This is a response to the previous assignment. I will let you pick a response topic. my parents were strict christians and everthing I did was wrong. So let me know if you have any questions.
Let’s look at your third example of the Ad Hominem fallacy. This is usually a strategy used when the person who is on the defensive has no legitimate reasons to support their claims about an issue regarding another party and so they grasp for what I call the low-hanging fruit of character assassination. This is a smoke screen but it is quite effective. I see many examples of this on social media today. Have you experienced or been the target of such a fallacy in your life? It may be a hard example to share so it’s up to you. I can remember in high school this fallacy was used by parents. If they didn’t want their kids hanging out with particular kids. The fallacy usually went this way that because X drinks alcohol underage this behavior reflects on their character as a whole and it reflects negatively, so the parents prefer if their child does not hang out with such a person. I’m not sure whether you think this is a legitimate argument but I think we can understand the motivation by parents even though I would say it is a misuse of reason.
The most common professional setting in which I see this fallacy used without embarrassment or hesitation is in our courts of law. We have seen this in the public discussions we had on the allegations made against men by women. Often we see that the effective way to cast doubt on any allegations is to focus on the behavior of the victim rather than the accused.
I am hoping that you can argue that the fallacy was committed in your example using Standard Form.
How was the Ad Hominem Argument committed in your example?
First you must include the logical form of the fallacy and then plug in key points from your example for each premise to fit the definition of the fallacy.
P1: The Ad Hominem Argument follows this form: Person A is claiming Y, Person A is X, therefore, Y is not true.
P2: (the following claims should contain key details in your example that fit the definition of the logical form of the fallacy provided in P1)
P3:
(…)
C: Therefore, the Ad Hominem Argument has been committed.
Please try this and I will circle back later….Thanks!
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]