I have always watched the Allstate commercials on tv. They are all so funny and make an argument why people should have Allstate. After learning about logical fallacies, I know realize this logical fallacy is slippery slope. The authors of this commercial is saying that if you are a teenage driver, then you will automatically be emotional by driving, leading to a serious car crash or even death. This could also be classified as a hasty generaliziation. The author is assuming that all teenage girls are emotional drivers, and therefore will react in such ways while driving. The authors have no evidence to support their claims, but overall the commercials are still funny.
My fallacy isn't really a rhetorical fallacy, its just a fallacy that I see used a lot in American culture. It's the idea that if someone has been gambling and loosing, that they are somehow less likely to loose their next game. The reality is that the probability of winning or loosing has not changed since the party in question started gambling. If you want to think about it this way, there is a 100% chance that the games you have already played ended they way they did, and therefore do not affect the outcome of future games.
I was watching tv one day and this commercial came on, i was watching it in confusion, as soon as the guy said his line i knew it had to be one of our fallacies, it ended up relating to the non sequitor. check it out:
I believe that the logical fallacy sob story/ appeal to pity or sentiment is like pathos which means emotion. In both cases your trying to win a argument by drawing the audience in with feelings like sympathy. Mitt Romney when asked about jobs during the Presidential Debate he said his wife encountered a family, a wife and husband with a baby who has worked 4 part-time jobs. He just lost another job and lost their home. Of course America is sympathetic, they are thinking we need a change because that is not right. A man has to work several part-time jobs to make enough money to provide for his home. Poor family! Poor economy! The family is the sob-story. Mitt Romney is saying he can change this. He's basically making the point that the economy is horrible, he can make better and more jobs. So vote for him. Do it for this family!
"Romney sought to address the issue of empathy with some of his first words, talking about "meeting people across the country" who have told him of their problems.
"I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, 'I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?' Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, 'Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job, and we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?' The answer is yes," he said, "we can help, but it's going to take a different path."(LATimes)
Over the next couple of weeks on the blog, find an example of one of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates
making a logical fallacy – in one of the debates, in an ad or in a speech. Quote
the candidate, articulate what they
are trying to argue, explain the fault
in their reasoning, and identify which
fallacy is being represented. Include a link – or even better, embed a
video – that shows the example in action.
blog entry over the next couple of the weeks should discuss how one of the candidates uses
a rhetorical appeal or technique effectively to enhance an
argument he is making.
The rap superstar Lil' Wayne put out a 30 minute long PSA a couple days ago ,addressing the death of Steve Jobs reminiscing on how he should be remembered and how Wayne himself, would like to be remembered if he, a global icon like Steve Jobs were to die at a young age. He also outed the media because of their portrayal on his effect on kids being negatively influenced because of his actions. We all know Wayne as a pop culture icon. He represents hip-hop and his patent is known worldwide. But it seems that he's become more popular for his substance abuse than his records. When you see Wayne he is almost always carrying 2 white foam cups that may contain promethazine-codine, Sprite and a Jolly Rancher. This particular Southern beverage originated in Houston TX where rappers would drink this as an alternative way of getting high. In the beginning of the announcement, he makes sure to prove that he doesn’t drink syrup by showing that he is prescribed particular medication when he's sick and he claims not to be sick anymore. He passionately goes on and on in this announcement about originality and how people are afraid to say,"I do it because he does it" He says,"Whatever is the reason you're doing what you're doing, and if so that reason is because Lil Wayne does it, don't be afraid to say that."I'm passionate about it, so know why you doing it." To prove he's serious, he grabs a board and jumps onto his ramps on his rooftop. He skates a little bit, but he really doesn’t to anything noteworthy, admitting, "I'm in the process of learning, but I'm trying." He said that he saw a kid at the age of 9 doing various tricks on T.V and he wanted to do some of the tricks this kid did, so he went out and bought a board because of him. He also added by saying, "your kid is watching me skate and he wants to play outside, I'm making the world a better place because I'm helping with childhood obesity". After these remarks he goes on about other various topics but these claims above stuck to me. I noticed that his faulty logic supported circular reasoning and I found a opposite parallel in which Ralph Waldo Emerson argues in "Self Reliance". He believes that insisting on yourself , never imitate. Your own gift can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession...." Emerson argues to be your own individual and try not to imitate others. I just found it interesting that someone that has such a global impact would want his fan base not to believe in Transcendentalism like Emerson does but to follow the actions of other successful people in the world.
