Having trouble Analyzing an Argument (logical fallacies)!

Assignment

You will analyze an argument according to classical rhetoric. (You must choose an argument, not a human interest styory or more factual account.) choose an essay you feel is poorly argued and explain why. A good model for this assignment is our class discussion about the article which compared America's problems with gangs with actual subversive invasion.

This exercise is partly a logical fallacy hunt as well as a hunt for other problems you may notice. Your critique should be in the form of a unified 750 word essay complete with Works Cited, if applicable.

This is not about whether you agree with the author. It is only about whether the author knew what he or she was doing. In essence, you will be grading the argument using the same kinds of parameters a teacher might use for English 3.

We pick and choose our article in the Editorials, I have chosen one in Newspaper about "Throw are tax code out"

In the next post, Instead of typing the whole article here, I will type out the paragraphs that I think indicates a fallacy up for discussion, if not I will find another, I need to give a explanation that I'm having trouble with here.

First of all, here are the logical fallacy from a handout given to us.

1. Hasty generalization: a conclusion based on insufficient for unrepresentative evidence.

Non sequitur: a conclusion that does not follow logically from preceding statements or that is based on irrelevant data. Ex: "Mary loves good food; therefore, she will be an excellent chef."

2. False analogy: An analogy points out a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. Analogies can be an effective means of illustrating a point, but they are not proof.

3. Either...or fallacy: the suggestion that only two alternatives exist when in fact there are more.

4. Faulty cause-and -effect reasoning: Careless thinkers often assume that because one event follows another, the first is the cause of the second. It is a leap to an unjustified conclusion. Ex. "Since Gov. Smith took office; unemployment of minorities in the state has decreased by 7 percent. Gov. Smith should be applauded for reducing unemployment among minorities." The writer must show that Gov. Smith's policies are responsible for the decrease in unemployment; it is not enough to show merely that the decrease followed the governor's taking office.

5. Circular reasoning and begging the question: a way of ducking the issue. Instead of supporting the conclusion with evidence and logic, the writer simply restates the conclusion in different language.

6. Appeals to emotion: Many of the arguments we see in the media strive to win our sympathy rather than our intellectual agreement.

1. The goal of tax reform shouldbe twofold. One isto genterate a more reliable revenue stream. The other isto make the tax code more reflective of California's changing economy,which in turn couldstimulate more growth.

In the above sentence I believe it's an Either or... fallacy.

2. The industries that drive today's statef economy -- software, information services such as Google, high-tech, diversified manufacturing , movies, video games,professional and business services-- run onentrepreneurship, knowledge, creativity and technology. They produce more services and intangibles than hard goods. Operating in a global market, they face new comptetition from anywhere.

I believe this is false analogy based on how do you compare with storefronts and intangible assest such as websites. For instance website charges shipping and handling now on top of that we need a sales tax added? Not all websites are legit. Some websites are just informational retrieving educational resources.

Here are a few more that I think I found.

The sales tax paid by consumers is also out of step with changing economic reality. Today, consumers spend, an increasing share of their income on such services as 1. healthcare, gyms and gardeners as opposed to such tangible goods as clothes and furniture. But California, unlike most other states, still levies the sales tax on a relatively narrow range of tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine. As a result 2. , the dollars California spend yield about 30% less sales tax than they did in 1979. Even though California has among the highest sales tax rates in the country- the combined state and local rate ranges from 7.29% to 8.25% - the fact that it isn't levied on such things as amusements, repair services, car washing and limos causes revenues to lag behind the state's growth and the need for public services.

I believe this is comparison a false analogy.
Number 1. and the bold print the unlike and as a result! Comparing tangible goods like clothes and furniture with our food, utilities and healthcare providing medicines.

generalization hasting from percentages
Number 2. The author gives a percentage but on the other hand he doesn't mention from what sources, where locations. without showing examples or breakdowns, how he reached his results from his percentages.

A smart tax system does its work of raising needed revenues while attempting to minimize economic harm and advancing certain social goals. California's system doesn't meet that standard. It taxes desirable activities - work, through the income tax, saving and investment - but not some undesirable ones, like pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. And in defiance of all good economic sense, California has held down fuel taxes, which are a user fee, thereby shifting much of the burden of transportation funding toward the sales tax and bonds paid for with general taxes, and breaking the feeback loop between driving and paying for roads.

I believe the author describes this paragraph a cause and effect analogy.
the author is unrealistically this is the cause, if this happens. How can I explain the analogy here in the cause and effect. Should I mention the consequences?

In the last paragraph or some through the article he grabs your attention by sympathy as appeals to emotion esp. how the title is "Throw out the tax code"

He tends to scare us a bit. He becomes uncertain toward the end of the article.

After I point out some of the fallacies I have to write my critiques and explain three analogies from the paragraphs. I hope I'm detecting them as I type them for discussion here from the Los Angeles Times in the editorials section, where the opinion journals are pg.M8.

Good afternoon!

OK, in response to your first part: "The goal of tax reform shouldbe twofold. One isto genterate a more reliable revenue stream. The other isto make the tax code more reflective of California's changing economy,which in turn couldstimulate more growth.

In the above sentence I believe it's an Either or... fallacy."
What other explanations do you see in this statement?

As to your second post, I agree with you; it looks like you are on the right track.

In regards to the third post, I think you should explain it in very black and white terms, as the newspaper author has done. The cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all. Yes, I would include the consequences in your analysis also.

As for the fourth post, I agree with your application of the emotional theory; the title does sound a bit revolutionary. The author is clearly writing to gain followers.

"Is the author not clarifying is this a California's state regulation that we have to follow this code or is this a way to confuse the reader in thinking taxes are going to be nonexistant or extinct?" I'm not really sure what you want to state here; are you asking a question of your reader? If so, perhaps try to change it around a bit. For example, "Is the author confusing us by stating this is a California law? Is this a way of tricking readers into thinking taxes are going to be done away with?" Does the author mean that citizens will not have to pay taxes any longer, or is he/she stating that current tax money is being wasted?

As to your last paragraph, it does seem that the article depends heavily on him/her scaring the pants off anyone who reads this piece. Confusion is also a scare tactic, make no mistake about it. The less one understands about something the scarier it is.

I do believe you are on the right track; your analysis seems to be coming along quite nicely and you have some very good points. Keep up the good work!

Regards,
Gloria
Moderator, EssayForum.com