Discussion: Fallacies

Number of replies: 75

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 Olha Semeniuk

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jhea galgo -
Passage 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 have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Main Conclusion:
- God exists.

This argument commits the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (assuming causation based on correlation) ¹. Just because many believers have positive lives, it doesn't necessarily mean God exists or is the cause of their happiness.

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

Premises:
- Bertrand Russell was an atheist with questionable morals.
- You wouldn't want someone like Russell in political office.
Main Conclusion:
- Vote for Candidate X.

This argument commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy (attacking the person, not the argument) and Appeal to Emotion (using negative emotions to sway opinion). Discrediting Russell's character doesn't refute his philosophical stance on objective morality without God. Additionally, the argument is unrelated to Candidate X's qualifications or policies.
In reply to Olha Semeniuk

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jessica Blackburn -
You have done an excellent job identifying and explaining the fallacies in each passage. Your analysis demonstrates a clear understanding of the fallacies and their application in different contexts. Here's a brief summary of your assessments:

Passage 1:

Correctly identified as the fallacy of affirming the consequent, as it assumes a causal relationship between believing in God and having positive life outcomes without considering alternative explanations.

Passage 2:

Accurately identified as an ad hominem fallacy, which attacks Bertrand Russell's character instead of addressing the validity of his argument about objective morality.

Passage 3:

Rightly recognized as an appeal to emotion or fear fallacy, as it attempts to persuade voters by evoking negative emotions towards the current officeholder without providing logical reasons to support Candidate X.

Overall, your assessment is precise and well-explained. Your ability to identify and analyze these fallacies shows a strong grasp of critical thinking and reasoning skills.
In reply to Olha Semeniuk

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Dylan Lortie -
This is great, each argument is broken down and explains if it contains a fallacy.
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 Saurabh Umbarkar -
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.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by JECEL MONTI-EL -
et's analyze the passage to identify whether it contains an argument and, if so, whether it contains a fallacy.

Passage: "God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."

Identification of Argument:

Premises: The passage implies that many people who believe in God lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists.
Assessment for Fallacies:

Premises and Conclusion:

The argument structure here is that the existence of God is justified by the positive outcomes experienced by believers (healthy, happy, and meaningful lives).
Fallacy Identification:

Post Hoc (Faulty Cause) Fallacy: This argument is an example of the post hoc fallacy, where the positive outcomes (healthy, happy, and meaningful lives) experienced by believers are incorrectly assumed to be caused by the belief in God. In other words, it suggests that because something good happens after an event (in this case, belief in God), the event must be the cause of the good outcome.

Appeal to Consequences Fallacy: It also has characteristics of the appeal to consequences fallacy. The argument suggests that because the belief in God leads to desirable outcomes (healthy, happy, and meaningful lives), it is used as evidence to support the belief in God's existence. This fallacy occurs when the truth of a statement is judged based on the desirability of its consequences rather than on evidence for its truth.

Explanation: The argument does not establish a causal connection between the belief in God and the positive outcomes; it simply points out a correlation without providing evidence that the belief in God is the cause of the healthy, happy, and meaningful lives. Therefore, the presence of these positive outcomes does not necessarily prove the existence of God.

In summary, the passage contains a fallacy primarily because it assumes a causal relationship based on correlation and relies on the desirability of outcomes as evidence for the existence of God.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jonathan Cuntapay -
In the first passage, the argument claims that God exists because many people who believe in God lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives. This reasoning is fallacious, specifically committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as it improperly assumes that correlation implies causation; just because believers are content does not necessarily mean God is the cause. The second passage references Bertrand Russell’s assertion that objective morality is possible without God, but it attacks his character by highlighting his personal failings, thus committing the ad hominem fallacy, which undermines the argument without addressing its validity. Lastly, the third passage suggests that one must vote for Candidate X to avoid another four years of the current undesirable politician, which exemplifies a false dilemma fallacy by presenting a limited choice and ignoring other potential alternatives. Together, these passages illustrate flawed reasoning that leads to misleading conclusions.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Rachel Validum -

1. Argument: The argument is that God exists because many believers lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.

 Premise: Many people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.

 Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

This contains the fallacy of appeal to consequence. It suggests that because the consequences of belief in God are positive (happy, meaningful lives), this implies that God exists. The truth of a claim should not be determined by its consequences.


2. Argument: The argument is that objective morality is impossible with God because Bertrand Russell, an atheist known for immoral behavior, argued otherwise.

 Premises:   Bertrand Russell argued that objective morality is possible without God. Bertrand Russell had immoral behaviors (slept around, seduced young girls, was nasty to people).

 Conclusion: Therefore, Russell’s argument against the necessity of God for objective morality is invalid.