One of the core practices of most religions is prayer. With Christianity, people pray to god, jesus, and saints. Everybody prays for different reasons, but they all are centered around either asking for guidence, of asking for help. They say that if you pray to god, then god will see fit that your want or need is satisfied to his liking. Prayer is an example of circular reasoning.
If you pray to god for ten thoasand dollars to be in ur mailbox the next day, there are only a couple of possible outcomes. Least likely scenario, you actually recieve then thoasand dollars in the mail and your faith in god increases dramatically. Another scenario is that you recieve a bonus chech from your work for two thoasand dollars. Christians would say that see god is looking out for you and even if you didn't get the ten thoasand, it is obviously god's doing that got you this two thoasand dollars.
Say you recieve no money at all and loan sharks come and break your legs, but you prayed to god, so why would he let this happen to you? The answer that any religious figure will tell you is that god has a plan and that he meant for that to happen to you. So are you suppossed to feel comforted by this? That really crappy stuff can happen to you even after you pray to god and the only supposedly logical explanation that religion gives you is that he meant for it to happen to you and it is all apart of his plan. You think that nobody would fall pray to that simple logical fallacy, however prayer has been around for centuries and has been falsely giving people faith in god. Prayer is pointless because no matter what the outcome is the answer is simply "god has a plan".
Every single time this commercial comes on, I change the channel as soon as possible. Images of pitiful dogs and cats who apparently need my help accompanied by sad, sappy music has to be the best example of a sob story around.
A Sob Story, a logical fallacy in which the audience is bombarded by emotion-provoking ideas, could be among the most obnoxious logical fallacies of them all, especially if it interrupts my Sunday afternoon of football. How can I possibly be content with touchdowns and field goals while there are innocent animals out there dying all over the place?
This just so happens to lead to another fallacy: Either/Or. To quote Sarah McLachlan, the spokesperson of the SPCA, "This is your chance to say 'I won't sit by while an animal suffers.'" Either I donate money to this organization, or I am the reason some cat is being dismembered. While this may be an exaggeration, it is not the kind of situation I want to be thrown into. I guess I don't need to exaggerate because that's what Family Guy is for. Here is their take on the logical fallacies of the SPCA commercials:
For a few years now the Allstate Insurance company has been showing commercials saying that the chaos guy will come destroy your house,car, and your valuables. At the end of every episode the chaos guy says that if you change to Allstate you will be better covered from chaos like him.
These commercials are a logical fallacy called Faulty Analogy. This means that you have an analogy but the logic is confusing so it might take the reader/listener a while to figure it out.
The chaos guy says:
If you got your home insurance from the same place you got your 15 minute car insurance, you should switch to Allstate. So you can be better pretected from chaos like me.
This is comparing a bad insurace company(Geico) to the great Allstate companyl. This can be confusing though because if you don't remember the Geico commercials you wouln't understand what company Allstate is saying not get or to get out of.
Commercials in between your favorite television shows seem to only be trying to sell you their product. In addition, they use different logical fallacies to persuade you to buy whatever they are selling.
In this commercial for the Nissan LEAF the creators use an either/or fallacy. In the beginning everyday life is shown with the seemingly simple replacement of electricity with gas. The viewer before they know what the creator is trying to say already has the thought that everything running on gas in their head before the announcer even says anything. Then once the announcer says "Then again what if everything didn't" run on gas the viewer is convinced that this product is the right thing to choose.
The either/or statement usage in this commercial makes it seem like there are only to options destroying the environment by using gas to power everything or their new car. Overall, the creators of this commercial use the either/or fallacy to make the viewer think that their car is the only logic option because the creators do not present all of the options.
