An Argument With Three Fallacies

In practice

This worked example is constructed for this course. A letter to a campus newspaper argues against a proposal to add a later start time for morning classes: "Every serious student already gets up early. The people pushing this proposal are the same people who want to cancel exams altogether. If we let classes start later, attendance will fall, grades will collapse, and the college will lose its reputation." Work through it in order. First, the opening sentence rests on what every serious student supposedly does. It is a hasty generalization, since no evidence supports the word every, and it carries a bandwagon pressure as well: readers who prefer later classes are implied to be less serious. Second, the next sentence connects the proposal's supporters to an unpopular position about exams. That is guilt by association, and it may also be a straw man if no supporter has proposed cancelling exams; either way, it attacks the people rather than the proposal. Third, the final sentence predicts a chain from later start times to falling attendance, collapsing grades and a ruined reputation, without evidence for any link. That is a slippery slope, and its dire ending is an appeal to fear. Notice how the fallacies travel together, as the earlier lessons predicted. Fourth, evaluate the warrant. The letter assumes that early starts cause better learning, but it never states or supports that assumption. A fair version of the argument would offer attendance data from similar colleges, address the proposal's actual terms, and reason step by step about likely effects.