 This contains the fallacy of ad hominem. It attacks Russell's character rather than addressing the validity of his argument about objective morality.


3. Argument: The argument is that voters should choose Candidate X to avoid another term for the current political figure.

 Premises:The current person in office has certain negative qualities.

 Conclusion: Therefore, vote for Candidate X to prevent this person from serving another term.

This could be seen as an example of **appeal to fear** or **scare tactic**. It implies that not voting for Candidate X will lead to undesirable consequences (the current person remaining in office), rather than providing substantive reasons to vote for Candidate X based on their qualifications or policies.

In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Ibtihaj Khan -
"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 DANIEL BACH PHAN -
P1.
Premises: Many people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists

Assessment:
This passage contains a fallacy of False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc). It assumes that because believers have positive outcomes/ happy lives/...etc, the existence of God is the cause of those outcomes. However, there could be other factors contributing to their well-being like money, education, family, partners...


P2.
Premises:Bertrand Russell was an atheist.Bertrand Russell claimed that objective morality is possible without God.Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior (according to the speaker).
Conclusion: Russell's claim that objective morality is possible without God is false or should not be trusted.

Assessment:
This passage contains a hominem fallacy. It attacks Bertrand Russell's character instead of addressing the validity of his argument about objective morality. Russell's behavior is irrelevant to the truth of his philosophical claims.

P3
Premises: The speaker implies that the current person in political office has performed poorly or is undesirable.
Conclusion: Vote for Candidate X.

Assessment:
This passage contains a fallacy of appeal to emotion or fear.. It attempts to provoke fear or negative emotions about the current officeholder without providing a logical reason why Candidate X would be a better choice. It relies on stirring emotions rather than presenting facts or evidence for the candidate’s merits.
In reply to DANIEL BACH PHAN

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jessica Blackburn -
You have done a good job identifying and explaining the fallacies in each passage. Here are some additional thoughts on the passages:

Passage 1:

Your assessment is correct. This passage commits the false cause fallacy by attributing the healthy, happy, and meaningful lives of believers solely to God's existence without considering other factors that could contribute to their well-being.

Passage 2:

Your assessment is accurate. The passage employs an ad hominem fallacy by attacking Bertrand Russell's character instead of addressing his argument about objective morality. It's important to note that a person's behavior doesn't necessarily invalidate their philosophical claims or arguments.

Passage 3:

Your assessment of this passage is also correct. The passage uses an appeal to emotion (specifically, fear) by suggesting that the current officeholder is undesirable without providing evidence or logical reasons to support Candidate X. The argument relies on evoking negative emotions rather than presenting a rational case for the candidate's merits.

Overall, your analysis demonstrates a solid understanding of these fallacies and their application in different contexts.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jessica Blackburn -
Passage 1:

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

Fallacy: False cause fallacy - The argument assumes that the belief in God leads to healthy, happy, and meaningful lives, but this does not necessarily mean that God exists. There could be other factors contributing to the well-being of these individuals.

Passage 2:

- Premise: Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God.
- Ad hominem attack: Russell was an atheist, slept around, seduced young girls, and was nasty to many people.
- Main Conclusion: Implication that Russell's views on objective morality may be unreliable or wrong.

Fallacy: Ad hominem fallacy- The argument attacks Bertrand Russell's character rather than addressing the substance of his claim about objective morality. The fact that he was an atheist or had personal flaws does not automatically invalidate his views on morality.

Passage 3:

- Premise: Implication that the current politician in office is not desirable.
- Main Conclusion: You should vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy: False dilemma fallacy - The argument assumes that there are only two options: either keep the current politician or vote for Candidate X. It does not consider other potential candidates or solutions, presenting a false dichotomy.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Mehak Pal -
For the first passage: "God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."

Reason: Many people who believe in God have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

This argument contains a fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this). The reasoning suggests that just because believers in God lead fulfilling lives, it proves God's existence. However, correlation does not imply causation; the happiness of believers does not necessarily stem from the existence of God.

For the second passage: "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."

Reason: Bertrand Russell said objective morality is possible without God.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, his argument is invalid because of his personal conduct.

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 life. This is irrelevant to the argument itself and does not provide any logical basis to dismiss his claim.

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

Reason: The current person in office is undesirable.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, you should vote for Candidate X.

This argument may contain a false dilemma fallacy, suggesting that the only options are to vote for Candidate X or continue with the current undesirable person in office. It does not consider other candidates or alternatives, which limits the choices presented to voters.

