How do I change this logical fallacie into a logical statement?
January 10, 2011 - 5:03 pm
I need to chane this logical fallacie into a logical statement, PLEASE HELP.
"If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummer".
you can’t that’s why it’s fallacy.
Fallacies are used when you want to get a shine of logic polish onto a demagogy.
the choices present in the scenario are not all black and white, or all or nothing.
ban of hummers does not impose any need for future bans of other cars.
NOT banning the hummers does not force the goverment to NOT to ban other cars. similarly BANNING hummers does not force goverment to BAN other cars. separate issues, that are not to be brought into the light IF you are a Hummer dealer.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
We should ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment.
or,
We should not ban Hummers because there is still a military market for them.
References :
January 10th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
The fallacy is your Reductio Ad Absurdum comes to one ultimate conclusion, when in fact there are many more logical conclusions.
References :
January 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
It’s a slippery slope argument, and also an appeal to future consequences.
You change it by pointing out that Hummers and their ilk are not as bad environmentally as all other passenger cars, and thus can be treated separately.
References :
January 11th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Change Hummers to intergalactic milkshake machines, and you have yourself a logical statement.
(Slippery Slope Fallacy)
Also: pay attention in class…
References :
January 11th, 2011 at 12:49 am
you can’t that’s why it’s fallacy.
Fallacies are used when you want to get a shine of logic polish onto a demagogy.
the choices present in the scenario are not all black and white, or all or nothing.
ban of hummers does not impose any need for future bans of other cars.
NOT banning the hummers does not force the goverment to NOT to ban other cars. similarly BANNING hummers does not force goverment to BAN other cars. separate issues, that are not to be brought into the light IF you are a Hummer dealer.
References :
and it’s a Chinese car now, anyway.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:01 am
Hummers are less efficient than some other vehicles.
References :
January 11th, 2011 at 1:35 am
First, it should read "if the government bans Hummers."
Then the next part is problematic, to say "eventually the government will ban all cars," is not a statement that you can prove, it’s a fallacy. You would have to offer evidence that the government is banning all cars.
You could say, " Eventually the government MIGHT ban OTHER cars."
And finally, when you say "So we should not ban the Hummer," you might want to present some other evidence. Are Hummers actually bad for the environment? Do they have any value besides the negative ones?
LOL — It can get tricky when you’re trying to write a completely fallacy-free statement, can’t it? And please note that using "If," "might," "perhaps," and "Possibly" in a statement weakens your argument.
References :
January 11th, 2011 at 1:40 am
Don’t worry about it. General Motors, through their financial ineptitude, has discontinued production of the Hummer.
References :
January 11th, 2011 at 2:26 am
You need premises and conclusions going on. This sort of skips that and goes right into fear-mongering rhetoric, so it’s tough to morph it into a logical statement.
But I guess you could phrase this one like.
premise: Banning hummers will lead to the ban of all vehicles.
premise: The ban of all vehicles would be bad.
conclusions.
-banning hummers is bad.
There’s not actually any logical error there, just a ridiculous first premise.
So to fix it, you need to fix the premise… but the premise is so silly I’m not sure what similar idea you’re supposed to replace it with.
References :