Logical Fallacies in the Writing about Capital Punishment - Assignment Example

The paper "Logical Fallacies in the Writing about Capital Punishment" is a wonderful example of an assignment on social science. The essay “Death” is in support of capital punishment in America. It criticizes the comments of editors of the Washington Post, who wrote an article with the title “New York on the Brink”. The article was against the death sentence. However, the student essay is full of logically fallacious statements.

The fallacy of hasty generalization appears when the essay says that the death penalty is a moral and political issue. The statement fallaciously and hastily generalizes the death penalty as an issue of ethical and political consequences. The statement ignores the wide picture of the death penalty. Capital punishment could have more implications for psychological, social and economic impact. Categorizing the death penalty as having only moral and political implications is logically fallacious (Weber and Brizee).
The assumption that criminals would do more harm to common citizens because they can kill the police is logically false. The fallacy evident in the statement is the slippery slope fallacy. The essay assumes that since the criminals can kill the protectors of citizens, and then they can more harm to the citizens (Weber and Brizee).
The assumption that it is the lack of the death penalty that has caused overcrowding in prisons is a post hoc fallacy (Weber and Brizee). The essay fails to consider that there are other reasons that could lead to overcrowding in prisons.
Examples of Logical fallacies
1. Hasty generalization. The statement considers only the pleasure of people and employment creation to support hunting. The statement fails to consider other adverse effects of hunting before making the conclusion.
2. Slippery slope. The statement assumes that with free trade, there will be benefits in all sections of the nation. It is fallacious to equate free trade to benefits in all parts of the country.
3. Post hoc. The assumption that it is only rain that causes the sidewalk to get wet is fallacious. The wetness can be due to other causes.
4. Ad Hominem. The statement raises stereotypes about Christianity and on that basis disqualifies the scientist.
5. Begging the question. The statement assumes that the college would agree that all the fraternities are out of control. There could be other parties that are in control.
6. Loaded speech. The statement uses “grow in population and overwhelm” to underscore its point that U.S.A should go to war with Canada. Read More