In conclusion, all three passages contain fallacies that undermine their arguments: the first is a post hoc fallacy, the second is an ad hominem, and the third may present a false dilemma.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sarath Chandra Veerla -
These fallacies weaken the arguments, making them less convincing and logical. It’s important to identify and address fallacies to improve the quality of reasoning in discussions and debates.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Rebecca Klein -
God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
1. Many people who believe in God have healthy lives.
2. Many people who believe in God have happy lives.
3. Many people who believe in God have meaningful lives.
4. Therefore, God exists.
This argument would be an example of the "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" fallacy, inferring that god exists simply because people who believe in God have good lives when this could just as easily be due to any number of other factors. It could also be an example of a red herring, as it presents an argument relating to belief in God when the question is about actual existence rather than belief.

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.
1. Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible with God.
2. Bertrand Russell was an atheist.
3. Bertand Russell slept around, seduced young girls, and was nasty to many people.
4. Objective morality is not possible without God.
This argument utilizes an "ad hominem" fallacy, discrediting the theory that "morality is possible without God" because of the person who made the argument, rather than based on the merits of the argument itself.

Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.
1. You don't want four more years of this person in political office.
2. I am Candidate X, not this person.
3. You should vote for me.
This argument is an example of both a "false dilemma" fallacy and also an "ad ignorantum" fallacy. It presents the audience with only two options for their vote, while there are likely more candidates - and not voting is also an option, even if it's not necessarily a good one. Then, rather than providing reasons why Candidate X does deserve your vote, it simply states that "this person" does not deserve your vote.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Ademide Abdullah -
The premise in the number 1 passage is:
People who believe in
God go on to have
healthy, happy and
meaningful lives.

And the conclusion is that "God exists".
It's a fallacy because the statement is not relating to the conclusion.
In reply to Ademide Abdullah

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sami Al Majanini -
I agree with your assessment that the passage in number 1 contains a fallacy. The premise doesn’t logically support the conclusion because the claim that people who believe in God lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives doesn’t directly prove the existence of God. It’s an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (false cause), where the correlation between belief in God and a positive life outcome is mistaken for a cause-and-effect relationship.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sami Al Majanini -
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:
Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause Fallacy)
The argument assumes that the existence of God is the cause of believers’ healthy, happy, and meaningful lives without establishing a causal link. Correlation does not imply causation—many factors could contribute to these outcomes.

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 argued that objective morality is possible without God.
Russell was an atheist.
Russell behaved immorally (slept around, seduced young girls, was nasty).
Main Conclusion:
Russell’s argument about objective morality is invalid or untrustworthy.

Fallacy:
Ad hominem (Personal Attack)
The argument attacks Russell’s character rather than addressing the validity of his claim about objective morality. His personal behavior has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his philosophical arguments.

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

The current political officeholder is undesirable (implicit assumption based on “this person”).
Candidate X is the alternative.
Main Conclusion:
You should vote for Candidate X.

Fallacy:
Appeal to Fear (or Negative Emotion)
The argument tries to persuade by invoking fear or dislike of the current officeholder without providing substantive reasons why Candidate X is a better choice. It relies on emotional manipulation rather than logical reasoning.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Toya Roberts -
"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 live healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Fallacy: Affirming the consequent. Just because belief in God correlates with a happy and meaningful life does not mean that God exists. This reasoning mistakes correlation for causation. People’s happiness may result from psychological or social factors unrelated to the existence of God.

"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 claimed that objective morality is possible without God. Bertrand Russell had questionable personal behavior (e.g., seducing young girls, being nasty to others).
Conclusion:Implicitly, Russell’s claim about objective morality without God is invalid or untrustworthy.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem. The argument attacks Russell’s character rather than addressing the validity of his philosophical claim. Even if Russell had personal flaws, this does not refute his argument about morality.

"Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."
Premise: The person currently in office is undesirable or incompetent.
Conclusion: Therefore, you should vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion. This argument does not provide specific reasons why Candidate X is better suited for the position. Instead, it appeals to the audience’s potential dissatisfaction or fear of the current officeholder without substantive evidence or comparisons.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Roselix Perez -
he argument suggests that the existence of God can be inferred from the observation that individuals who believe in God often lead lives characterized by health, happiness, and a sense of meaning. The central premise implies a correlation between religious belief and positive life outcomes, ultimately leading to the conclusion that God exists. However, upon closer examination, this argument demonstrates a logical fallacy: "correlation does not imply causation." This fallacy arises from the assumption that a correlation between two variables means one causes the other. The argument neglects alternative explanations for the observed phenomena and fails to establish a direct causal link between belief in God and positive life outcomes.

In the second passage, the discussion centers on Bertrand Russell's claim about the possibility of objective morality existing independently of religious belief. The argument attempts to discredit Russell's position by pointing out his personal transgressions, including allegations of moral misconduct. By suggesting that Russell's moral character undermines the validity of his philosophical arguments, this reasoning employs a fallacious strategy known as "ad hominem." This fallacy involves attacking an individual's character rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. Such an approach distracts from the core issues and hinders rational discourse by focusing on personal attacks instead of engaging in a reasoned debate.

