Fallacy Analysis

Description

Carefully review this expanded argument from Chapter 6:

Bill: Countries that harbor terrorists who want to destroy the United States must be considered enemies of the United States. Any country that does not relinquish terrorists to the American justice system is clearly on the side of the terrorists. This sort of action means that the leaders of these countries do not wish to see justice done to the terrorists and care more about hiding murderers, rapists, thieves, and anti-democrats.

Taylor: That’s exactly the kind of argument that I would expect from someone who has relatives who have worked for the CIA. But it seems to me that once you start labeling countries that disagree with America on policy as enemies, then eventually almost all countries will be considered our enemies, and we will be left with no allies.

Bill: If that’s the case, too bad. America stands for freedom, for democracy, and for truth. So it can stand against the world. Besides, the United States should be able to convince countries hostile to the United States of the error of their ways because our beliefs have a strong religious foundation.

Taylor: Do you really think most religious people are in favor of war? A Gallup poll last week found that 75 percent of highly religious people didn’t think we should go to war with countries harboring terrorists.

Bill: I think that’s an overestimate. How many people did they survey?

Taylor: I’m not sure. But getting back to your original issue, the biggest problem with a tough stand against countries that harbor terrorists is that such a policy is not going to wipe out terrorism in the world.

Bill: Why do you keep defending the terrorists? I thought you were a patriot. Besides this is a democracy, and most Americans agree with me.

To Begin Our Analysis, We Need to First Break Down the Issues, Conclusions, and Reasons for Each of the Two Speakers:

Issue: How tough a stand should the U.S. take against countries that don’t support our policies on terrorism?

Bill’s Conclusion: The U.S. should take a hard-line stance against countries that do not support our policies.

Taylor’s conclusion:

The U.S. should not take a tough stand against countries that harbor terrorists.

Bill’s first reasons: (1) Countries that harbor terrorists must be considered enemies of the U.S. Such an action means that the leaders don’t want to see justice done to terrorists and care more about hiding murderers, rapists, etc.

Taylor’s first reasons: (2) That’s what I would expect from someone with relatives working for the CIA. (3) Once you start labeling countries that disagree with U.S. policy as enemies, then eventually almost all countries will be considered our enemies.

Bill’s next reason: (4) America can handle that. It stands for freedom, for democracy and for truth and thus can stand against the world. (5) America should be able to convince countries hostile to it of the error of their ways because of the strong religious foundation of its beliefs.

Taylor’s next reason: (6) But most religious people don’t think we should go to war with countries harboring terrorists.

Bill’s next reason: (7) That’s an overestimate. How many people did they survey?

Taylor’s last reason: (8) I’m not sure. (9) Biggest problem with a tough stand is that it’s not going to wipe out terrorism.

Bill’s last reason: (10) How can you defend the terrorists; I thought you were a patriot. (11) This is a democracy, most Americans agree with me.

What are the fallacies in the above reasoning? As we ask the question, we want to be considering to what extent the reasons mention specific advantages or disadvantages of taking a tough stand. There are at least nine fallacies in this exchange. Identify at least five of them – naming the fallacy and explaining where it appears. Submit your response.