Modern day media, more specifically television commercials, uses logical fallacies constantly to make an attempt at attracting customers.One example of a commercial using a logical fallacy is in a state Farm commercial were a man claims his insurance agent purchased a falcon for him, while it is obvious that the argument is completely untrue.
The basis of the character's argument is the fact that he saved tons of money switching insurance companies and he used the money he saved to buy a falcon ergo the insurance agent bought him a falcon. The fallacy the commercial incorporates is a Post Hoc ( the assumption that, because two things occur at the same time or in a sequence one is caused by the other). The flaw in the mans argument is the fact that it was his choice to buy the falcon. Just because he used money he saved to buy said falcon does not mean the insurance companyis responsible.
Though it is important to note that the insurance used the humor in how rediculous the argument was to attract customers, they were not trying to make a logical argument. Logical fallacies can be used to actually try to win an argument or to poke fun at how ridiculous arguments can be. Either way logical fallacies are used in modern day media to convey ideas and arguments.
We've all seen commercials where the advertisers say something along the lines of "serving you for over 20 years" or something like that. These advertisements are examples of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy. What these commercials are saying is pretty much that their product is better because it is older. They are not really selling their product with real reasons.
One example is the Mercedes Benz commercial inserted at the bottom. Even though it doesn't explicitly say that it is better because it is older, this commercial starts with a very old car and progressively gets newer. It is trying to show that because the company has been around for a long time, it is obviously the best. What they are trying to say is that their car is the best one and that if a company hasn't been around as long, it is not as good. This is the reason that the fallacy is a fallacy. Older doesn't necessarily mean better, it just means older.
One of the most controversial arguments of the day is about abortion, but it really shouldn't be. The problem is that the argument is set up as a logical fallacy. The two sides, pro-choice and pro-life, create an either/or statement.
"Either you are for abortion, or you are for government control over women's personal decisions" or "Either you are against abortion or you are for killing babies." There is absolutely no way to win. For the most part, every American approves of women's rights and opposes murdering people, but the either/or statement makes it seem like you have to choose.
The names of the two sides, "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life," completely avoid addressing each other. To someone unfamiliar with American controvercies, it would appear to be two pro- sides to two different arguments because they have both decided to be in favor of something different. The way I see it, it's the principle of having to choose between being for two very different things, not our basic beliefs that causes the problems.
In reality, everyone agrees. It's just a matter of people's priorities, so why can't we decide as a nation that we want to stop unwanted pregnancies and focus on that instead? In the mean time we can let people do what they believe. That's what democracy is about anyway, right?
Superbowl ad's are always trying to outdo each other, trying to have the most comedic commercials of them all. This FedEx commercial tries to entertain their audience by listing out the top ten criteria to make a successful commercial. It starts off with "1.Celebrity", saying if you have a celebrity in your commercial everyone else will buy it because of them. Then it goes down a list, "2. Animal 3. Dancing Animal 4. Cute Kid" and so on.
The fallacy used in this commercial Non Sequitur. The overall meaning to this ad is because you have all these things listed in our commercial, you will have a successful commercial. There are no others options to choose from in this commercial but the one's presented. Many other brands have presented good ads that include non of the following yet have became very popular and effective.
This fallacy was used in a comedic way in order to capture the attention of millions of viewers watching the football game, yet it nonetheless is still a misconception.
Okay watching the SuperBowl is always fun, especially watching all of the funny commercials. Seeing this commercial still makes me laugh. The logical fallacy that it sends me right off the bat is that a wine and cheese tasting is so boring that men have to hide their beer and miniature tv just to get through the evening. This would be hasty generalization. This is not completely true because it you had paid attention to the beginning of the commercial, you would have seen at least two men having a good time. I even know some people that enjoy wine tastings so they can enjoy their food a little better when they go out to eat. Logical fallacy number 2: red herring. The men literally hide their secret stash of beer and things inside these snazzy little containers not to bring attention to themselves. The only problem is that the cheese is way to big. This is all to get you to reason that 1) a football game is way better than a wine tasting, 2) a football game without beer. (I mean he goes to get more beer.), and 3) Beer is better than wine.
