Bradford Nicholl
July 25, 2013
Readers of an article can often be fooled into being convinced of an
argument as a result of fallacies. However, if noticed, one will
realize that these fallacies do not support an argument, but rather,
they can be examined to show weakness in an argument. In the article,
“Revamp Immigration,” by the editors of Contra Costa Times,
arguments for the support of the implantation of a guest-worker system
for immigrants to legally enter the country to work without permanently
becoming a resident. By uncovering the fallacies in this article, one
can observe that the arguments for the guest-worker system are not very
supportive, causing strong disagreement with its implementation. The
editors formed these sneaky, weakened arguments through the fallacies of
post hoc (false cause), hasty generalizations, appeal to pity, and
false dichotomy.
The editors of the article use an instance of a post hoc, or false cause, fallacy in their article, which provides a weak argument that should not be a persuading force to readers. Describing a group of illegal immigrants who suffocated in a truck while crossing the border, the editors explains, “if the big-rig victims had reached their destinations safely, they would have found jobs in the United States in a variety of industries that depend on undocumented workers.” In other words, they are declaring that these illegal immigrants would have gone on to be successful in locating a job if they had survived. The editors are listing a cause, being that the illegal immigrants survive, and an event, being their success in obtaining jobs. This is a post hoc fallacy because the argument has not shown us that the one caused the other. There is no proof whatsoever that they would succeed in finding a job as a result of surviving. In fact, with unemployment so high and large competition, it would seem rather difficult.
There are two instances in which the editors have used hasty generalizations, forming assumptions of a particular group without evidence to support it, providing a weak argument. The first case, they generalize, “the terrorist attacks changed the way the United States viewed all foreigners as potential terrorists.” The editors are saying this view of Americans from opinion but do not support this claim with any data. This cannot be used to persuade readers to implement the guest-worker system because this argument was created from opinion, and is not fact. In the second case, the editors say, “we see [undocumented workers] every day and we benefit from their labor. They harvest our food, clean our offices at night, fix our hotel beds, and work in the kitchens of some of our fanciest restaurants.” Here, she is making the assumptions of where the undocumented immigrants work. These are stereotypes of illegal immigrants, and again, are a matter of opinion. Thus, without a premise, they cannot be used to support the guest-worker program.
There are a few occurrences of the fallacy, appeal to pity, with the hopes of stirring emotion in readers to open the doors to illegal immigrants; however, these appeals to pity offer information that is not logically relevant. For example, the editors state at the beginning, “The horrific deaths in Texas of 19 illegal immigrants who suffocated while being transported in locked big rigs, puts an exclamation mark o the urgency for change in the United States' immigration policy. They are suggesting that the United States needs to change its immigration policy with the premise that some illegal immigrants suffocated while trying to illegally come into the United States. Logically, the conclusion to change immigration policy is not backed up with the evidence they offer, but rather, they are attempting to cause pity from the readers to persuade them. The next example occurs near the end, quoting, “we have tightened our border security with more guards and high-tech detection devices, but as the Texas tragedy shows us, illegal crossings with their accompanying risks are still occurring.” The editors are once again arising the issue of the illegal immigrants who have died attempting to cross into the United States and how they still occur even with the increased security. They are trying to cause an appeal to pity for the dead in order to gain support for the introduction of the guest-worker system, although the deaths and security are not relevant to changing the immigration policy, it only shows they died trying to break that policy. When examined, these cases of an appeal to pity fallacy proves to create a weak argument that does not support the conclusion and provide reason to change the immigration policy.
Additionally, there is an instance of false dichotomy, a fallacy which forms a weak argument because only two choices are given, in which one is then eliminated by the editors. They argue, “with the increase emphasis on security, it is better to know who is crossing the border, on what day, and where they're working than to continue to force them to come in the dark of night in suffocating truck trailers.” The editors only give the two options, being aware of the illegal immigrants or having the immigrants suffer, in which the latter is then struck down. This creates a false dichotomy fallacy, where they basically control the possible situations, giving you only two to chose from. However, in reality, there are many possible situations, not just the sad one they offer or the one that supports their guest-worker program. In addition, with this sadness, it can also be seen as an additional appeal to pity fallacy, as once again, the editors are bringing up the suffocating illegal immigrants crossing the border. Their deaths have nothing to do with the immigration policy, only showing that they violated it.
