Linda Logan INT 322

April 7, 2014
D. Langley Instructor
Fallacies of Reasoning

Passage One:
The two fallacies of reasoning in this passage are Appealing to Questionable
Authority and the Slippery Slope. This passage refers to the Surgeon General as the
authoritative expert in the field of Early Childhood Sex Education. The Surgeon
General is a medical doctor and is required to examine and warn against health
issues, medical practices, and procedures that pose eventual harm to Americans.
The second fallacy present in this passage is the Slippery Slope. The passage
assumes that because sex education is introduced in the schools at an early age
that it strips the parents of their parental responsibilities and places it in the hands
of educators, thus destroying the fabric of family values. This passage ignores the
fact that educators and parents work together to provide a well - rounded sex
education for youngsters. Educators provide a list of options to introduce to
students. Parents, on the other hand, choose which option is the best for their
family values.
Passage Two:
In this passage, the fallacies of reasoning are Ad Hominem, and the one that
appeals to emotions. The author insults those who would support the opponents
view calling them idiots and dog haters. The use of this tactic is to emotionally
charge opponents by personally attacking them and to distract them from the
argument of whether Pit Bulls are primarily a dangerous breed of dog.
The second fallacy of reasoning is appealing to emotions by relying on the authors
own experience as an owner of a Pit Bull. However, pleasant his experience has
been with his dog, this does not provided enough evidence as to the viciousness of
this breed of dog, compared to other breeds.
I do, however, feel that the author does make his case for the non-banning of this
breedthis breed, that all dogs will attack if provoked or mistreated.
Passage Three:
In this passage, the fallacy of reasoning is the either/or false dilemma. By
stating that countries who do not comply with US extradition of terrorists are
considered to be enemies of the United States because they do not want to see

justice done is overreaching and is not taking into consideration the laws of other
sovereign nations. True, terrorism is truly one of the most heinous of crimes;,
however, with no conclusive proof as to the complicity of such harboring nations,
assuming they are enemies of the State does not provide for an open exchange and
possible resolution and creates a false dilemma between otherwise civil countries.