4. In 2002 David Blunkett, the then British Home Secretary, argued that the fail

Question

4. In 2002 David Blunkett, the then British Home Secretary, argued that the failure of many Asian families to speak English at home was an impediment to those families participating in the wider modern culture' and that a fluency in English would help them overcome the schizophrenia that bedevils generational relationships.' The following is an excerpt from a letter to The Observer criticizing Blunkett's position Instead of pushing British people to learn new languages, he wants to prevent the rest of us from speaking many. This is, at its best, an obscenity due to Mr. Blunkett's denial of enriching his own people with other, probably richer cultures than his very own... When British people go to other countries, such as Spain for their precious holidays... they want to be able to communicate in English and also mingle with an English crowd. If this is what Mr. Blunkett tries to preserve, then, all he desires is a nation of non-intelligent, intellectually inferior (certainly in comparison with the rest of the European countries) people Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem, pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorautiam) in the text box argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious. (Worth 2 marks)

Explanation / Answer

The fallacy in this case would be he straw man fallacy. This is because the critical response to the statement mentions that Blunkett wants to prevent the Britishers from learning new languages whereas this was never stated by Blunkett himself in the first place. We was merely advocating for the knowledge of English to be imparted to Asian families.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 4
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.