Critical Thinking Examples II: 2018

Personal Attack Ad Hominem

Trump may very well be responding with substance to Jeb Bush's argument's/observations, but this is prefaced by a clear ad hominem attack.

This is a nice example of why one needs to separate Logical Force from Rhetorical Force.

Perfectionist Fallacy--But Worse!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Notice that the Vatican, under a very charitable interpretation, is saying something like this:

P1: Condoms won't stop AIDS in all cases.
___________________________________
C : Condoms shouldn't be used at all (abstinence is the only reasonable alternative).

This is an example of a sub-case of False Dilemma entitled the Perfectionist Fallacy where the false choice is between: (1.) having condoms work perfectly or (2.) not using them at all.

Obviously, the third and highly reasonable alternative given the human lives at stake in Kenya, etc. is to endorse the use of condoms fully knowing that their use will not be perfect--but still much better than unprotected sex.

Circular Reasoning

Notice that the individual in the following clip is advancing the following two pseudo-arguments.

P1: The Bible is Divinely Inspired.
_____________________________
C : The Bible is Infallible (i.e., everything it says must be true).

and

P1: The Bible specifically says that is Inspired by God.
____________________________________________
C: It must be Inspired by God.

Please check out the clip from :50 to 1:39.

Notice in the first "argument" the claim that 'the Bible is Divinely Inspired' is logically equivalent to the claim that 'the Bible is Infallible' since it is only upon the assumption of the existence of God that either claim/both claims goes/go through. But the existence of God is precisely what is in dispute. Hence the argument is circular, i.e., assuming precisely what it is trying to prove.

The second "argument" is perhaps even more transparently circular. It is roughly equivalent to saying that one knows a source is telling the truth because they have asserted that they are telling the truth. So, accepting that what they are saying is true rests upon the assumption that they are telling the truth--but that is precisely the issue in question.