Discussion: Fallacies

Make forum posts: 1

Discussion: Fallacies

Number of replies: 23

Consider the passages below. If the passage contains an argument, identify the premises and main conclusion. For each passage, assess whether it contains a fallacy. If it does, identify the fallacy and explain why you made your assessment.

  1. God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
  2. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people. 
  3. Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.

Share your thoughts on the discussion forum. Make sure to review and respond to other students' posts, as well.

In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Olha Semeniuk -
"God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."

Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy: This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It assumes that because certain people who believe in God have positive outcomes, it logically follows that God must exist. However, this ignores alternative explanations for why people might have fulfilling lives, such as community support, personal values, or psychological factors.

"Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people."

Premise: Bertrand Russell, an atheist, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Bertrand Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is not possible without God.

Fallacy: This argument commits the ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character of Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the substance of his argument. Even if Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior, it doesn't necessarily invalidate his position on objective morality. The argument should focus on the merits of his argument rather than attacking his personal conduct.

"Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."

Premise: The current person in political office has negative qualities or undesirable outcomes associated with their tenure.
Conclusion: Therefore, vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy: This argument employs the fallacy of appeal to emotion or fear. By framing the question as a choice between the current officeholder and Candidate X without providing substantive reasons or qualifications for Candidate X, it attempts to sway voters through emotional manipulation rather than reasoned argumentation.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Catherine Quinn -
1. In the initial passage, the argument posits the existence of God based on the observation that individuals who adhere to the belief in God often lead lives marked by health, happiness, and meaningfulness. The central premise suggests a correlation between religious belief and positive life outcomes, leading to the conclusion that God exists. However, upon closer scrutiny, the argument exhibits a logical fallacy: "correlation does not imply causation." This fallacy arises from the assumption that a correlation between two variables implies a causal relationship. The argument overlooks alternative explanations for the observed phenomena and fails to establish a direct causal link between belief in God and positive life outcomes.

2. In the second passage, the discussion centers on Bertrand Russell's assertion regarding the possibility of objective morality independent of religious belief. The argument seeks to discredit Russell's position by highlighting his personal transgressions, including allegations of moral impropriety. By insinuating that Russell's moral character undermines the validity of his philosophical arguments, the argument employs a fallacious reasoning strategy. Specifically, the fallacy at play here is "ad hominem," which entails attacking the character of an individual rather than engaging with the substance of their arguments. This fallacy distracts from the core issues under consideration and impedes rational discourse by focusing on personal attacks rather than reasoned debate.

3. Lastly, the third passage adopts a political context, leveraging a persuasive appeal based on the negative portrayal of a rival candidate. By asking, "Do you want four more years of this person in political office?" and subsequently urging support for an alternative candidate, the argument seeks to sway voter sentiment through emotional manipulation rather than substantive policy discussion. This rhetorical approach is reminiscent of the "red herring" fallacy, wherein irrelevant or tangential issues are introduced to divert attention from the main topic at hand. In this case, the focus on the shortcomings of the incumbent candidate serves to sidestep substantive discussions about the qualifications and policy proposals of the endorsing candidate, thereby detracting from the integrity of the electoral process.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by asifa shaikh -
God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."

Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy: This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It assumes that because certain people who believe in God have positive outcomes, it logically follows that God must exist. However, this ignores alternative explanations for why people might have fulfilling lives, such as community support, personal values, or psychological factors.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people."

Premise: Bertrand Russell, an atheist, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Bertrand Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is not possible without God.

Fallacy: This argument commits the ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character of Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the substance of his argument. Even if Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior, it doesn't necessarily invalidate his position on objective morality. The argument should focus on the merits of his argument rather than attacking his personal conduct.

Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."

Premise: The current person in political office has negative qualities or undesirable outcomes associated with their tenure.
Conclusion: Therefore, vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy: This argument employs the fallacy of appeal to emotion or fear. By framing the question as a choice between the current officeholder and Candidate X without providing substantive reasons or qualifications for Candidate X, it attempts to sway voters through emotional manipulation rather than reasoned argumentation.

In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Rehan Ullah -
1. Passage 1:
Argument:
Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Assessment:
This passage contains a fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or "correlation does not imply causation." It assumes that because people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives, it must be because God exists. However, there could be various other factors contributing to their well-being, such as social support, community involvement, or personal resilience. Therefore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise, making it a fallacious argument.

2. Passage 2:
Argument:
Premise: Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Russell was an atheist and engaged in immoral behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality cannot exist without God.

Assessment:
This passage contains a fallacy known as "ad hominem," where the argument attacks the person making the claim rather than addressing the claim itself. By focusing on Russell's personal behavior rather than engaging with his argument for objective morality without God, the passage attempts to discredit his viewpoint unjustly. Regardless of Russell's personal conduct, his argument should be evaluated based on its merits rather than his character.

