Flaws from Q3 Flashcards
It has often been proposed that an international language should be introduced alongside national languages, in order to make communication between different countries easier. Since wars are caused by misunderstanding, the introduction of a single language would bring about world peace.
Is this an post-hoc fallacy or a slippery slope?
It is a slippery slope.
A post-hoc is coming to a causal conclusion AFTER a result has occured. You just assume that because y came after x, that x caused why. So, I fail my test after a black cat walks in front of me and I assume it was the cat’s fault. (PS: it wasn’t really the cat’s fault).
It has often been proposed that an international language should be introduced alongside national languages, in order to make communication between different countries easier. Since wars are caused by misunderstanding, the introduction of a single language would bring about world peace.
Is this equivocation or an exaggeration?
It is equivocation. The meaning of misunderstading has changed from misunderstanding a language to misunderstanding a nation / group.
It has often been proposed that an international language should be introduced alongside national languages, in order to make communication between different countries easier. Since wars are caused by misunderstanding, the introduction of a single language would bring about world peace.
What is being assumed about the cause of war?
It is being assumed that there are no other causes for wars.
It has often been proposed that an international language should be introduced alongside national languages, in order to make communication between different countries easier. Since wars are caused by misunderstanding, the introduction of a single language would bring about world peace.
What is being assumed about leaders ability to learn a language?
It is assumed that leaders will be able to learn a world language well enough to avoid misunderstandings.
There would be big educational advantages in introducing Esperanto into the school curriculum. Even children with little ability at languages can learn it, while it is an excellent introduction to language-learning for those who do have an aptitude for languages.
What is being assumed about learning Experanto?
It is being assumed you will learn more than just the language.
The only reason why some people might be reluctant to learn this international language is that at first it will be of little use to them, because so few people already know it.
Is this restricting the options or equivocation?
It is restricting the options. There could, of course, be many other reasons people don’t want to learn it.
These objectors are motivated by their own comfort and convenience rather than long-term benefits to everyone.
Is there ad hominem or is it exaggeration?
It is ad hominem or attacking the person. It is being claimed objectors are selfish. In fact, they probably have very good (unselfish) reasons.
Furthermore, that is a very weak objection, because all new methods of communication – such as cars, telephones and the Internet – are of little use until a significant number of people have adopted them
Is this an example of weak support or the example not being relevant?
The example is not relevant (in part) or, rather, it is not illustrating the point consistently well. Cars are not a type of communication.
If a horse unseats its rider it carries on running with the other horses. This shows that horses actually enjoy racing.
What is being assumed possible reasons why the horse keeps running?
It is being assumed there is no other reason why the horse might continue running.
Further evidence that horses actually enjoy racing is provided by measurements of the amount of adrenalin in their bloodstream at the end of a race. It is well known that adrenalin levels rise in humans during exciting and pleasurable activity.
What is being assumed about the presence of adrenalin in the horse?
It is being assumed that enjoyment is the only reason adrenaline might have increased.
This shows that horses actually enjoy racing. They are herd animals who like to stay with their companions.
Is this a post-hoc fallacy or non sequitur?
It is an example of a non sequitur. Just because they keep running doesn’t means they are enjoying themselves.
Further evidence that horses actually enjoy racing is provided by measurements of the amount of adrenalin in their bloodstream at the end of a race. It is well known that adrenalin levels rise in humans during exciting and pleasurable activity.
Is this an example of a non sequitur or a flawed analogy?
It is a non sequitur. Just because something is true for humans doesn’t make it true for horses.
Horse racing supports many jobs which would disappear if it was banned.
What is being assumed about the the importance of human interests or goals?
It is being assumed that human interests or wants are more important than what horses want.
Horse racing supports many jobs which would disappear if it was banned.
Is this a relevancy problem or an appeal to emotion?
Whether or not jobs are lost is irrelevant to the issue of animal cruelty.
It could appear to be an appeal to emotions - but the author would need to talk about difficulties for families etc etc. for that to be the case. If it WAS, you could have a relevancy problem AND an appeal to emotion in the same sentence.
Many doctors have doubts about cough medicines which can be purchased over the counter at a pharmacy. They maintain that they do little to alleviate coughing and can actually make it worse. However, doctors would be better advised to deal with their own problems, since a number of the medicines that they prescribe have harmful side effects.
Is this an example of a strawman argument or tu quoque?
This is a tu quoque flaw. Just because this is a problem doesn’t make cough medicines acceptable.
To be a strawman, it would have to be claiming doctors were saying X when doctors, in fact, were saying Y.
