I. Introduction
The editorial page of The New York Times published an article in the Opinion Pages on November 6, 2011 titled The Next Fight Over Jobs. This article is addressing the need to extend unemployment benefits that is due to expire at the end of the year.
II. Embedded link to the article
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/the-next-fight-over-jobs.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The premises of the article are :
P1. Not extending federal unemployment benefits would be a disaster for many of the estimated 3.5 million Americans.
P2. It would also be a blow to the economy
Conclusion: Unemployment benefits need to be extended.
The writer of this editorial states that there are no plausible arguments against an extension - in fact, Congress has never let federal benefits expire when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. This commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance by using a lack of evidence to prove the premise. Another fallacy is the Slippery Slope when the arguer states that not extending benefits would be a disaster for the estimated 3.5 million Americans who get by on extended benefits. There is no reason to think that the failure to not extend unemployment benefits will result in such a disastrous consequence. Making a conclusion about a whole group the arguer is making a Hasty generalization when stating that Republicans committed to doing nothing paralyzes congress. The fallacy of False cause is committed when this arguer says that Republicans demonstrated willingness to ignore human needs and economic logic, it is more likely than not that jobless benefits will be a major battle in the months ahead. This is a fallacy because the arguer draws a conclusion on the basis of a causal link that may not be real.
The editorial page of The New York Times published an article in the Opinion Pages on November 6, 2011 titled The Next Fight Over Jobs. This article is addressing the need to extend unemployment benefits that is due to expire at the end of the year.
II. Embedded link to the article
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/the-next-fight-over-jobs.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The premises of the article are :
P1. Not extending federal unemployment benefits would be a disaster for many of the estimated 3.5 million Americans.
P2. It would also be a blow to the economy
Conclusion: Unemployment benefits need to be extended.
The writer of this editorial states that there are no plausible arguments against an extension - in fact, Congress has never let federal benefits expire when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. This commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance by using a lack of evidence to prove the premise. Another fallacy is the Slippery Slope when the arguer states that not extending benefits would be a disaster for the estimated 3.5 million Americans who get by on extended benefits. There is no reason to think that the failure to not extend unemployment benefits will result in such a disastrous consequence. Making a conclusion about a whole group the arguer is making a Hasty generalization when stating that Republicans committed to doing nothing paralyzes congress. The fallacy of False cause is committed when this arguer says that Republicans demonstrated willingness to ignore human needs and economic logic, it is more likely than not that jobless benefits will be a major battle in the months ahead. This is a fallacy because the arguer draws a conclusion on the basis of a causal link that may not be real.
No comments:
Post a Comment