Lastly, the third passage operates within a political context, utilizing a persuasive appeal based on a 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 influence voter sentiment through emotional manipulation rather than through a substantive discussion of policies. This rhetorical strategy resembles the "red herring" fallacy, where irrelevant or tangential issues are introduced to divert attention from the main topic. In this instance, focusing on the incumbent candidate's shortcomings distracts from meaningful discussions about the qualifications and policy proposals of the candidate being endorsed, thereby undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

Make it more detailed
In the first passage, the argument posits the existence of God based on the observation that individuals who hold a belief in God often experience lives that are marked by health, happiness, and a profound sense of meaningfulness. The central premise of this argument suggests a correlation between religious belief and positive life outcomes, which leads to the conclusion that the existence of God can be inferred. However, when scrutinized more closely, this argument reveals a significant logical fallacy known as "correlation does not imply causation." This fallacy occurs when one assumes that a correlation between two variables inherently suggests that one causes the other. In this case, the argument does not adequately consider alternative explanations for the positive characteristics observed in believers’ lives, such as community support, psychological benefits of faith, or lifestyle choices influenced by their beliefs. As a result, it fails to establish a direct causal link between a belief in God and the positive life outcomes that are cited.

In the second passage, the discussion focuses on philosopher Bertrand Russell's assertion that objective morality can exist independently of religious belief. The argument seeks to undermine Russell's position by highlighting his personal transgressions, which include allegations of moral impropriety and questionable behaviors throughout his life. By attempting to discredit Russell in this manner, the argument employs a fallacious reasoning strategy known as "ad hominem." This fallacy involves attacking the character or personal life of an individual instead of engaging with the substance of their philosophical arguments. Such an approach not only distracts from the core issues—such as the nature of morality and its relationship to religion—but also inhibits rational discourse by diverting attention to personal attacks rather than fostering a reasoned debate on the philosophical topic at hand.

In the third passage, the argument takes place within a political context, aiming to influence voters through persuasive appeals that rely heavily on emotional manipulation rather than substantive policy discussions. By posing the provocative question, "Do you want four more years of this person in political office?" the speaker aims to evoke negative emotions toward the incumbent candidate. This tactic is designed to create a sense of urgency and discontent among voters, which subsequently leads to an endorsement of an alternative candidate. This rhetorical approach exhibits characteristics of the "red herring" fallacy, where irrelevant or tangential issues are introduced to distract from the main topic of discussion. In this case, the focus is placed on highlighting the shortcomings of the incumbent, which diverts attention from a meaningful evaluation of the qualifications, policies, and proposed solutions of the candidate being advocated for. By doing so, this strategy ultimately undermines the integrity of the electoral process, as it shifts the conversation away from critical political discourse toward emotional appeals and personal attacks.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Leah Abernathy -
Premise 1. Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists.
Fallacy - affirming the consequent

Fallacy - Ad hominem

Fallacy - Ad hominem and appeal to emotion
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Jevon Searight -
Passage 1: "God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."
This argument's premise is that many people who believe in God have fulfilling lives, leading to the conclusion that God exists. This contains a false cause fallacy, assuming belief in God causes happiness and proving God's existence.

Passage 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."
The premises are that Russell claimed objective morality without God, was an atheist, and engaged in morally questionable behavior. The conclusion is that his claim is invalid. This contains an ad hominem fallacy, attacking Russell's character instead of addressing his argument.

Passage 3: "Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."
The premise is that the current officeholder is undesirable, leading to the conclusion to vote for Candidate X. This contains an appeal to emotion, specifically fear, without providing substantive reasons for voting for Candidate X.

In summary, each passage contains an argument with premises and a main conclusion, and each one also contains a fallacy that undermines the argument's validity.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by yamilkie forchue -
1. premises ; people who believe in God have happier healthier and meaningful lives
2. Bertrand Russell had no morals because of his disbelief in God
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Alexander Mendez -
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 have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists.
Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause). The argument assumes that belief in God causes happiness and meaning, but correlation does not imply causation.

2. "Bertrand Russell... 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: Russell was an atheist and behaved immorally.
Conclusion: Objective morality is not possible without God.
Fallacy: Ad hominem. The argument attacks Russell’s character rather than addressing his claim about objective morality.

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

Premises: The opponent has been in office for the past four years.
Conclusion: You should vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy: Appeal to fear or loaded question. The argument assumes dissatisfaction with the opponent’s tenure without providing evidence or reasoning and uses emotional appeal to persuade.
These passages highlight common fallacies that undermine strong arguments. What do you think about these assessments?
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by MUHAMMAD TANVEER -
1. God exists...: Premise: Belief in God leads to healthy, happy, meaningful lives. Conclusion: God exists. Fallacy: False cause (correlation doesn’t prove existence).


