A logical fallacy occurs when a person makes a
conclusion based on an illogical form of reasoning. Adopting a position in an
argument that has false premises constitutes an error of reasoning. Formal
fallacies occur in deductive arguments where a false conclusion is drawn from
true premises. On the other hand, informal fallacies occur in inductive
arguments where assumptions generate a conclusion that is not entirely satisfactory.
The article published on the U.S. News website regarding Democrats’ opinion to
take away guns from registered gun holders is fallacious.
The author emphasizes on passing the background
test as an essential requirement before issuing applicants with licenses to own
firearms (Cary). Similarly, the writer supports
the argument that having a record of committing violent crimes is a legitimate
reason to deny individuals their constitutional right to own firearms.
Furthermore, the article relates many mass killings to mentally ill shooters (Cary). As such, it suggests incorporating records for
those suffering from mental illness on the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System managed by FBI (Cary). According to
the article, integrating mental states of Americans on the website plays a
significant role in denying mentally challenged individuals access to guns.
Arguments provided in the article constitute informal
fallacies including individuals’ mental health status on the platform reduces
instances of mentally sick people obtaining guns, which cuts of mass killings
resulting from such cases. However, the premise is not certain since not all
shootings are carried out by mentally-challenged people. Similarly, using past
records of crimes as a basis for denying such participants licenses to own
firearms is fallacious. It is possible that such individuals reformed and are
bound to enjoy their constitutional right. The errors mentioned above
compromise conclusions adopted by the author; hence, it is fallacious.
Cary, Mary. "It's True, Democrats Want To Take Your Guns." Usnews.com. U.S. News & World Report LP, 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 5 Feb. 2016
Ahmed, you summarize the article well, and offer a good sense of what logical fallacies are. What is missing here is what specific fallacy the article is using and how that fallacy affects the argument in the article. In instructions did ask you to cite a specific fallacy with a bibliographic entry for the citation.
ReplyDeleteAhmad, you did a really good job summarizing the article and describing what a logical fallacy is. It really helped me understand more of what we were supposed to do. You also did a really good job with all of your citations and making sure that everything was cited correctly. Over all you did a really good job!
ReplyDeleteOh Ahmad. I think I should read your blog before I start writing my own blog. It is super helpful for me to understand the material article. Nice done! Do you know I spent at least two hours to read the article and tried to understand it? You did a really nice summary of the article, also indicates you did hard working on that. However, you missed the most important part - pick an article from a newspaper and point out a logical fallacy and explain how this logical fallacy affected the article. It is very interesting that Xinfei puts a lot of logical fallacies without description but you put a lot of description without logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteHi, Ahmad. You did well of this blog and I really like your structure. It looks comfortable and I may see what you wanted to express in each paragraph. The topic you chosen is gun control, which really hot in the U.S every year.
ReplyDeleteYou explained what the logical fallacy is very clear in your first paragraph. Then, you introduced background event of your news. Finally, you gave your own analysis of this article nicely. I agreed with your opinions. My advice is that focus more on which logical fallacy this author did and why you think he/she did these logical fallacies.
Ahmad, I really liked the way you chose to approach this blog and it really showed me another side of fallacies that I did not understand. I was not able to understand the goal to this blog post until I read all the blogs as well as yours and it really opened my eyes on to how they work. It would of been nice to see you us an exact example from the article you chose. You had a strong argument but it would of been another strong point to the argument that you propose. Other than that I really liked the approach you took and I learned a lot good job.
ReplyDelete