YES, YES, if you spray this on your body , billions of half-naked women will come groveling at your feet. This is the image that the creators of AXE like to show to advertise their must-have product. AXE specializes in grooming products such as, deodorant, body-wash, shampoo and hair stylers. Each product has their own specific scent that is uniqely pungant. The makers of AXE make it sure that you follow the step-by-step process of getting girls on the back of each spray bottle.
Yes, a "seductive fragrance with the effective deodorant protection" is supposed to get you "there" right? It seems like the creater's at AXE have their logic simply...distorted. Their making a hasty generalization that has no evidence to support the ultimate conclusion that you will attract women by using their product.
Overall the republican debate for presidency was rife with logical fallacies. This is not unique to the Republican party, but this form of debate seems to bring out appeals that are not to logic. Mitt Romney seemed to be using non-sequiturs when the first couple of questions were directed his way, he dodged questions by pulling out information that was not entirely related.
The moderator tried to use guilt by association against John Huntsman when he equated his plan with subsidies for natural gas companies with Obama’s attempts to provide subsidies for renewable energy. This was damaging to him because the republican base will not support a candidate who is at all similar to Obama in political ideology.
Herman Cain was asked a question about his 999 Plan and how future presidents might use it to raise taxes and he used a non-sequitur to talk about the benefits of his plan without answering the question. Mitt Romney said the current economy was Obama’s economy and was using guilt by association by associating Obama with the current economic climate.
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney used Ad Hominem attacks against each other when Mitt Romney said he flip-flopped in his earlier position that pensions are unconstitutional, and Rick Perry responded that Mitt Romney had flip-flopped in his book over his health care plan in Massachusetts. Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, and Newt Gingrich all used the straw man argument when they contorted Obama’s positions to say that he is a socialist.
Newt Gingrich, and John Huntsman tried to create glory by association when they made references to Ronald Reagan who is largely admired within the Republican Party.
That is the question. At least it is for "Judge" Danforth in Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
Why the quotations around Danforth's title? I think Danforth best explains it himself when he says, "I judge nothing" (91). And the truth is, he doesn't. While Danforth is supposed to hear evidence during the trials and make an unbiased decision on the innocence of the defendant, there's nothing unbiased about what he does. He accepts only the victim's evidence, since witchcraft is an "invisible crime." He uses illogical counter-arguments to disprove the defendant's innocent pleas. Danforth is not judging or deciding anything. He's just letting the whole situation play right into Abigail Williams's hands.
And wait. If a person accused of witchcraft accuses someone else of witchcraft, she is saved? According to Salem's courts, the only way to avoid punishment by law is to lie and point fingers at others. A court is supposed to enforce the law and keep order in society, but the court in Salem has paved the way for chaos. Now everyone who wants to stay alive becomes part of a chain reaction in which anyone can be the next victim. And anyone who disagrees with the court is automatically a criminal. Apparently having an opinion is the equivalent of trying to overthrow the court, because as Danforth says, "a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road in between" (94).
So can we call Danforth a judge, and his domain a court? Not at all.
After watching the movie with Robert DiNero about the McCarthyism Red Scare and reading McCarthy's speech, many logical fallacies can be pointed out. Even in today's society, many policiticians use logical fallacies to prove their point (a method of rhetoric). But do people really fall for these logical fallacies? Why do people fall for logical fallacies if they know it is one, or is it, that people can't distinguish logical fallacies? During the Red Scare, many logical fallacies were used, and also during the Witchcraft Trials. Why is it, that people couldn't see the ignorance and falsehood in some of the statements that were being made. Why is it that even today, logical fallacy can convince people to make that punch in that hole? If it's a logical fallacy, why then, do people continue to listen to them?