Through the use of the fallacies: post hoc, hasty generalizations, appeal to pity, and false dichotomy, the editors created very weak arguments to support their claim that the United States immigration policy should adapt a guest-worker program. Their arguments were so unsupported that they are easily disagreed with and do not give reasoning to their claim. Fallacies should be located and examined to determine the credibility on arguments presented to readers. Do not be fooled.
July 25, 2013
Fallacies presented within “Revamp Immigration”
The editors of the article use an instance of a post hoc, or false cause, fallacy in their article, which provides a weak argument that should not be a persuading force to readers. Describing a group of illegal immigrants who suffocated in a truck while crossing the border, the editors explains, “if the big-rig victims had reached their destinations safely, they would have found jobs in the United States in a variety of industries that depend on undocumented workers.” In other words, they are declaring that these illegal immigrants would have gone on to be successful in locating a job if they had survived. The editors are listing a cause, being that the illegal immigrants survive, and an event, being their success in obtaining jobs. This is a post hoc fallacy because the argument has not shown us that the one caused the other. There is no proof whatsoever that they would succeed in finding a job as a result of surviving. In fact, with unemployment so high and large competition, it would seem rather difficult.
There are two instances in which the editors have used hasty generalizations, forming assumptions of a particular group without evidence to support it, providing a weak argument. The first case, they generalize, “the terrorist attacks changed the way the United States viewed all foreigners as potential terrorists.” The editors are saying this view of Americans from opinion but do not support this claim with any data. This cannot be used to persuade readers to implement the guest-worker system because this argument was created from opinion, and is not fact. In the second case, the editors say, “we see [undocumented workers] every day and we benefit from their labor. They harvest our food, clean our offices at night, fix our hotel beds, and work in the kitchens of some of our fanciest restaurants.” Here, she is making the assumptions of where the undocumented immigrants work. These are stereotypes of illegal immigrants, and again, are a matter of opinion. Thus, without a premise, they cannot be used to support the guest-worker program.
There are a few occurrences of the fallacy, appeal to pity, with the hopes of stirring emotion in readers to open the doors to illegal immigrants; however, these appeals to pity offer information that is not logically relevant. For example, the editors state at the beginning, “The horrific deaths in Texas of 19 illegal immigrants who suffocated while being transported in locked big rigs, puts an exclamation mark o the urgency for change in the United States' immigration policy. They are suggesting that the United States needs to change its immigration policy with the premise that some illegal immigrants suffocated while trying to illegally come into the United States. Logically, the conclusion to change immigration policy is not backed up with the evidence they offer, but rather, they are attempting to cause pity from the readers to persuade them. The next example occurs near the end, quoting, “we have tightened our border security with more guards and high-tech detection devices, but as the Texas tragedy shows us, illegal crossings with their accompanying risks are still occurring.” The editors are once again arising the issue of the illegal immigrants who have died attempting to cross into the United States and how they still occur even with the increased security. They are trying to cause an appeal to pity for the dead in order to gain support for the introduction of the guest-worker system, although the deaths and security are not relevant to changing the immigration policy, it only shows they died trying to break that policy. When examined, these cases of an appeal to pity fallacy proves to create a weak argument that does not support the conclusion and provide reason to change the immigration policy.
Additionally, there is an instance of false dichotomy, a fallacy which forms a weak argument because only two choices are given, in which one is then eliminated by the editors. They argue, “with the increase emphasis on security, it is better to know who is crossing the border, on what day, and where they're working than to continue to force them to come in the dark of night in suffocating truck trailers.” The editors only give the two options, being aware of the illegal immigrants or having the immigrants suffer, in which the latter is then struck down. This creates a false dichotomy fallacy, where they basically control the possible situations, giving you only two to chose from. However, in reality, there are many possible situations, not just the sad one they offer or the one that supports their guest-worker program. In addition, with this sadness, it can also be seen as an additional appeal to pity fallacy, as once again, the editors are bringing up the suffocating illegal immigrants crossing the border. Their deaths have nothing to do with the immigration policy, only showing that they violated it.
Through the use of the fallacies: post hoc, hasty generalizations, appeal to pity, and false dichotomy, the editors created very weak arguments to support their claim that the United States immigration policy should adapt a guest-worker program. Their arguments were so unsupported that they are easily disagreed with and do not give reasoning to their claim. Fallacies should be located and examined to determine the credibility on arguments presented to readers. Do not be fooled.
No comments:
Post a Comment