Critical Thinking Assignment: Identifying Fallacies

2. Letter to the editor: “Andrea Keene’s selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they haven’t come out against them, too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one of the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn’t this murder?”
— North-State Record

I feel that the above question could actually be several different types of fallacies – namely “Poisoning the Well”, “Straw Man”, and “Perfectionist Fallacy.” A “Poisoning the Well” fallacy is defined as “encouraging others to dismiss what someone will say, by citing the speaker’s defects, inconsistencies, circumstances, or other personal attributes” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). The author discredits Andrea Keene by suggesting her “selective morality.” A “Straw Man” fallacy is defined as “rebutting a claim by offering a distorted or exaggerated version of it” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). While the effects of fertility drugs are not exaggerated, suggesting that one or more of the infants dies “agonizingly” every time is exaggerated. Finally “Perfectionist Fallacy” is defined as “arguing that we either do something completely or not at all” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). The author suggests that that even something as seemingly “un-anti-abortionist” as fertility drugs should be outlawed according to abortionist policy.

3. In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of “I’d rather be a widow.” The letter writer, a divorcée, complained about widows who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a widow than to be a divorcée, who are all “rejects” who have been “publicly dumped” and are avoided “like they have leprosy.” Abby recognized the pseudoreasoning for what it was, though she did not call it by our name. What is our name for it?

The above selection is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. This type of fallacy is defined as “thinking a person’s circumstances refute his or her beliefs” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). It seems that the original author had a tragic experience of being divorced – the other author is arguing the side of being a widow. Because the two authors have had different experiences, their personal beliefs should not be refuted.

5. Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists. These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove. Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open for everyone to use.”

This letter to the editor shows an example of poisoning the well. The author is discrediting the advocators of closing North Park Drive several times stating “for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists”, “so-called fitness enthusiasts”, and “their own private use.” By doing this, the author is making the reader be “against” the fitness enthusiasts and breeding animosity.

6. “Some Christian—and other—groups are protesting against the placing, on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic figurines representing a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still, we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality, etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family?”
— National Review

This selection was almost “fallacy-free” until the author stated that “The protestors would of course deny…” This is an example of circumstantial ad hominem fallacy because the author suggests that the Christian groups “would of course” deny any anti-Semitic motivation because they are Christians. The author continues and suggests that there would be no debate if there were a modern Christian scene depicted.

8. From a letter to the editor: “The counties of Michigan clearly need the ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service. For without these sources those demands will not be met, and it will be impossible to maintain services even at present levels.”

I do not detect any fallacies in this excerpt. There are no innuendos or subliminal persuasion taking place.

9. In February 1992, a representative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico gave a radio interview (broadcast on National Public Radio) in which he said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S. mainland, the spokesman said that the Church could not support the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of the disease. “If you could prove that condoms were absolutely dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the Church could support their use.”

This is an example of “Line Drawing Fallacy.” A line drawing fallacy is defined as “requiring that a precise line be drawn someplace on a scale or continuum when no such precise line can be drawn; usually occurs when a vague concept is treated like a precise one” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). It is common knowledge that condoms, like everything else in life, are not absolutely 100% dependable; however, it is proven that they do help against STD’s immensely. By stating that the Church does not support condoms because they are not absolutely dependable, the spokesperson is drawing a line and creating a standard that will never be met. There will always be a small percentage of failure due to imperfections of materials, improper use, etc.