in four months in Orange, San Diego and parts of Riverside and Imperial counties. P2. Each ticket brings the government $90 So, the government’s revenue has been raised after accepting the law.
Name of the Fallacy: Inappropriate Appeal to Authority Definition: An authority is cited as support for a conclusion, but the authority does not have expertise in the area or is somehow not reliable. Explanation: The author cites psychology professor David Strayer (`[D]riving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as, or maybe worse, than driving drunk,). The comparison between drunk driving and using phones while driving is the professor’s personal opinion, no results of study or research on this topic provided.
“`[D]riving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as, or maybe worse, than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society,` wrote the studys lead author, psychology professor David Strayer. He wants all phone use banned in vehicles. ” Argument in Standard Form P1. Professor David Strayer wants all phone use banned in vehicles P2. He thinks that talking on a cell phone is as bad as, or maybe worse, than driving drunk. So, professor’s Strayer’s opinion is that phone use should be banned in vehicles. Article 3 – Agbonlahor should either stand up to Barton or stop bleating
Name of the Fallacy: Ad Hominem— Personal Attack Definition: An attack on the source of an argument rather than on the argument itself. Getting someone to accept a conclusion by verbally abusing an opponent. Explanation: The arguer abuses Gabriel Agbonlahor by calling him a fool to convince the reader Joey Barton does not have to apologize to him for their spat “Gabriel Agbonlahor is a fool if he thinks Joey Barton is going to apologize to him for their recent spat. The Aston Villa striker’s run-in with the Newcastle thug led to rumours that he had been racially abused.
But Agbonlahor didn’t want to make a complaint and neither did his club. The FA were forced to drop a proposed investigation and Barton denied the allegation. The conclusion had to be that nothing untoward was said – so what has Barton got to say sorry for? ” Argument in Standard Form P1: Agbonlahor’s run-in with Barton led to rumours that Agbonlahor had been racially abused P2: Agbonlahor didn’t make a complaint and neither did his club P3: The FA were forced to drop a proposed investigation. Barton has got nothing to say sorry for as there is no official complaint.
Name of the Fallacy: False Alternatives Definition: Falsely limits choices to two, when in fact there are more. One of the alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer. Explanation: The author insists that Agbonlahor has either make a complaint, or stop demanding apology from Barton, limiting solutions of the incidents to two, while in fact there are more of them. “Hatchet Man is no apologist for the convict, far from it, but if Agbonlahor thinks something inappropriate was said he has to make his case and let the authorities decide.
Claiming afterwards that ‘Barton’s had enough bad press so I decided to leave it,’ but that he would take an apology is a coward’s way out. Agbonlahor should either stand up against something he thinks is wrong, or stop bleating. He can’t have it both ways”. Argument in Standard Form P1. One of the ways to solve the incident is making the case and letting the authorities decide. P2: Hatchet Man is no apologist for the convict Agbonlahor should make a complaint in order to get apologies from Barton.