I decided to go with content fallacies. Even though I had a tough time understand the way the book describes content fallacies, I believe that content fallacies are when arguments are bad ones. Normally, when an argument is bad, you then have to analyze everything and determine weather each piece is a strong or weak statement. For content fallacies, it is always easy to tell right of the bat that the argument is a weak one. I will use the slippery slope idea, which is defined in the book as, (this is reasoning in a chain with conditionals where at least one of them is false or dubious), for my example. “ Schools should not make uniforms mandatory, because then they will start controlling everything little thing a student does.”
The conclusion has no way of backing up the claim because there is no given reason that that would happen., making this example a content fallacy.
The conclusion has no way of backing up the claim because there is no given reason that that would happen., making this example a content fallacy.
Man, I had a hard time like you to understand content fallacies. You made it clear in understanding that content fallacies are when arguments are not good. Your example made it clear to me how the slippery slope idea works. Like how schools control students by just making them wear uniforms. It's true that the conclusion isn't supported at all. It just gives an opinion of a statement that could be considered false. Thanks for making content fallacies clear, I found it hella helpful to me.
ReplyDelete