3. Passage 3:
Argument:
Premise: Candidate X has been in political office for the past four years.
Conclusion: Therefore, voters should not vote for Candidate X.

Assessment:
This passage contains a fallacy known as "appeal to emotion." It attempts to persuade voters by appealing to their emotions rather than presenting logical reasons for or against voting for Candidate X. By framing the decision in terms of emotional dislike for the candidate rather than discussing their policies, qualifications, or achievements, the argument relies on manipulation rather than reasoned debate.

In the discussion forum, I would share these analyses of the passages and encourage classmates to discuss the fallacies identified and their implications for logical reasoning and critical thinking. I would also invite them to provide their perspectives on how such fallacies can be avoided in constructing and evaluating arguments. Engaging in discussions like these can enhance our understanding of logical fallacies and improve our ability to think critically about the arguments we encounter.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sanika Bari -
God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."

Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy: This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It assumes that because certain people who believe in God have positive outcomes, it logically follows that God must exist. However, this ignores alternative explanations for why people might have fulfilling lives, such as community support, personal values, or psychological factors.

"Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people."

Premise: Bertrand Russell, an atheist, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Bertrand Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is not possible without God.

Fallacy: This argument commits the ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character of Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the substance of his argument. Even if Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior, it doesn't necessarily invalidate his position on objective morality. The argument should focus on the merits of his argument rather than attacking his personal conduct.

"Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."

Premise: The current person in political office has negative qualities or undesirable outcomes associated with their tenure.
Conclusion: Therefore, vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy: This argument employs the fallacy of appeal to emotion or fear. By framing the question as a choice between the current officeholder and Candidate X without providing substantive reasons or qualifications for Candidate X, it attempts to sway voters through emotional manipulation rather than reasoned argumentation.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Michael Starnes -
Argument: God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Premises: Many people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.Fallacy Assessment: This argument contains a fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this). It assumes that because two events occur together or in sequence, one must have caused the other. In this case, the argument assumes that belief in God causes people to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives, which may not necessarily be true. Correlation does not imply causation.

Argument: Objective morality is not dependent on God because Bertrand Russell, an atheist, believed in objective morality but did not believe in God.
Premises: Bertrand Russell was an atheist.
Bertrand Russell believed in objective morality.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is possible without God.Fallacy Assessment: This argument contains an ad hominem fallacy. It attacks the character of Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the merits of his argument. Even if Russell engaged in behavior considered immoral, it does not automatically invalidate his argument for the possibility of objective morality without God. Evaluating arguments based on the character of the person making them rather than their content is fallacious reasoning.

Argument: Vote for Candidate X because you don't want four more years of the incumbent's behavior.
Premises: The incumbent's behavior has been undesirable.
Conclusion: Vote for Candidate X.Fallacy Assessment: This argument contains an appeal to fear fallacy. It attempts to persuade the audience by instilling fear or anxiety about the consequences of not voting for Candidate X rather than presenting valid reasons to support their candidacy. It focuses on the negative consequences of not voting for Candidate X rather than presenting their qualifications or policies.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by JOSAFAT VANDULF ELANO -
This passage uses the fallacy of appeal to emotion or fear, trying to sway voters based on negative emotions rather than substantive reasons. It doesn't provide a logical or factual basis for why Candidate X is a better choice; instead, it relies on creating fear or dissatisfaction with the current officeholder.
In each case, identifying fallacies helps clarify why the arguments are not logically sound and why their conclusions cannot be accepted solely based on the presented premises.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by WLLM12 G -
1. Argument:
Premises: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Assessment: This argument contains the fallacy of correlation does not imply causation. Just because some people who believe in God have good lives doesn't necessarily mean that belief in God causes a good life. Other factors could be at play, such as social support networks, personal attitudes, or cultural factors.

2. Argument:
Premises: Bertrand Russell, an atheist philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is possible without God.
Assessment: This argument commits the ad hominem fallacy by attacking Russell's character instead of addressing the substance of his argument. Whether Russell led a morally questionable personal life is irrelevant to the validity of his argument about objective morality.

3. Argument:
Premises: Do you want four more years of this person in political office?
Main Conclusion: Vote for me, Candidate X.
Assessment: This argument contains the fallacy of appeal to emotion. It attempts to persuade voters through fear or dislike of the current officeholder rather than presenting valid reasons to support the candidate.
In reply to WLLM12 G

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Shaqoria Hay -
In argument 2 i do fee like they did attack instead of addressing the argument at hand. Even if Russell did those actions it is like you stated invalid to the argument. Even though Russell did things that we may feel is morally wrong and we focus on that it would lead to us just attacking Russell on his action rather than focusing on what the argument is really stating and about.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Valentin Ionescu -
1.Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. This conclusion does not logically follow from the premise

This contains a fallacy: correlation does not imply causation. It assumes that the beliving in God must be the cause for which people have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives. But there could be various other factors contributing to their well-being, such as social support, community involvement, or personal resilience.

