What Fallacies Are Present in These Arguments?

[fantasyfreak]

Having hard time with this assignment, confusing, need help if you guys have time. Thank You.

1. The United Nations inspectors were unable to prove that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Therefore, we can be pretty certain that Iraq does have WMD.

2. Capital punishment is morally acceptable because murderers should be put to death.

3. Euthanasia is wrong because it interferes with the natural dying process. We should wait until it is our time to die.

4. I’m not surprised you’re arguing that hate speech should not be banned on college campuses. After all, you’re one of the most hateful, racist, and insensitive people I’ve ever met. Why, you couldn’t care lessabout the effect of hate speech on its intended victims.

5. I support racial profiling and the questioning of all Arabs by security officials in airports. Remember, it was Arabs who blew up the Twin Trade Towers. They just can’t be trusted
6. Why all this concern about the way women are treated in Afghanistan? After all, women in this country still suffer from discrimination in the workplace.

7. My parents used to get into arguments all the time, and they ended up getting divorced. Logic teaches people how to make arguments. Therefore, if you want a happy marriage, you should stay away from
logic.

8. “The bullying and humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraid is, as George W. Bush said, ‘a strain on our country’s honor and our country’s reputation’ . . . . but let us also recognize what this scandal is not. There is a large difference between forcing prisoners to strip and submit to hazing at Abu Ghraib prison and the sort of things routinely done under Saddam Hussein. This is a country where mass tortures, mass murders and mass graves were, until the arrival of the U.S. Army, a way of life.”

9. It is morally wrong to cause pain to another person. Therefore, dentists are immoral people.

10. My philosophy professor doesn’t think that the loss of animal and plant species due to the destruction of rain forests is going to permanently upset the balance of nature. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to continue clearing rain forests for cattle grazing.

11. “Soldiers at Fort Carson, Colorado, have been told that if they don’t re-up [reenlist] to 2007 they will be shipped pronto for Iraq.”

12. So you’re going to argue in class that alcohol should be banned on campus. Well, this is the last time we’re going to ask you to go out with us on the weekend.

13. How can you be in favor of human cloning? After all, you’re a Catholic and the church supports a ban on all human cloning.

14. Terri Schiavo’s physicians were unable to come up with any evidence that she had any change of recovery from her persistent vegetative state. Therefore, she is clearly brain-dead and, in such cases, it is morally acceptable to detach her feeding tube.1. Equivocation—a key term shifts meaning during the course of an argument.
2. Appeal to Force—Force, threat of force, or intimidation is used to coerce our
opponents into accepting our conclusion.
3. Abusive—We attach our opponent’s character rather than address his or her
conclusion.
4. Circumstantial—We argue that our opponent should accept a particular position
because of his or her lifestyle or membership in a particular group.
5. Appeal to inappropriate authority—The testimony of someone who is an authority in
a different field is used as support for our conclusion.
6. Popular appeal—The opinion of the majority is used as support for our conclusion.
7. Hasty generalization—Our conclusion is based on atypical cases.
8. Accident—We apply a generally accepted rule to an atypical case where the rule is
inappropriate.
9. Ignorance—We argue that a certain position is true because it hasn’t been proven false
or that it is false because it hasn’t been proven true.
10. Begging the Question—The premise and conclusion are different wordings of the
same proposition.
11. Irrelevant conclusion—Our argument is directed at a conclusion different from the one
under discussion.
12. Naturalistic—We argue from what is to what ought to be the case.
13. Appeal to tradition—We argue that something is moral because it is traditional

 

[Math Is Hard]

Can you show some work, please? We can't do your homework for you.

 

[Demystifier]

I know it will not really help him, but I'll do it for fun.

1. Ignorance
2. Begging the Question
3. Naturalistic
4. Circumstantial
5. Hasty generalization
6. Irrelevant conclusion
7. Equivocation
8. Irrelevant conclusion
9. Accident
10. Appeal to inappropriate authority
11. Appeal to Force
12. Irrelevant conclusion
13. Circumstantial
14. Ignorance

 

[FlexGunship]

I know it will not really help him, but I'll do it for fun.

1. Ignorance
2. Begging the Question
3. Naturalistic
4. Circumstantial
5. Hasty generalization
6. Irrelevant conclusion
7. Equivocation
8. Irrelevant conclusion
9. Accident
10. Appeal to inappropriate authority
11. Appeal to Force
12. Irrelevant conclusion
13. Circumstantial
14. Ignorance

I came up with the same except for (3) which I said was "Appeal to Tradition."

 

[LudusRex]

.
14. Ad hominem—We attack the person rather than the argument.
I have been trained to rely on evidence and logical reasoning to support conclusions and arguments. In the cases presented, there are several fallacies being used that go against the principles of scientific thinking.

1. The first argument uses the fallacy of hasty generalization, assuming that just because the United Nations inspectors were unable to prove that Iraq did not have WMD, it must mean that Iraq does indeed have them. This is a faulty generalization based on incomplete evidence.

2. The second argument commits the fallacy of begging the question, assuming that capital punishment is morally acceptable because murderers should be put to death. This is circular reasoning and does not provide a logical basis for the conclusion.

3. The third argument uses the fallacy of appeal to nature, assuming that euthanasia is wrong because it interferes with the natural dying process. This ignores the complex ethical considerations surrounding end-of-life decisions and reduces the issue to a simplistic view of what is considered "natural."

4. The fourth argument commits the fallacy of ad hominem, attacking the person rather than addressing the argument. The speaker's character or intentions do not determine the validity of their argument.

5. The fifth argument uses the fallacy of hasty generalization, assuming that all Arabs can't be trusted based on the actions of a few individuals. This is a dangerous stereotype and ignores the diversity within any group of people.

6. The sixth argument uses the fallacy of relative privation, suggesting that we should not be concerned about the treatment of women in Afghanistan because there are still issues of discrimination in other countries. This ignores the fact that both issues are important and should be addressed.

7. The seventh argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma, assuming that using logic in a marriage will lead to an unhappy relationship. This is a false choice and ignores the benefits of using critical thinking skills in any relationship.

8. The eighth argument uses the fallacy of relative privation, suggesting that the actions at Abu Ghraib are not as bad as those under Saddam Hussein. This ignores the fact that both are morally wrong and should be condemned.

9. The ninth argument uses the fallacy of straw man, misrepresenting the opposing view by suggesting that dentists are immoral simply because they cause pain. This ignores the complexities of dentistry and the benefits it brings to people's health.

10. The