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion has no relation to the premise. In many body spray commercials, it seems the same events take place each time. A guy takes out body spray, sprays it on himself, and girls come running up to him. This is a great example of a non sequitur. It is basically saying, if you buy this body spray, you will have girls all over you. Obviously this isn't true, and the conclusion (girls will be attracted to you) does not follow premise, which is buying the spray. Using Axe doesn't automatically guarantee that girls will want you. There are many commercials showing this example of a non-sequitur, but here is one that most of you have probably seen:
Example: "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
The person quoting this is trying to say that once they ban pornography, they are going to ban all other forms of literature. The fault is that they are assuming that they will ban all literature because they are only going to ban one type of genre. The fallacy being represented is slippery slope because the person is asserting that once action is going to lead to another without any argument.
Red herring is a fallacy that means to mislead or to distract someone from the real argument or position. When I looked at the definition of this, it made me think of a childhood memory of mine that is a great and simple example of red herring.
When I was about 8 I was doing a scavenger hunt with my class. All of the maps lead to the "treasure" but each one took different routes. One of my friends told me that there was a short cut down a little trail and that it lead to a better treasure and I decided to take it. When I went threw it I thought I would be at the treasure but I ended up right back where I had started. I was mislead by a wrong clue by my classmate which is red herring.
In a recent campaign ad, Governor Pat Quinn accused his opponent in the gubernatorial race, Bill Brady, of not paying his income taxes. Quinn was telling the truth. Bill Brady hadn't payed any income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but this was because Bill Brady's business had suffered heavy losses in 2008 and 2009. U.S. tax code allows business losses to be offset against your income taxes. In this ad, Pat Quinn is trying to make Bill Brady sound like a crook because he didn't pay his taxes. Quinn's campaign ad used the logical fallacy of slanting. It's true that Bill Brady didn't pay income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but quinn's ad fails to mention that what Brady was doing was perfectly legal and in line with U.S. tax code. However, many people don't know that what Bill Brady was doing was perfectly legal. Therefore, Quinn's campaign ad is somewhat effective. However, to those who know Bill Brady did everything legally, it just makes Pat Quinn sound like more of an idiot. Click here to see Quinn's ad attacking Bill Brady for not paying income taxes
Another one of Pat Quinn's recent campaign ads uses the ad hominem logical fallacy to attack Bill Brady. Ad hominem means "against the man." An ad hominem logical fallacy is when a claim, argument, or position is rejected based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the claim. The ad says, "Millionaire Senator Bill Brady wants to cut the minimum wage... And this from someone that drives a Porsche and owns a Florida condo?" Quinn's ad doesn't identify any faults in Brady's actual plan to cut the minimum wage, or any faults in his economic polcies. Rather, the ad is attacking Brady for being rich, and implying that he is out of touch with "hard working people in times in like these." The ad gives no facts to support the claim that Bill Brady is out of touch, it is a personal attack, although a bad one at that. The last time I checked, a lot of people strive to be millionaire's, drive nice cars, and own vacation homes. Click here to see this ad
"What might happen down the road is not the subject today. The question is, do we want to raise taxes in the middle of a very, very tough economy? All the Republicans think that's a bad idea, and a substantial number of the Democrats think the same thing."
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY)
Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, on the Sunday talk show This Week with Christiane Amanpour, discussed his outlook for the upcoming midterm elections and mentioned the soon to expire Bush tax cuts. Congress, at the urging of President Bush, lowered taxes for all Americans by about 2-3 percent with legislation in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts are set to expire January 1st of next year, which would return taxes to the levels of the 1990s.
The Obama administration and most Democrats want Congress to extend permanently the tax cuts for Americans earning up to $250,000 per family or $200,000 as individuals. People earning more than these amounts would effectively have their taxes raised when the Bush tax cuts are removed. However, only 2 percent of American taxpayers fall into this category. Including this group in the new extended tax cuts would cost $700 billion over 10 years--that is an amount the nation simply cannot afford. Most Republicans in Congress, however, want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all American taxpayers. McConnell rhetorically asked on Sunday whether or not it is smart to "raise taxes" while we are in a time of economic hardship.