2. Premise 1: Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise 2: Russell was an atheist and engaged in immoral behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality cannot exist without God.

This contains the "ad hominem" fallacy. Regardless of Russell's personal conduct, his argument should be evaluated based on its merits rather than his character.

3. Premise: Candidate X has been in political office for the past four years.
Conclusion: Therefore, voters should not vote for Candidate X, but for me.

This contains a fallacy. The premise implies that the Candidate x 4 years mandate was not good, but this does not imply that if people will vote me I will be better than X.
In reply to Valentin Ionescu

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Shaqoria Hay -
As we approach voting time again argument 3 seems so real. During this time you have a lot of debates running off emotion trying to persuade people that they should vote for x since the current person has been in office for 4 year and nothing has been done. I feel we can all relate to argument 3.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Shaqoria Hay -
1. God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Premises: People that believe in God go on to have a happy, healthy, and meaningful life.
Fallacy: Affirming the consequent
the consequent: The argument states that people who believe in God have good lives or lives a good life/ Which ties in to make it seem as if that is why God exist.
Conclusion: It states that people in good health must believe in God because they go on to be happy, healthy and meaningful live. A person does not have to believe in God to have good health that person can very well just make use their eating habits are well, they could also surround themselves with positive people, and set goals in life to follow.
2. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.
Premise: Russell states the morality is possible without God.Russell is an atheist.
Russell slept around with young girls and is nasty to people.
Fallacy: It states that Russell believes that morality is possible without God. Then goes to state that Russell also was atheist and seduced young girl and was not so good to others. Which shows that we need to focus on the argument and not person actions.
Conclusion: Morality is not possible without God.

3. Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.
Premise: Current person has been in office for four year.

Fallacy: Appeal emotions. In this argument they are trying to persuade voter to vote for them and not X. They most likely are basing things off emotions during the election period and time.
Conclusion: Makes you think voter should not vote for candidate x and should vote them instead.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Leslie Tapper -
1. God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists.

Fallacy: False Cause, the conclusion is believed to be caused by the first event.
2. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls, and was nasty to many people.
Premise: Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around seduced young girls, and was nasty to many people.
Conclusion: Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem, the argument is centered on the speaker and their background rather than factual information.

3. Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.
Premise: Do you/You want four more years of this person in political office?
Conclusion: Vote for me, Candidate X.
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion, persuasiveness.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Tiffany Jones -
Passage 1:
Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy Assessment: This argument commits the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this). It assumes that because two events occur sequentially (believing in God and having a good life), one causes the other. However, there could be numerous other factors contributing to a person's well-being besides belief in God.

Passage 2:
Premise: Bertrand Russell, an atheist, believed that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Bertrand Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality is not possible without God.

Fallacy Assessment: This argument commits the ad hominem fallacy by attacking Russell's character rather than addressing the substance of his argument. Even if Russell behaved immorally, it doesn't necessarily invalidate his philosophical position on objective morality. Therefore, the argument is fallacious.

Passage 3:
Premise: Candidate X's opponent has engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore, voters should not vote for the opponent and instead vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy Assessment: This argument employs the "ad hominem circumstantial" fallacy by appealing to negative characteristics or actions of the opponent rather than addressing their policies or qualifications. It attempts to sway voters through character attacks rather than focusing on the issues at hand. Therefore, it's fallacious reasoning.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Melissa Aves -
Premise: People living their best lives because they believe in God. Conclusion: God exists. Fallacy: Not all people living their best lives believe in God.

Premise: Russell said that objective morality is impossible w/o God, but he was a loose man that behaved badly. Conclusion: God is needed for objective morality Fallacy: This is attack on the person's character instead
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Aedan Masker -
1. God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives
Conclusion: God exists.
Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent.

2. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.

Premise: Bertrand Russel, the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Premise: Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.
Fallacy: Ad hominem
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Steven Requena -
3. Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.
Premise:: Do you want four more years with current person in political office?
Conclusion: Vote for Candidate X
Assessment: Appeal to emotion fallacy. No valid reasons provided just a premise persuading to vote for Candidate X instilling fear that the current person in office would be a bad choice.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Hudson Harper -
1. People whole believe in God have a healthy, happy, and meaningful lives. There God is real. This contains the fallacy "Affirming the consequent."

2.Objective mortality is possible without God according to Betrand Russel. We all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people. Therefore Objective Mortality is impossible without God. This contains the fallacy Ad Hominen. It attacks Bertrand Russel instead of his argument.
3.appeal to emotion.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Saanvi Kundu -
The passage argues that God exists because believers are happy. It claims happiness proves God's existence, but this is a fallacy. Just because two things happen together doesn't mean one causes the other.

