This should be rather simple for someone who knows fallacies. There
are only two arguments. Instructions are below.
Read the arguments given below. Each of the arguments contains at
least three fallacies. Identify all of the fallacies (more than three
most likely) by name and type. Here's how:
1. First, "block" [put in brackets] all of the sentences (there may be
one or more than one) that contain the fallacy.
2. Then write a letters ("A") (?B?) ?.
3. Finally, at the bottom of the page, write the name of the fallacies
and identify them by type (relevance, evidence). Here is an example.
There are many people out there who claim that we should not put
suspected terrorists on trial in secret military tribunals. They say
that suspected terrorists deserve to be treated like human beings and
should be protected by the same rights that give everyone else open
and public trials. [(A) Only an unpatriotic person would criticize
secret military tribunals. Therefore, no one should pay attention to
A. Fallacy of Relevance: Abusive Ad Hominem.
To the Editors:
Jack Mallory wants us to believe that abortion is a morally
permissible option for women to make when they are pregnant. He is, in
other words, pro-choice. But, unfortunately, Mr. Mallory?s position is
clearly in error. Not only must we consider that Mr. Mallory himself
has ties to NOW (National Organization of Women) but he is also a card
carrying member of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Both
organizations have long sought to undermine the basic values of
Now Mr. Mallory claims that women have a right to control their
bodies, and to choose whether or not to have a child. But, this is
tantamount to saying that women have an absolute right to do whatever
they want with or to their bodies. But, we obviously do not allow
this. We do not allow women to sell their bodies in the street as
prostitutes, nor do we allow women to sell their organs. Further, if a
women used her body to harm another person, no one would say that that
was her right!
Finally, we must remember, that abortion has never been considered a
?moral choice? in the long history of our civilization. For all of
these reasons, Jack Mallory?s position is wrong.
To the Editors:
As you have recently reported in your paper (Nov 30th) scientists have
finally cloned the first human embryo. At no other time has humanity
faced such a threat. What harm, you may ask, can there be in the
cloning of a single human embryo? It may begin in innocence and with
good intentions, but this is merely the beginning. Soon people will be
cloning themselves for spare parts, then we will have a whole industry
pumping out clones to be the slaves of the ?originals.? Then, finally,
there will be ?clone farms? the world over, and no one will be an
original ?there will be no more individuality, we will all be the
This, my friends, is the choice that lies before us in this dark hour.
We must choose to live either in a world where individuality and
creativity are cherished, or a world where everyone is a clone and
none are individuals.
Now, I realize that some people may say that cloning human embryos has
value for discovering cures for many genetic diseases. But there are
many experts who disagree with this. And these experts are probably
right (why else would they be experts)! So, we must ban cloning.
Again, please identify all fallacies it the two included arguments.
There are more than 3 per each argument.