Identifying Fallacies in the News

In Writing Arguments, it is stated that a fallacy that appeals to ignorance is one that presents evidence to the audience, and expects them to believe it, even though they are incapable of judging or examining (Ramage 426). In the Letters to the Editor section of the Baltimore Sun paper, the topic of discussion is whether it is time to legalize the union of gay's. In a letter rejecting gay marriage, Betty Papson writes, "The last 30 years have seen significant deterioration of the nuclear family. At the same time, there has been a significant rise in sexual abuse, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, drug use and the like" (2). While this argument seems very influential, the reader has no reason to believe that those facts are true. The writer is proving their article with a fact that the audience is incapable of evaluating. The evidence used to support her argument, is significant, but there is no way of knowing if it is factual.

Slippery Slope

A slippery slope fallacy is one that occurs when the speaker or writer fears that once they take a step in a certain direction they do not like, that they have to keep going (Ramage 433). In a slippery slope fallacy, the consequences of an action are exaggerated, usually in an attempt to scare the reader (Lunsford 388). A recent Letters to the Editor section in the New York Post discusses the results of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Joseph Briglia writes in stating that it is a Muslim's responsibility to claim back his land. He continues, and makes a fallacy when he writes, "If the Palestinian's are given half of Jerusalem for a capital they'll erase everything Jewish there. Next, they'll attempt to take over all of Jerusalem and then all of Israel" (2).This statement is a slippery slope fallacy, because the writer began with a simple exaggeration, but it appears that in order to make a point, he quickly supports his initial exaggeration with further exaggerations, ultimately making the claim that the Palestinian's will take over Jerusalem and Israel.

Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalizationfallacy is one in which a conclusion is reached based on limited, or insufficient evidence (Ramage 434). Hasty generalization fallacies also form the basis on which stereotypes are created. If a few people in a group are observed acting in a particular manner, then all the people in that group must be that way (Lunsford 395). In the Letters to the Editor section of the Village Voice the topic of discussion regards who deserves the blame for Hurricane Katrina. The writer of the letter, Sunsara Taylor, opens her first paragraph with a blatant fallacy, "The Bush regime charscalex100 is responsible for mass murder by criminal neglect in the Gulf coast. It is exactly appropriate, while mourning, to hold it responsible for this needless death and suffering" (1). The writer is guilty of a hasty generalization because, they are making a final conclusion about who is responsible for the hurricane, and are putting all the blame on President Bush without evidence to back it up.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem fallacy attacks the character of the arguer as opposed to the argument itself (Ramage 428). The theory behind ad hominem fallacies is based on the belief that if the credibility of your opponents is destroyed, then you destroy their integrity, or at least distract them from the argument at hand (Lunsford 394). In an interview between controversial film maker Michael Moore and television reporter Bill O'Reilly, a heated discussion took place. The topic being discussed is whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary. Michael Moore does not do much to point out what he believes was necessary, but instead he says, "Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don't know a worse..." (3). Moore immediately attacks Bush's honesty rather then debating the issue at hand. He calls Bush a liar and in doing so attacks Bush's character. His assault on Bush's character does not show his opinion on whether the war in Iraq was necessary.

Works Cited

Briglia, Joesph. Letter. New York Post 20 September 2005: 2

Lunsford, Andrea A., Ruszkiewicz, John J. Everything's an Argument. Boston: Bedford/ St.

Martin's, 2004.

O'Reilly, Bill. Personal Interview. 29 July 2004.

Papson, Betty. Letter. Baltimore Sun 20 September 2005: 1

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., Johnson, June. Writing Arguments; A Rhetoric with

Readings. New York: Longman, 2004.

Taylor, Sunsara. Letter. Village Voice 20 September 2005: 1