This passage attacks philosopher Bertrand Russell, claiming his personal flaws disprove his argument for morality without God. This is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person instead of the argument. A person's flaws don't invalidate their ideas.

This passage urges voters to choose Candidate X, implying the current officeholder is bad. This is a false dilemma, presenting only two options and using fear to sway voters. It fails to acknowledge other choices and relies on fear, not logic.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Cecily Acevedo -

Passage 1: God exists because many people who believe in God have, happy, and meaningful lives. Premise:Many people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives. Conclusion:Therefore, God exists.

This argument commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). The premise suggests a correlation between belief in God and a fulfilling life, but it does not establish causation. Just because people who believe in God may lead happier lives does not mean that God’s existence is the reason for their happiness; there could be other factors involved.

Passage 2: Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist and engaged in morally questionable behavior. Premise 1: Bertrand Russell stated that objective morality can exist without God. Premise 2: Russell was an atheist and engaged in morally questionable behavior (e.g., he slept around and was nasty to many people). Conclusion:Therefore, his claim about morality is questionable or less credible.

This argument contains an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the validity of Russell's argument about objective morality, it attacks his character and personal behavior. This fallacy undermines the discussion by suggesting that because of Russell's actions, his philosophical statements are invalid, rather than evaluating the merits of his argument itself.

Passage 3: Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X. Premise:The current person in political office is undesirable. Conclusion: Therefore, you should vote for me, Candidate X.

This passage includes a false dilemma fallacy. It presents a binary choice: either the current candidate continues in office, or one must vote for Candidate X. This oversimplifies the situation by implying that the only options are to support Candidate X or endure another term of the current officeholder, ignoring the possibility of other candidates or alternatives that may also be available to voters. 

In reply to Cecily Acevedo

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Dominique Vittorio -
You’re correct that the argument commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It assumes that because people who believe in God often lead happy lives, this must mean God exists. However, this correlation does not prove causation, as other factors could contribute to their happiness.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by vanessa Ur -
Here’s an analysis of the passages:

### 1. **God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.**
- **Premises:** Many people who believe in God live healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
- **Conclusion:** Therefore, God exists.
- **Fallacy:** This argument contains a **false cause fallacy** (post hoc ergo propter hoc). The conclusion that God exists is based on the fact that believers tend to have fulfilling lives, but this does not logically prove God's existence. There could be many other reasons for their happiness that have nothing to do with the existence of God.

### 2. **Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.**
- **Premises:** Bertrand Russell claimed that objective morality is possible without God. He was an atheist and had a questionable personal life.
- **Conclusion:** The implication is that Russell’s claim is not valid.
- **Fallacy:** This passage commits an **ad hominem fallacy**. It attacks Russell’s character rather than addressing the argument he made about morality. Russell’s personal life has no bearing on the validity of his philosophical arguments.

### 3. **Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.**
- **Premises:** The premise implies dissatisfaction with the current political officeholder.
- **Conclusion:** Therefore, you should vote for Candidate X.
- **Fallacy:** This argument involves a **loaded question** and an **appeal to fear**. It presumes that the reader doesn’t want the current officeholder to continue without providing evidence as to why, and uses that presumption to suggest voting for Candidate X without offering positive reasons to support Candidate X’s qualifications.

These analyses show how each passage uses a fallacy to persuade rather than offering solid logical arguments.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Dominique Vittorio -
1. “God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.”

• Premises:
• Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
• Main Conclusion:
• God exists.
• Assessment:
• Fallacy: This passage contains a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (also known as the correlation-causation fallacy). The argument assumes that because people who believe in God lead fulfilling lives, this is evidence that God exists. However, just because there is a correlation between belief in God and a meaningful life does not mean that belief in God causes the existence of God. The argument is based on a flawed cause-and-effect relationship.

2. “Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.”

• Premises:
• Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God.
• Bertrand Russell was an atheist.
• Russell allegedly had morally questionable behavior (e.g., “slept around,” “seduced young girls,” and “was nasty to many people”).
• Main Conclusion:
• The passage implies that Bertrand Russell’s argument about objective morality is unreliable or invalid.
• Assessment:
• Fallacy: This passage contains an ad hominem fallacy. The argument attacks Bertrand Russell’s character and behavior rather than addressing the merits of his philosophical argument about objective morality. The passage suggests that because Russell had questionable personal behavior, his argument about morality is flawed, which is a logical error.

3. “Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.”

• Premises:
• The current person in political office is undesirable or has performed poorly (implied).
• Main Conclusion:
• Vote for Candidate X.
• Assessment:
• Fallacy: This passage contains an appeal to fear fallacy. It attempts to persuade the audience by evoking fear of the undesirable outcomes if the current person remains in office, rather than providing substantive reasons why Candidate X is the better choice. The argument relies on negative emotions rather than rational debate or evidence for why Candidate X should be elected.