TV can’t be harmful for children because it occupies their attention for hours a
ID: 3443958 • Letter: T
Question
TV can’t be harmful for children because it occupies their attention for hours and keeps them off the streets.” Is this argument against the idea that TV can be harmful for children convincing? It is an example of the fallacy called irrelevant reason. This fallacy occurs when the argument given to support a proposition has little or no relevance to the proposition.
Here is another example: “Conservationists have suggested that we could conserve fuel by increasing the tax on gasoline. But more taxes, whether they’re paid by the oil companies or passed on to the consumer at the pump, will not produce one more barrel of oil.” What are your perspectives?
Explanation / Answer
The fallacy of this argument lies in it's concluding sentence, it doesn't convince the effort of conserving gasoline by increasing the tax .The conclusion doesn't support with an evidence or a strong reason for the argument and provides an irrelevant reason in support of the argument. Wanting to conserve gasoline by increasing taxes has nothing to do with producing an extra barrel of oil.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.