The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom he or she assumes we cannot stop partway down the hill.Įxample: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. And that’s what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later.ĭefinition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s not enough evidence for that assumption. Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument has not shown us that one caused the other. That is, correlation is not the same thing as causation.Įxamples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later-for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that came later. This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”ĭefinition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you are claiming something big. Looking at your conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if you have given that evidence. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. So, the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving.” The argument actually supports several conclusions-” The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular-but it doesn’t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. Definition: The premises of an argument is to support a particular conclusion-but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.Įxample: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |