The arguer offers two options: either restrict freedom of speech, or lose the country. He hopes the reader will assume that these are the only options available. This is unwarranted. He does not state how the so-called subversive elements would destroy the country, nor for that matter, why they would want to destroy it. There may be a third option that the author did not mention; namely, that society may be able to tolerate the subversives and it may even be improved by the diversity of opinion they offer. The answer is 。
Appeal To Authority
To appeal to authority is to cite an experts opinion as support for ones own opinion. This method of thought is not necessarily fallacious. Clearly, the reasonableness of the argument depends on the expertise of the person being cited and whether she is an expert in a field relevant to the argument.
Appealing to a doctors authority on a medical issue, for example, would be reasonable; but if the issue is about dermatology and the doctor is an orthopedist, then the argument would be questionable.
Personal Attack
In a personal attack , a persons character is challenged instead of her opinions.
Example:
Politician: How can we trust my opponent to be true to the voters? He isnt true to his wife!
This argument is weak because it attacks the opponents character, not his positions. Some people may consider fidelity a prerequisite for public office History, however, shows no correlation between fidelity and great political leadership.
【GMAT考试Testprep数学精解2】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02