“All religious authorities are concerned about the dangers of nuclear war. All politicians are concerned about the dangers of nuclear war. Therefore, all politicians are religious authorities.” This argument is invalid because of two reasons. First it is an overgeneralization. How can someone actually say that all religious authorities are concerned about the dangers of nuclear war or all politicians are concerned about nuclear war? Has anyone polled all religious authorities or politicians? There can be a very few religious authorities that might think it will never happen, so there is no reason to be concerned about it, or there could also possibly be a small religious faction that believes that nuclear war will get rid of all the evil in the world and is God’s way of cleansing the world. The same can be said for politicians.
Maybe there are a few that would want to start a war because of their selfish motives. One can argue that there are politicians in Syria and Iran that would love to bomb the U.S and Israel. Nothing was said about the politician having to be from this country. The second reason is that it is an illogical conclusion. One can not say that just because politicians and religious authorities share the same concerns that they will become one in the same. They just share one interest. It takes more than caring about nuclear war to become a religious authority. Religious authorities must go through a process that usually takes years of religious education, and practice. There are certain instances, of course, where some politicians are religious authorities also; however that is not predicated on the fact that they share the same view on one certain issue.
“If the Social Security system is further weakened, the elderly will have to fear poverty. Therefore, if the Social Security system is not further weakened, the elderly will not have to fear poverty. This is an overgeneralization and an illogical conclusion. It is true that if the Social Security system is further weakened, the some of the elderly will have to fear poverty, but not all of the elderly. Some elderly people are very wealthy. Other elderly people have family members who have made arrangements to take care of them and their financial needs. Of course, there will be a lot of elderly that will fear poverty without the social security checks they would be receiving once a month. Because of these reasons the argument is an overgeneralization. The argument is also an illogical conclusion because some people regardless of their social security will still be in poverty.
Some people do not have a significant work history to receive a lot of money from the social security department. According to the social security department website, the average check for a retired worker is $1,294 a month. (Office, 2014) According to the United States Government the poverty level for a family of one is $980.83. (Federal Register, 2015) What must be taken into consideration is that some recipients will be well below the average social security check, and some will be well above. Those that are well below the average will be in poverty if that is all they are receiving. This argument does not account for the elderly that will not even receive a social security. They will have to fear poverty regardless of how weak or strong the social security is.
“The anti-abortionists say that the fetus is human, but they have not proved it. Therefore, they have no reasonable basis for opposing abortion.” This argument is invalid because of at least two reasons. The first reason it is not a valid argument is because it has been proven that the fetus is human after eight months. How could it not be human if it comes from two persons who have intercourse and conceive a fetus? This is the definition of a fetus according to Merriam-Webster “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” In this argument, there is no mention as to how soon after conception the fetus becomes a human. Could the argument still be valid if it were eight months after conception? Another reason this is an illegitimate argument is that the argument wants a person to think that the only reason antiabortionist oppose abortions is because the fetus is human.
There are antiabortionists who have many reasons why they feel abortion is wrong. Some of the most popular reasons why some people oppose abortion are because of morality. They believe that the fetus is a human the minute it is conceived. Some people believe it to be divine intervention from God and humans do not have the right to go against God’s desires and plan. Many of these people are very religious in faith and to them it does not matter when doctors say the baby goes from being an egg to a human fetus.
Another reason people oppose abortions is because of the safety of the person having the abortion. Some people feel it is an unnecessary risk to a woman’s health. Many women have died from complications directly resulting from abortions. Internal hemorrhaging is not very uncommon. Some women have indirect complications such as depression and anxiety. Some women have even committed suicide because of their mental health issues after having an abortion. For these several reasons, this argument is illegitimate.
Federal Register (2015) (Accessed: 21 April 2015).
fetus | a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born (no date). (Accessed: 21 April 2015). Office, P. (2014) Social Security Administration: Social Security Basic Facts. (Accessed: 21 April 2015). Ruggiero, V. R. (2012) The Art of Thinking, a guide to critical and creative thought (10th ed.). New York, NY; Pearson
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX