Christy Freeman

INT 322-90-131
Fallacies in Reasoning and Critical Analysis
November 30, 2013
Denise Snowden Langley
Fallacies can be found in all aspects of life. From everyday conversation to persuasive
speeches to books and papers, it is possible to find fallacies. A fallacy is defined as a reasoning
trick. Fallacies are used to try to persuade the audience to accept a certain conclusion (Brown &
Kelley, 2012). There are a variety of fallacies out there, varying in the way that the information
is presented. The passages for this assignment are full of fallacies.
The first passage contains the ad hominem fallacy, the appeal to popularity fallacy and
the either or fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is when the author attacks a person rather than
his/her reasons. This is evident when the author states that the surgeon general is a victim of the
AIDS hysteria. The author does not address the surgeon generals valid reasons, but rather state
that he is media influenced. The appeal to popularity fallacy is evident because the author claims
that sexuality has always been reserved for the family. The author is trying to appeal to a large
group, and assuming that the beliefs of the large group are correct. Finally, the either or fallacy
is evident because the author only addresses two options either agree with the surgeon general
and teach children sex education as early as third grade, or leave sex education up to the family.
There is no in between options, it is one or the other.
The second passage contains the appeal to emotions fallacy, the either or fallacy, the ad
hominem fallacy, the searching for the perfect solution fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy and the
begging the question fallacy. This author uses the appeal to emotions fallacy by talking about
fear of the pit bulls and also by introducing his/her own pit bull to try and make the reader feel
sympathy for the pit bulls. The either or fallacy is evident because the author only gives the

options of banning pit bulls or not banning pit bulls. The ad hominem fallacy is obvious when
the author addresses anyone who would support a pit bull ban idiots. This is attacking those
that support the ban without addressing their reasons. The searching for a perfect solution
fallacy is noticeable when the author states that there will still be dog attacks even with a pit bull
ban put in place. Therefore, even with a pit bull ban, the problem will still be evident; therefore
a pit bull ban should not be implemented. The slippery slope fallacy is shown when the author
concludes that a ban on all dogs will be the next step after a pit bull ban. The author is tricking
the reader into believing that this is possible if a pit bull ban is set in place. Finally, the begging
the question fallacy is present because the author assumes that a ban of all dogs will be next if a
pit bull ban is passed. The author assumes that this reasoning will result in an all dog ban, which
is not necessarily true.
The third passage contains the straw person fallacy, the either or fallacy, the ad hominem
fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, and the appeal to emotion fallacy. The straw person fallacy is
evident when the author distorts the views of countries that do not have the same policy as
America. The other countries may not in fact support murderers, rapists, thieves and antidemocrats as the author tries to point out. The other countries may have reasons for the way they
have their policy on terrorism set up. The author is not taking these reasons into account. The
either or fallacy is evident because Bill and Taylor dont address any other option than siding
with America or not siding with America. Bill especially uses this fallacy when he states that
other countries with different policies are in support of terrorists. The ad hominem fallacy is
obvious when Taylor replies to Bill and states that Bills view is one that he would expect from
someone who has relatives who work at the CIA. Rather than addressing Bills reasoning,
Taylor is attacking Bill himself. The slippery slope fallacy is found when Taylor states that the

United States will have no allies if Bills reasoning is correct. This statement insinuates that the
undesirable result of having no allies will become a reality if we label countries based on
differing terrorism policies. Finally, the appeals to emotion fallacy is found in the third passage.
The fact that the passage is related to terrorism can affect peoples thoughts. Patriotism and fear
are huge emotions associated with terrorism. The topic alone can cause people to be influenced
and tricked to agree with what the author is saying.
It is important to be able to distinguish when a fallacy is present. By using skills of
critical thinking, it is possible to locate and recognize fallacies. This will allow the listener or
reader to differentiate between valid arguments and those which are surrounded by fallacies. If
people do not recognize fallacies, they can be persuaded to agree with thoughts and ideas which
may not be clearly explained and justified by the arguments at hand. By being aware of these
situations, one can use his or her own beliefs to form a well-rounded and unbiased opinion.

Reference
Browne, N. M and Keeley, S.M. (2012). Asking the Right Questions: A guide to critical
thinking, 10th (ed).
Pearson Education Inc.