2. Bertrand Russell...: Premise: Russell’s morality claims. Conclusion: Objective morality needs God. Fallacy: Ad hominem (attacks character, not argument).


3. Vote for me...: Premise: Opponent’s bad term. Conclusion: Elect Candidate X. Fallacy: Appeal to fear (emotional persuasion).
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Beato Candundu -
1. God exists because people are healthy.
2. Bertrand Russel is an atheist and an immoral political candidate.
3. Therefore, electing Bertrand Russel is an unwise decision to make.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Kayla Woods -
1. Also an opinionated thought however I do believe in God but everyone doesnt.
2. THis one is confusing to me .
3. no .
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by rafsha hossain -
st Passage:
"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 live happy, healthy, and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Fallacy: Correlation does not imply causation (Post hoc fallacy).
Just because people who believe in God have fulfilling lives does not mean that God exists. Their happiness could be due to psychological, social, or cultural factors rather than the existence of God. The argument assumes that belief in God leads to happiness and that this proves God’s existence, which is a logical leap.
2nd Passage:
"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 argued that morality is possible without God.
Premise: Russell was an atheist.
Premise: Russell engaged in behaviors that some might consider immoral (e.g., seducing young girls and being unkind).
Conclusion (Implied): Russell's argument about morality without God is false or unreliable.
Fallacy: Ad hominem (Attacking the person instead of the argument).
The argument discredits Russell’s position on morality by attacking his personal life rather than addressing his philosophical argument. Whether Russell was a good or bad person is irrelevant to the validity of his claim that morality can exist without God.
3rd Passage:
"Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."

Premise (Implied): The current political leader has performed poorly or is undesirable.
Conclusion: Therefore, you should vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy: Appeal to fear or False dilemma.
The argument attempts to persuade by instilling fear of the current politician rather than providing positive reasons why Candidate X is a better choice. It also presents a false dilemma by implying that the only alternative to the current leader is voting for Candidate X, ignoring other possible candidates or options.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Mikkie Gumatay -
1st Passage: "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: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause fallacy)

Just because belief in God correlates with positive life outcomes does not mean that God’s existence is the cause of these outcomes. Many other factors could contribute to happiness and meaning in life, such as community support, personal values, or psychological well-being. The argument mistakes correlation for causation.


2nd Passage: "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.
Bertrand Russell was an atheist.
Russell was immoral in his personal life (according to the passage).
Conclusion:

Therefore, his claim about morality without God is false.
Fallacy: Ad hominem (personal attack fallacy)

This argument attacks Bertrand Russell’s character instead of addressing the validity of his claim. Whether or not Russell was a good person has no bearing on whether his argument about morality is sound. This is an attempt to discredit an idea based on the personal life of the person presenting it rather than engaging with the idea itself.


3rd Passage: "Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X."
Premises (implied):

The current politician is bad (implied by “this person” in a negative context).
If you don’t want them in office, you should vote for Candidate X.
Conclusion:

You should vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy: Appeal to fear or False Dilemma

This argument appeals to fear or dislike of the current politician without presenting actual reasons why Candidate X is a better choice. Additionally, it suggests a false dilemma: that the only alternative to the current politician is Candidate X, ignoring the possibility of other candidates or voting options.


Each passage presents an argument with logical flaws. The first commits a false cause fallacy, the second an ad hominem attack, and the third an appeal to fear or false dilemma. Identifying these fallacies helps in critically evaluating persuasive language and reasoning.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Tom Pine -
All three arguments contain fallacies, the first is a red herring since whether the supposed existence of god is of any benefit to humanity is totally separate and irrelevant when debating his actual existence.

The second is an ad hominem, since the fact that Russel was an atheist and slept around does not any bearing on his argument itself. One may say that this is a statement (or rather two statements) but it is phrased in an argumentative way in my opinion.

