Which fallacy is exemplified in the following statements: "Of course gun ownership should not be prohibited. You can kill someone with hockey stick, but no one proposes to ban ownership of hockey sticks."?
Weak Analogy
An analogical argument reasons that because two things are alike in some respects, they must be alike in a further respect. Such an argument commits the weak analogy (false analogy) fallacy when the two things compared are not similar in the respects that actually matter to the conclusion, so the comparison cannot bear the weight placed on it.
Here the reasoning is: a hockey stick can be used to kill yet is not banned, therefore a gun should not be banned either. The argument leans entirely on treating guns and hockey sticks as relevantly alike. But they differ in exactly the features relevant to the question of banning: a gun is designed and manufactured specifically to injure or kill, and it can do so quickly, at a distance, and to many people, whereas a hockey stick is designed for a sport and its lethal use is rare, incidental and requires close physical contact. Because the objects are dissimilar in purpose, inherent lethality and frequency of harmful use, the analogy is too weak to justify the conclusion — this is precisely the weak analogy fallacy.
The other named fallacies do not fit. A slippery slope claims that one step will inevitably lead to a chain of worse consequences, which is not asserted here. A red herring diverts attention to an irrelevant issue, but this argument stays on the topic of banning dangerous objects rather than changing the subject. A straw man misrepresents an opponent's position in order to attack a distorted version of it, yet no opposing position is being caricatured. The genuine flaw is the faulty comparison, so the answer is Weak Analogy.
Similar Questions
"Mr. Quintal has argued that logic is not the most important thing in life. Apparently Mr. Quintal advocates irrationality. It has taken two million years for the human race to achieve the position that it has and Mr. Quintal would throw the whole thing into garbage:"
Which fallacy is committed in this arguments?Given below are two statements:
Statement I: Formal fallacies are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of the arguments.
Statement II: Formal fallacies pertain to deductive arguments that have identifiable forms.
In the light of the above statements, choose the most appropriate answer from the options given below:Which informal fallacy is committed in the following statement-"How can you say animals have rights and should not be killed, when you eat meat?"
" I admit that there are people for whom even the existence of God is a big question. My answer is that I do not address them, but that I presuppose a minimum of reason in my readers." Identify the informal fallacy committed in the above statement.
"If the plane takes off from the airstrip B then it is south bound. The plane did not take off from the airstrip B, therefore it is not southbound." Identify the formal fallacy in the above argument.
Which informal fallacy is committed in the following statement - "Of course you want to buy XYZ toothpaste. There must be a reason, why, 90 per cent of India brushes with XYZ toothpaste"
"Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are caused by carelessness they could be avoided if people would just exercise greater caution." Which fallacy is committed in the above argument?
Which informal fallacy is committed in the following argument - "Scientists have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of astrology, and none of them has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology's claims are true" ?
A fallacy in which an opponent's position is depicted as being more extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what was actually asserted is called
“In the hospital, some nurses don't wear white dress, some doctors have private practice and medicines prescribed are of high cost. Therefore, treatment in this hospital is of poor quality”. What fallacy does this argument make?
Important Questions from Formal and Informal Fallacies
Which logical fallacy is committed in the following statement - "I do not believe that serial killers ought to be allowed to live. They have forfeited their right to live because anyone who kills lots of people has lost that right".
Which of the following statements are logically equivalent?
A. Some physicists are outstanding professors.
B. Some physicists are not non-outstanding professors.
C. No outstanding professors are physicists.
D. Some non-outstanding professors are not non-physicists.
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
According to classical Indian School of Logic (Nyāya) which fallacy is committed in the following statement - "The hill has fire because it is knowable"?
- Which fallacy is committed in the following statement - "God exists since it is written in the scriptures. Since the scriptures are the words of God, whatever is written in them is true."?
- "This is the richest fraternity on the campus; therefore Mr. X who is a member of this fraternity must be one of the richest young man on the campus." Which fallacy is involved in this argument ?
