Fallacies in "Letter to Editor" - Yuna Tsushima

 In the “Letter to Editor”, the writer of this letter claims that there should not be any vehicles parked in the street from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.  He shows us some reasons why he wants no parking in the streets in this period.

Although he provides many reasons to prove his opinion, we can find some problems in his argument. I found 4 fallacies such as “poisoning the well”, “false cause”, “begging question” and “personal attack”.

First of all, the author uses the words “intelligent citizen” repeatedly in this letter. This is a fallacy called “poisoning the well” because he implies that those who oppose his idea are not intelligent by saying that wise and educated people must support his opinion. Also he believes that the main cause of heavy traffic is the cars parked in the streets and refers to the traffic jam in the afternoon as the bad effect of overnight parking. He says that if there’s no overnight parking, the traffic will be much better. Parking in the street may be a part of causes of heavy traffic, but it would not have so much effect if we make a law forbid to park in the street from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Therefore I think this is a “false cause”. In addition, the author states that parking in the street should be banned because it is absolutely trouble and bad thing. This is “begging question” because he just says it is very bad, no one will support because it is really bad, there is no logical reason. Finally, he refers to the opponents’ opinion. The people who oppose his idea says that the present state of parking is not so dangerous but safe. He against this idea by saying the people who say that it is safe don’t understand the meaning of the word ”safe” precisely. . This is “personal attack” because he does not provide any reason to against the opponents’ idea but just says they don’t know how dangerous to park in the street.

These are the fallacies I found in the letter. His argument is not so persuasive because of these kind of fallacies and some other weak argument which do not have enough reason or fact.