The third argument is a false dichotomy where the candidate presents voters as only having 2 choices, between himself or the specific candidate he's referencing and not some other unrelated and possibly better candidate.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Hima Varshini Nallala -
1.Premise: Many people who believe in God live happy and meaningful lives.
Conclusion: God exists.
Fallacy: False Cause (Post Hoc Fallacy)
Explanation: Just because believers have good lives does not mean that God exists. Their happiness could come from other factors like family, community, or personal choices. The argument wrongly assumes that belief in God is the cause of their happiness.
2.Premise: Bertrand Russell was an atheist and had a bad personal life.
Conclusion: His argument about morality without God is wrong.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)
Explanation: The argument attacks Russell’s character instead of addressing his claim about morality. Whether he was a good or bad person does not affect whether his argument is logically sound.
3.Premise: The current political leader is bad.
Conclusion: Vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy: False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy)
Explanation: The argument suggests that the only choice is between keeping the current leader or voting for Candidate X. It ignores other possible candidates or solutions.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Dhumal Suraj Nandkumar -
Passage 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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, God exists.
Fallacy:
This passage contains the "appeal to consequence" fallacy, specifically the "appeal to well-being" or "consequentialist fallacy." The argument suggests that because belief in God leads to positive consequences (e.g., happiness, health, meaningful lives), this is evidence for the existence of God. However, the truth of a claim (in this case, God's existence) is not determined by the outcomes or benefits of believing in it. Just because a belief leads to positive consequences doesn't mean the belief is true. The argument focuses on the consequences of belief rather than providing actual evidence for the existence of God.

Passage 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, a British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God.
Russell was an atheist.
Russell engaged in morally questionable behavior (e.g., slept around, seduced young girls, was nasty to many people).
Conclusion:
This passage doesn’t explicitly state a conclusion, but it suggests that Russell’s views on objective morality are less credible or trustworthy due to his personal behavior.
Fallacy:
This passage commits the "ad hominem" fallacy, specifically the "circumstantial ad hominem." Instead of addressing the actual argument that Bertrand Russell made about objective morality, the passage attacks his character and personal behavior to undermine his views. The fact that Russell may have acted immorally (as claimed in the passage) does not invalidate his philosophical arguments. This is a classic case of attacking the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

Passage 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 will be in power for four more years unless you vote for Candidate X.
Conclusion:
Vote for Candidate X.
Fallacy:
This passage contains the "appeal to fear" fallacy (also called "scare tactics"). It is trying to manipulate voters into making a decision based on fear and anxiety about the current political situation ("four more years of this person in office") rather than providing solid reasoning or positive arguments for why Candidate X should be voted for. The emotional appeal to fear is used as a tool to persuade voters, rather than offering a reasoned argument for why Candidate X would be a better choice
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by mallory stamper -
1. The premise is that God is a way for people to live happily, and that many people who follow God live happy lives. The conclusion is that God exists. The statement does contain a false cuase fallacy. The argument assumes that God exists based only on the generic opinion that believers in God live happy and meaningful lives. According to the statement, there is an absolute link between a well-lived life and God, which is not always the case in the real world. There are many people who do not follow God and are still able to live good lives, so the conclusion of the argument is not valid.
2. The premises of the passage are that Russell is an atheist and slept around and was nasty to many people. The conclusion of the passage is that the British philosopher's belief that objective morality is possible without God is incorrect. The fallacy in this argument is ad hominem, which is present due to the assumption that all people who do not believe in God cannot be "good people" just based off the observation of one bad atheist. It contains a biased observation that cannot be considered as truth.
3. The premises of this argument are that the person in office is doing a poor job, and that the new candidate would be a better option. The conclusion is that people should vote for the new candidate. The fallacy present in this passage is an appeal to fear. This is because the new candidate is attempting to create feelings of uncertainty about the current person in office, and people are scared of what they don't know and can't predict. Subsequently, the new candidate is proving himself a more viable option.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Pamela Kuczkowski -

Passage 1:

The premise is, “Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.”

The conclusion is, “Therefore, God exists.”

The fallacy here is post hoc,in which X is said to be the cause of Y because Y happened right after X.


Passage 2:

The premises are: (1) Bertrand Russell said that objective morality was possible without God. (2) Bertrand Russell was an atheist. (3) Bertrand Russell did not live a life of objective morality.

The conclusion is: Therefore, objective morality is not possible without God.

The fallacy here is the ad hominem fallacy, in which the opponent is attacked for his actions, rather than attacking the argument.


Passage 3:

The premises are: (1) If you vote for Candidate Y, she may be in power for four more years.(2)You are not happy with what Candidate Y has done over the last four years. 

The conclusion is: Therefore, vote for Candidate X.

The fallacy here is that a Red Herring was introduced to take the audiences’ attention away from the specific issues of the original argument.


In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Salvador de Jesus Farfan Sanchez -
1. God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
1) If God exists, people who believe in him go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
2) There are people who believe in God and go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
3) Therefore , God exists

This is the fallacy of 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.
The argument here is that, since Russell was nasty, his claim that objective morality is possible without God must be false.
This is a fallacious argument ad hominem.


3. Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.
I am willing to call both Red Herring and False Dichotomy on this one. It could be False Dichotomy if there are more potential candidates. I also say Red Herring because the question and the statement are not directly related. As a lighthearted note: I think the opening question could use a little more of Ad Hominem.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by NIJIN S S -
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.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by D Sai Shashank HSC -
God exists because believers have good lives.
– Fallacy: False cause – happiness doesn't prove God exists.

