Examination of political slogans or phrases for logical fallacies

As people who have the ability to control the situation of the country, politicians should be responsible for puny minutia. However, some of those people could not accomplish the tasks given by their citizens, thus rise the irritation. By giving excuse, politicians deliberately escape from puzzling questions and try to explain some phenomena in other ways. Similarly, sometimes political campaigns could be rancid if mistaken slogans or phrases are taken. Despite political situation, in other occasions, this kind of mistake could also be uncovered. Therefore, logical fallacies, could be found if we analyze the sentences closely.

For instance, “Resistance is futile.” could be described a sort of hasty generalization. The speaker doesn’t emphasize what the resistance is, and why this resistance does make sense. Also, I cannot find out the warrant why he make this conclusion because of just some individual samples, because the commonsense is that not all resistances are futile. Such tyrannical monarchy as Qin Dynasty, could irritate people, and some of them fight against the clan and ultimately win the battles. So the speaker ought to be cautious about the situation, but not to draw the conclusion so immediately.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” is a kind of ad hominem argument since it attacks the character of a person rather than the claims he or she makes. The word “stupid” could be considered a subjective judgment added based on the speaker’s preference about the opponent’s personality. But the more important rudiment of argument is arguing the points of view. So the speaker of this sentence doesn’t make argument effectively. To resolve the problem, the word “stupid” must be deleted, and detailed evidence might need to be appended.

About non sequitur,“Remember the Alamo.” is a satiating example. Lacking enough proof about the claim, this sentence provides me the impression that the Alamo ought to be remembered. But why? Obviously, I can’t simply remember it because of deficiency of Alamo’s information. To improve this sentence, the author may need to concentrate on the relationship between Alamo and the people who deserve to remember it.

“Make love, not war.” is equivocation, because it hides some insidious background beyond the situation. The speaker may be conscious about what happens, but it make this claim in order to convince the audience that they shouldn’t oppose to the speaker’s opinions, or they will make an controversial resolution that obfuscate themselves. On the other hand, the speaker itself does not have the responsibility for the aftermath. I advise he could recognize the truth before he make this conclusion.

“A chicken in every pot.” is faulty causality, since it only pays attention on the result of a thing, but not the reason why it would happen. To ensure the legitimacy of this sentence, the author need to concern about the conditions and express the possible failure of this consequence.

As for slippery slope, “Guns don’t kill, people do.” is a testimony which does not determine the real nature of killings made by guns. Also, I’m not sure if people would kill others instead of guns. It seems to be that, without the guns, people would cause the most catastrophic disaster in the world. The author need to think about the arguments of guns.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” is a sort of badwagon since it only provides a commonsense which illustrate people’s behavior because of the heat in the kitchen. Sometimes, people do not need to obey rules rigidly. In fact, there could be another solution that fit this issue perfectly.

Stacking the deck only shows one side of the side of the story, and the slogan “Yes we can.” could be described stacking the deck, because it merely advocates why we could do. However, where is the thing that we cannot? The author lost the reasons which cause the abilities. To make an amendment, I suggest that the claim could be more sensible instead of being candid. Therefore, the trustworthiness of this sentence might be enhanced.


Work Cited

A. Lunsford, Andrea; J. Ruszkiewicz, John; Walters Keith. Everything’s an argument with readings. 6th ed. New York: Boston, 2012.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s