Ash 1

Tyler Ash
Professor Granitto
Philosophy 110 MW
5 April 2017

Fallacies Homework

In a New York Times article titled Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over

Global Fascism, author Peter Baker compares Trump's personality and accession to the

presidency to those of far right dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. Throughout the article,

Baker draws similarities between the current day political climate and the one during the early

1930s, and, in comparing Trump's nationalist rhetoric and policy positions with the Nazis, likens

his movement to fascism. A repeating theme in the article is Hitler believed in X, Trump

believes in X, therefore Trump is a Nazi. This fallacy, called a hasty generalization, is evident in

the author's comparisons of Trump and Hitler's views on immigration, as well as their bombastic

personas and populist messages. Instead of using all his arguments as a way to compare Trump

to Hitler and the Nazis, and arriving at the conclusion that they are similar, the author should

allow the reader to come to that conclusion themselves. He should also include the many

differences between Trump and the Nazi party instead of using a small number of similarities to

liken the two.

In the Time Magazine article Screens in Schools are a $60 Billion Hoax, Dr. Nicholas

Kardaras attempts to discredit the use of technology in classroom environments. A large portion

of the author's argument relies on anecdotal evidence, particularly in one paragraph where he
 Ash 2

writes, Ive worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years and have observed that

students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention

and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct

byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to

screen time correlating to increased ADHD screen addiction, increased aggression, depression,

anxiety and even psychosis.

This is an example of the false cause fallacy. In the article, Kardaras presumes that the

perceived relationship between use of technology and different types of mental disorders in

children is causal, not correlational. An easy way to fix this would be to either provide

conclusive evidence that the two are related, or eliminate that argument altogether.

During an appearance on The View, conservative political commentator Tomi Lahren

repeatedly missed the point when asked questions about Donald Trump's behavior. In one

instance, one of the women claimed that Trump is a pathological liar, and explained why it is

dangerous for someone like that to be in a position of great power. Lahren's responded by saying

that Obama had also told lies. In another situation, she attacked a woman's argument that Trump

has ties to Russia by claiming Obama had wiretapped a microwave in the Trump Tower. These

deflections are examples of missing the point because they do not address what is being asked.

Lahren could address this by sticking to the topic and not using unrelated examples as evidence.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer committed a logical fallacy at a briefing in

January. When asked about assertions made by a Politico reporter regarding intelligence leaks,
 Ash 3

Spicer dismissed the female reporter as an idiot with no real sources. This is an example of an

ad hominem abusive fallacy, because instead of attacking the reporter's argument, he attempted

to delegitimize her by attacking her as a person. To avoid this fallacy Spicer should have stuck

to the substance of the argument, and criticized her message as opposed to her intellect.

In an op-ed on Ricochet.com titled We Hold These Truths, former U.S. Senator from

Pennsylvania Rick Santorum outlines his logic for being opposed to abortion and same-sex

marriage. The title itself is an example of circular reasoning because it implies that the

correctness of the author's assertions are self-evident. In the article Santorum repeatedly

commits the appeal to tradition fallacy while arguing against the rights of homosexuals to marry.

In one part he claims that, Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a

man and woman and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all

depend on to make new life and to connect those new live to their mom and dad.

In this argument Santorum suggests that because marriage has historically been between

one man and one woman, that definition is correct. This is fallacious reasoning because tradition

is not an indicator of what is right or wrong. For example, in the United States slavery and child

prostitution were at one point legal. Today, both of those are against the law and widely

considered reprehensible. Sen. Santorum's argument does not account for the fact that cultural

and societal norms and attitudes evolve over time. Instead of claiming his position is correct

because of its context in history, he should have explained why gay marriage should be

considered wrong by the standards of today.

Ash 4