Russell was immoral, so his views on morality are wrong.
– Fallacy: Ad hominem – attacking him personally, not his argument.

Don't want four more years of this person? Vote for me.
– Fallacy: Appeal to fear – uses fear of the opponent, not real reasons.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by D. Tracy Design Studios -
1) “God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.”

Argument Structure
Main Conclusion: God exists.
Premise: Many people who believe in God end up healthy, happy, and fulfilled.

Fallacy Assessment
This is best seen as an appeal to consequences (or a non‐sequitur). Just because believing in God may have a positive influence on someone’s life, it does not logically follow that God actually exists. It treats the beneficial results of a belief as proof of the truth of that belief, which is a mistake in reasoning.

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.”

Argument Structure
The intended conclusion seems to be: “Russell’s claim that objective morality is possible without God is false (or should be disregarded).”
Premise: Russell was an atheist and had personal failings (he “slept around,” etc.).

Fallacy Assessment
This commits an ad hominem fallacy. The speaker dismisses Russell’s philosophical position by attacking his character and behavior rather than addressing the substance of his argument. Even if Russell were a deeply flawed individual, that alone does not show his claim about morality is incorrect.

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

Argument Structure
Main Conclusion: “Vote for me, Candidate X.”
Implicit Premise: “Another term for the current officeholder is undesirable.”

Fallacy Assessment
The statement does not present a clear logical reason—just an emotional (or rhetorical) prompt that continuing the other person’s term would be bad. One could see elements of a scare tactic or an appeal to fear, but it is also a typical piece of campaign rhetoric rather than a fully developed logical argument. Strictly speaking, it’s more a suggestion than a formal inference. It doesn’t clearly commit a standard formal fallacy (like denying the antecedent), but it does rely on emotional persuasion (“Don’t you dread another four years?”) without providing evidence. Depending on interpretation, one might categorize it as a weak appeal to fear, yet in everyday political speech this is fairly common—and not necessarily a crisp textbook fallacy in itself.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Dianne Bautista -
1. Argument Analysis

Premises: Many believers in God lead happy, healthy, and meaningful lives.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause)—Just because religious belief correlates with happiness does not mean God’s existence causes it. Many factors contribute to well-being, such as social support, community, and mindset. The argument confuses correlation with causation.



2. Argument Analysis

Premises: Bertrand Russell argued for objective morality without God. However, he was an atheist and allegedly engaged in immoral behavior.

Conclusion: Therefore, his argument is invalid.

Fallacy: Ad hominem—Attacking Russell’s character rather than addressing his argument. Even if Russell had personal flaws, it does not disprove his philosophical stance on morality. The validity of a claim should be judged on its reasoning, not the personal life of the one making it.



3. Argument Analysis

Premises: The speaker does not want the opponent to stay in office.

Conclusion: Vote for the speaker instead.

Fallacy: False dilemma—This argument presents only two options: either continue with the current officeholder or vote for the speaker. It ignores the possibility of other candidates or alternative solutions. By limiting choices, it pressures the audience into accepting the speaker’s conclusion.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by B B -
For example, someone might live a happy and fulfilling life due to their belief in a certain religion, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the religious claims are objectively true. Similarly, people can live meaningful lives without belief in God, but that also doesn’t necessarily prove or disprove God’s existence. Only the true faith can confirm this, as it is based on the authenticity of the beliefs and their alignment with reality, rather than merely the consequences of belief. God can make Miracles !!!
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Marquita Brooks -
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: This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It says that people who believe in God live happy, healthy and meaningful lives and implies that people who don’t believe in God won’t. But there are plenty of people who believe in God and do not have such lives and vise versa.

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
Premise: Russell slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people.
Conclusion: Objective morality is not possible without God.
Fallacy: The argument is insinuating that Russell was wrong about objective morality being achievable with out God because not only was he an atheist but also very nasty to people and he slept around and seduced young girls. However, that doesn’t prove that he is wrong. Someone else could prove the same argument, be an atheist, but be very nice to people, help their community, and be loyal to their spouse. The personal lives of the person creating the argument has nothing to do with the argument itself.
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 of this person in office?
Conclusion: Vote for me candidate X.
Fallacy: The argument is based on people not being happy with the current person in office because they are doing a terrible job and want a change. It is trying to exploit the fear of the voters if there is any.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Felix Mercado -
1.This passage is an argument. This argument commits the fallacy of: Appeal to Consequences.
Premise: Many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
Main Conclusion: God exists.
The argument attempts to establish the existence of God based on the positive outcomes that people who believe in God experience. However, this does not prove the existence of God. Just because people who believe in God might have positive lives does not mean that their positive lives are directly caused by the belief in God, or that God exists. Positive outcomes experienced by believers cannot be used as proof of Gods existence.

