According to the definition provided by LaBossiere (2010), a fallacy is a general argument with an error in reasoning. In this case, a fallacy is an argument in which the premise given for a conclusion does not provide any tangible support. Moreover, LaBossiere (2010) notes that evidence comprises of one or more premises with only one conclusion. The premise, on the other hand, is the statement that can be true or false of the claim being made. In this case, an argument can be categorized into deductive and inductive (LaBossiere, 2010). In the first instance, the deductive fallacy is that evidence that tends to have full support, but the conclusion might be false. Separately, an inductive fallacy is that argument without enough support for the conclusion (LaBossiere, 2010). This paper, therefore, presents an argument with various fallacies it. Additionally, it also provides the meaning and explanation of the different types of fallacies identified in the argument.
Part I: Argument with fallacies
The notion that the feminist hold that viewing pornography is destructive has no importance and should not be debated in the college class. I have gone through one article, and I have not seen how it can be harmful. Feminist might create awareness on the adverse effect of watching pornography, but they should not citing that they watch it too. Most of the individual across the globe, including the philosophers, writers, and even presidents who have been interviewed have agreed on it. Additionally, no scientific studies that have proven that watching porn among student and adults are harmful, and therefore, it must not be harmful. Moreover, if pornography were harmful as claimed by feminist, then men and women would have been registered to be harmed. Feminist and other philosophers should acquire lesson from my parents in the sense that they do not like clubbing and they will not get to any club at night. However, they do not go around claiming how destructive clubbing is to every individual who attends any club.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Separately, since the advent of the feminist movement against pornography, the moral foundation of the society has been diminishing, specifically the prevalence of divorce rate. In this case, I would suggest that feminist to create their agitated hostility to sex, supposedly relationships and marriages would improve in our society. On the other hand, I conceive that if feminist continue to perceive the ban of pornography, men in sour society will have no liberty and preference left. Besides, in the presence of these concerns, women's movement will be astonished when their demonstration are met with ferocity. Therefore, is quite clear that the argument presented by feminist are unwarranted.
Part II: Evaluation of the arguments
Looking at the above discussion, there exist several fallacies that the author has presented. The table below identifies the fallacies used in the case and explain their meaning and implications.
|
Fallacious argument |
Identification and explanation |
|
The notion that the feminist hold that watching pornography is destructive has no value and should not be debated in a college class. |
This phrase present and overall conclusion. “Should not be debated in a college class.” Is referred to as the appeal of ignorance. Pirie (2006) argues that the arguer has no capacity of disapproving the conclusion as an evidence of the validity of the conclusion. On the other hand, the determination presents hasty generalization in the sense that there is not vital evidence to the argument that follows. |
|
I have gone through one article, and I have not seen how it can be harmful |
“ I have gone through one article ” denotes ad populum, while “ I have not seen how ” denotes appeal to ignorance. In the first case, the arguer tends to present actual position on the fact instead of the real issue at hand (Tanner, 2006). Besides the arguer offers the hasty conclusion without considering other facts and information that might be present in other books and articles on the issue. |
|
Most of the individual across the globe, including the philosophers, writers, and even presidents who have been interviewed have agreed on it. |
This argument presents the appeal to authority and ad populum. According to Guevarra (2012), the arguer tends to add strength to his argument by relying on the important sources and authorities to explain their position on the matter. Consequently, ad populism describes the arguer’s use of the desired individual who has used the idea to get the audience understand and accept his argument (Guevara, 2012; Gula, 2007). In this case, the debate tends to make the audience believe in his or her notion because other people supposedly does. |
|
No scientific studies that have proven that watching porn among student and adults are harmful, and therefore, it must not be dangerou s. |
As afore mentioned, this present argument appeal to ignorance without tangible evidence to support the claim. |
|
Separately, since the advent of the feminist movement against pornography, the moral foundation of our society has been diminishing, specifically the prevalence of divorce rate . |
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In the first phrase, the debater believes that an idea that follows the other chronologically; the first might have caused the second one (Guevarra, 2012). Additionally, red hearing is present in the sense that the arguer tends to shift his potion on the prevalence of divorce rate, ignoring the fact that watching pornography can lead to other consequences within the society. |
|
I would suggest that feminist to create their agitated hostility to sex, perhaps relationships and marriages would improve in our society. |
“ hostility to sex ” denotes straw man while “ agitated ” represents ad hominem. In the first scenario, the debater tends to make his argument much stronger by providing the weak point of the opponent position (Gula, 2007). Consequently, ad hominem is used by the arguer to attack the opponent rather than the protest presented by the opponent (Guevarra, 2012). |
The above argument presents a flawed analysis of the feminist movement. In the first case, the argument differs with the protest of the feminist on how bad watching pornography is harmful to college student and adults. Additionally, the faulty word choice, lack vital support of the argument, and other language regulator problems make the debate hard to follow and understand. In the workplace, an argument with several logical fallacies might implicate the decision made by the manager and change the objectives of the company. Besides, judgments based on little or no research might affect the decision-making within the organization and implicate the working condition. Finally, for the arguer to avoid the above fallacies in his argument, s/he must understand the basic logical fallacies. In this case, s/he must provide enough support to his argument and avoid relying on authorities and generalization of facts. Additionally, one should gather sufficient evidence for both side of the issues rather than looking at the one hand.
References
Guevarra, P. (2012). Fallacies. Writing Center. UNC College of Arts and Sciences. Available from http://writingcenter.unc.edu/files/2012/09/Fallacies-The-Writing-Center.pdf
Gula, R. J. (2007). Nonsense: Red herrings, straw men, and sacred cows: how we abuse logic in our everyday language . Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.
LaBossiere, M. (2010). Forty-Two Fallacies. Available from https://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf
Pirie, M. (2006). How to win every argument: The use and abuse of logic . London: Continuum.
Tanner, J. (2006). The Naturalistic Fallacy. Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 13(2), 1-6.
