Pls comment any 2
Case no # 1
Kane stated, “Now, however, I have something more than a hope. And Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys has something less than a chance.” This is an Arguing off the point fallacy because Kane was drawing an argument between him and Jim Getty. Which means that he have more hope to be elected but Getty have a less chance.
“Kane: with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State!” This is an Appeal to the crowd fallacy. Kane appeal arouses an emotional response to his audience on his speech and could sway the audience against W. Getty’s political machine.
Well, I'd make my promises now if I weren't too busy arranging to keep them. Is a Non Sequitur fallacy. Meaning “it does not follow”, His making promises now is nothing to do with, “if I’m not busy arranging to keep them.” Who or what does “them” mean? It wasn’t clearly stated.
I don't think that the speaker have an effective arguments because it seems like there's more allegations and accusations on the speaker speech. The audience might not like the fact that they're hearing all of these negative things that W. Getty done but yet there's no evidence laid out to confirm his accusations.
Case # 2
The speech has several fallacies; however, the three I identified were:
- The Argument ad Hominem- During the entire speech Kane attacks Gettys and doesn't bring up any specific points, just attacks him as an individual.
- Begging the Question- Kane states he is leading the polls, therefore he will be elected. There is no real truth or backup to his statement.
3.Appeal to the Crowd- During Kane's speech he spend time attacking Gettys, instead of talking about what he would actual do. He is using the dislike for Gettys as his argument to be elected.
I do not think Kane's speech was effective. He did not state any actual facts or what he would actually do. He just spent his time attacking Gettys and trying to appeal to the crowd. In my opinion he is trying to get elected by bashing his opponent and not talking about himself. It is politics at it's finest.
Case # 3
The most notable fallacy in Kane’s article is the argument ad hominem. Kane on several occasions verbally attacked Getty with little evidence to support his claim. There are no facts stating Getty’s performance in office. Kane states, “Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I’ll be elected.” Arguing of the point fallacy is represented with this statement given no facts as to why the polls are now favoring Kane. Appealing to the crowd is a good way to gain support, but it’s also misleading the audience.
Personally this article is garbage in the way it’s structured. The opening line was an attack on Getty with no specific topic. If Kane would have included facts about Getty’s policies and actions during his term then the claim would be valid. Terms such as “ordinary citizens” and “slum child” can viewed as an insult to anyone. Who is Kane to label which citizens are “ordinary?” In Kane’s first paragraph he states, “I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected.” His attitude during the campaign trail raises a red flag when no effort is present. I would hope each candidate wouldn’t give up so easily as Kane did.