2.This is a red herring argument. This is an "ad hominem" fallacy, where the person making the argument is attacked rather than their ideas.
Premise 1: Bertrand Russell was an atheist who said objective morality is possible without God.
Premise 2: Russell had a questionable personal life, including affairs with young women and being "nasty" to people.
Conclusion: Therefore, Russell's argument about objective morality without God is not credible.
The argument attempts to discredit Russell's philosophical position by attacking his personal character, which is irrelevant to the validity of his argument.
The statement tries to distract from the debate about the philosophical concept of objective morality by bringing up unrelated details about Russell's personal life, suggesting that because he was not a morally exemplary person and his philosophical views must be flawed. This is a logical fallacy because someone's personal behavior does not automatically invalidate their ideas.

3.The passage is an argument. It contains the fallacy of appeal to emotion (specifically, a fear appeal).
The implicit premise being that the current person in office is undesirable, and the main conclusion being that the listener should vote for the speaker.
Premise (Implicit): You don't want four more years of this person in political office.
Main Conclusion: Vote for me.
The argument uses a fear-based tactic by implying that voting for the current person in office will lead to negative consequences (four more years of "this person"). This emotional manipulation attempts to sway the listener's vote not through logical reasoning or evidence, but by creating a sense of fear or unease. The speaker is essentially asking the listener to vote for them based on a fear of the alternative, rather than on the merits of their own candidacy or policies.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sulaiman Ibrahim Babaji -
Let's analyze each passage to identify any arguments, their premises, conclusions, and assess whether they contain fallacies.


---

Passage 1:

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

Argument Analysis:

Premise: Many people who believe in God lead healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.


Fallacy Assessment:

This argument commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which assumes that because two events occur together, one must cause the other. Here, it suggests that belief in God leads to a fulfilling life, and therefore, God must exist. However, correlation does not imply causation; other factors could contribute to people's happiness.


---

Passage 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."

Argument Analysis:

Premise 1: Bertrand Russell stated that objective morality is possible without God.

Premise 2: Russell was an atheist and engaged in morally questionable behavior.

Conclusion: Implied: Therefore, Russell's argument about objective morality is less credible.


Fallacy Assessment:

This passage contains an ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument's merits. It suggests that because Russell had questionable personal behavior, his philosophical views on morality are invalid. However, a person's actions do not necessarily undermine the validity of their arguments.


---

Passage 3:

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

Argument Analysis:

Premise: The current person in political office is undesirable.

Conclusion: Therefore, vote for Candidate X.


Fallacy Assessment:

This passage employs an appeal to emotion fallacy, specifically an appeal to fear. It attempts to persuade voters by invoking fear of the current officeholder's continued tenure without providing substantive reasons to support Candidate X. Effective arguments should be based on logical reasoning and evidence rather than solely on emotional appeals.


---

In summary, each passage presents an argument that contains a logical fallacy:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in Passage 1.


2. Ad hominem fallacy in Passage 2.


3. Appeal to emotion (fear) fallacy in Passage 3.



Recognizing these fallacies is crucial for evaluating the strength and validity of arguments.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Samantha Tomlinson -
1- affirming the consequent (Premise is true so conclusion is true)
premise: "many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives."
conclusion: "God exists"

2- ad hominem (Attack on character)
premise: "Bertrand Russell was an atheist and engaged in terrible behavior"
conclusion: Bertrand Russell's statement that "objective mortality is possible without God."

3- false dilemma (Only one or the other between two choices)
premise: you either support the individual in office or you are meant to vote for candidate x.
conclusion: you must support candidate x or the person in office.
In reply to First post

Re: Discussion: Fallacies

by Sultan Soherwardi -
### **Analysis of the Passages:**

#### **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 live happy, meaningful lives.
- **Conclusion:** Therefore, God exists.
- **Fallacy:** **Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause)**
- Just because belief in God correlates with happiness does not mean that God’s existence is the cause. Other factors could contribute to their happiness.

#### **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 allegedly immoral.
- **Conclusion:** His claim about objective morality is wrong.
- **Fallacy:** **Ad hominem (Personal Attack)**
- The argument attacks Russell’s character instead of addressing his philosophical claim. Even if he behaved immorally, it does not disprove his argument about morality.

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

- **Premise:** The current leader is undesirable.
- **Conclusion:** Therefore, vote for Candidate X.
- **Fallacy:** **False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy)**
- The argument presents only two options—keeping the current leader or voting for Candidate X—ignoring other candidates or alternatives.

### **Conclusion:**
Each passage contains an argument with a logical fallacy. The first assumes causation from correlation, the second attacks character instead of an argument, and the third falsely limits choices.