Capstone: Fallacy Hunt

This capstone reads one editorial straight through, then dissects it — tagging each error by name, and acquitting one move that only resembles a fallacy.

The editorial argues against a proposed cycle lane. Read it once at speed, then go back. First move: the councillor backing the lane cycles to work, so naturally she supports it. That attacks the advocate's motive rather than the proposal, and the near-miss check fails — her commute does not bear on whether the lane reduces collisions. Tagged. Second move: if we approve this lane, next it will be car-free streets, then a ban on driving altogether. Each step is asserted rather than supported, and no mechanism links them. A slippery slope, tagged. Third move: either we keep the parking or we lose the high street. Two options are presented as exhaustive when reduced parking with better transit is a live third. False dilemma, tagged. Fourth move: nobody in the neighbourhood wants this. The claim is offered without a survey, and the phrasing makes any resident who does want it not count as being from the neighbourhood. Tagged twice — an unsupported claim and a definition rigged to protect itself. Fifth move: the city's traffic engineers modelled the junction and project a small delay increase. This one gets acquitted. It cites relevant expertise inside its own field on a question that field settles, and the fact that it supports the writer's side does not make it fallacious. Final count: four errors and one honest appeal.