Find three logical fallacies from the article - Essay Example

(Assignment) Three Logical Fallacies Post hoc fallacy One fallacy found in the article is post hoc fallacy. It is the writer’s claim that many of the student shootings at schools began in 1997, after the ban on guns at school. Thus, Lott claims that allowing guns at school will solve the problem. It is very evident that the shootings at school after 1997 had nothing to do with the ban on guns, and that ban on guns will only stop students from bringing guns to school. By showing a mere coincidence that there were more shootings at schools after the gun ban, the writer is trying to establish a link between the right to carry gun and armed attacks at schools.

The post hoc fallacy claims that ‘after this therefore because of this’. Two events simply following a sequential pattern is not sufficient to prove that the second event took place because of the first one. They are mere coincidences. It is necessary to conduct a controlled study that rules out all other factors that might influence the outcome to establish a casual connection between the events that took place in sequence. However, in the present case, this study does not take place. Straw man fallacy One fallacy that is evident in the article is straw man fallacy.

In fact, Straw Man fallacy is the outcome when a person plainly ignores another person’s actual position, and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. In the given article, Lott claims that there were many armed attacks in the US when there was ban on carrying guns, and he claims that they might be preventable if the law allowing the public to carry concealed guns was enacted. The point that the attacks were not prevented is replaced by Lott with the point that they could be prevented if people had guns.

Thus, he justifies his claim that people should be allowed to carry guns. Instead of reaching the reasonable conclusion that there is the need for even stricter implementation of the law banning guns, and more security measures, he reaches the conclusion that by allowing all to carry guns, the problem could be averted. However, he forgets the fact that the assailants too are members of society, and that it is impossible for authorities to identify who is likely to shoot others. Thus, he reaches the conclusion that the best way to prevent armed attack is to give weapons to everyone.

But he forgets the fact that giving access to weapons can create more criminals. Deductive reasoning The third fallacy that is identifiable in the article is deductive reasoning. For example, the writer points out that many people are opposed to the idea of allowing teachers and other public employees to carry concealed guns. According to him, this opposition is because last Sunday, in New Jersey, there was an attempt to attack some students and other people by some armed teenagers. Deductive reasoning means to assume that the basic law from which one argues can be applied in all cases.

If not properly used, it makes people apply a rule where it cannot be really applied, and thus results in an invalid conclusion. In the article, the deduction goes unsound as it is irrational to deduce that teenagers’ attempt to assault made people oppose the law that allows teachers and public employees to carry concealed guns for self protection. It would be a wise deduction if he claimed that the teenagers’ attempt to assault made people urge for strict implementation of the ban on guns in school.