In a letter of Robert R. Raywift to Moorburg, he argues that overnight parking should be regulated as mainly it accelerates heavy traffic, causes a garage, and expedites accidents. Among these reasons, few fallacious sentences are seen.
First of all, Robert suggests agreeing with him to people by regarding them “an intelligent citizen” in a sentence mainly saying if you are an intelligent citizen, you should agree with him. This is typical way to poison the well, which enforce citizens who want to be regarded as intelligent to agree with him no matter his arguments are persuasive or fallacious.
Secondly, in addition, these is a false analogy; he mentions about that garage ownership in the city streets are illegal, so park overnight should be against the law as it is to have a garage there. Although He said it is clearly, there are no solid reasons to support his original argument seen between these arguments. While he talks about overnight parking on streets, he suggests the slim possibility that it consequently produces a garage. His arguments are lack in accurate evidences to support this analogy.
Thirdly, he argues that three important streets are packed in the afternoon rush hour, so overnight perking should be eliminated, though he originally argues perking in the night. This is irrevelent information and dosen't support his arguments at all.
Fourthly, he put begging the question, between a traffic problem and the expected deterrent effects on accidents, . In the sentence, he says that it is no doubt that overnight parking on the streets is disagreeable and bad, so it should be opposed. This supports nothing and has no evidences; it is quite natural and a common idea that something undesirable is to be opposed.
Fifthly, there is a hasty generalization in which he claims a deterrent effect on the number of accidents happening in a street proven by an experimental sign which prohibited parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.. Although his experiment took place for just one day, and the result turned to be that no accident happened, he compared it with the number of over four hundred accidents which happened on the street during the past year. This is a hasty generalization because the number of accidents for one day and the one for one year cannot be an accurate comparison.
Finally, in a sentence, he points out fault of his opponents by creating new mianing of "safe", which is simply a equivocation, saying they do not know the meaning of "safe". In the sentence, he insists that “safe” means " there is no possibility of accidents.
Secondly, in addition, these is a false analogy; he mentions about that garage ownership in the city streets are illegal, so park overnight should be against the law as it is to have a garage there. Although He said it is clearly, there are no solid reasons to support his original argument seen between these arguments. While he talks about overnight parking on streets, he suggests the slim possibility that it consequently produces a garage. His arguments are lack in accurate evidences to support this analogy.
Thirdly, he argues that three important streets are packed in the afternoon rush hour, so overnight perking should be eliminated, though he originally argues perking in the night. This is irrevelent information and dosen't support his arguments at all.
Fourthly, he put begging the question, between a traffic problem and the expected deterrent effects on accidents, . In the sentence, he says that it is no doubt that overnight parking on the streets is disagreeable and bad, so it should be opposed. This supports nothing and has no evidences; it is quite natural and a common idea that something undesirable is to be opposed.
Fifthly, there is a hasty generalization in which he claims a deterrent effect on the number of accidents happening in a street proven by an experimental sign which prohibited parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.. Although his experiment took place for just one day, and the result turned to be that no accident happened, he compared it with the number of over four hundred accidents which happened on the street during the past year. This is a hasty generalization because the number of accidents for one day and the one for one year cannot be an accurate comparison.
Finally, in a sentence, he points out fault of his opponents by creating new mianing of "safe", which is simply a equivocation, saying they do not know the meaning of "safe". In the sentence, he insists that “safe” means " there is no possibility of accidents.
No comments:
Post a Comment