When he uses the phrase "raise taxes," McConnell is appealing to public opinion. He knows he has flipped a switch in the mind of the average American voter, who without question opposes any policy or policymaker wanting to "raise taxes." But McConnell is abusing his power, neglecting to mention that only 2 percent of Americans would be affected by the Obama administration's policy, and even then those people would hardly be affected. McConnell and other Republicans in Congress also realize that this issue will not be resolved before the November midterms, after which they hope to hold the majority of the seats in Congress. Wow, isn't the mind of a politician an interesting place?
When we started discussing logical fallacies this week, we found that the definition of a non sequitur fallacy can be identified as an illogical argument where the conclusion has no relation to the premises that were given. Fallacies such as this often appear in the context of an extreme exaggeration. With his in mind, an excellent example of a non sequitur fallacy can be found in the modern teen classic film; Mean Girls; when the Sex Ed teacher at this average American high school tries to convince the students to practice abstinence using an extremely blunt and simple exaggeration that is the perfect non sequitur.
Although participating in sexual intercourse may lead to the participating female becoming pregnant, it is an incredible fallacy to assume that if you have sex, you will ultimately die because of it, even if you do get pregnant. This ridiculous statement, although found in a fictional and comical context, is a simple example of a non sequitur.
The Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy is one in which if circumstance B comes after circumstance A, then circumstance A caused circumstance B. This fallacy is often presented in a way that potentially makes sense, but doesn't have backing evidence.
An example is in an older version of the lovable children's cartoon Frosty the Snowman. He mistakes his wording, inadvertantly turning it into a Post Hoc fallacy! Frosty's error doesn't seem like much, but if we let even Frosty get away with it, pretty soon many people could be using possible happenings as hardcore facts.
In this video of Glenn Beck weeping on national television, Beck is trying to convince Americans to support his "9/12" project which is supposed to rally the spirit and patriotism of Americans, somewhat like the day after 9/11. In the first three minutes of this video clip, Beck provides nothing but logical fallacies to progress his argument. The first fallacy used by Beck is the red herring fallacy. Beck cries on camera (or at least pretends to), and his tears are used as a diversion from his message. By crying, Beck is trying to get the viewer emotionally attached to him due to his "sincerity", rather than the validity of his claims. The second logical fallacy that Beck uses is the bandwagon fallacy. Beck spends around thirty seconds explaining how many people are watching his show and supporting the 9/12 project across the nation. In saying that thousands of people are watching his show and having "viewing parties", Beck is trying to show the viewer that everyone supports him, and therefore what he says is correct.
Personally I think that pretending to cry on national television should be some sort of fallacy itself.
Today in class when we discussed a variety of different logical fallacies I kept feeling as if they could be considered peer pressure; correct me if I am wrong. For an example appeal to popular opinion could be; "Everyone is jumping off a bridge, why don't you join?" Someone may be peer pressured to jump off that brigde because everyone else is doing so. This is a rediculous example, but I think that it is also common with many highschoolers and drugs, partying, or even trends. If a large group of people start wearing sweatpants every Wednesday; maybe someone will catch onto that trend and wear sweatpants every Wednesday. That is a fallacy in itself! (No?)
I feel as if people, especially in todays age, are constantly using fallacies, besides through peer pressure. (There should be a verb tense of fallacies!) Kids will use so many logical fallacies to get their arguments across. Their arguments may not be as rediculous as others, but I would still consider a great deal of how people casually argue, with fallacies.
In regards to our recent topic of logical fallacies, I thought it fitting to address "appealing to popular opinion". I remembered from the beginning of the year the days we spent studying American culture and identifying popular trends and whatnot. I think sometime in the unit Mr. Heidkamp showed us a campaign ad for John McCain. I recalled this ad vividly, where he campaigns for his Arizona senate seat by supporting and promising to help the fight across the border. McCain starts out the ad by referencing "drug and human smuggling, home invasions, and murder", after which the border patrol officer discusses the action being made and proudly says, "Senator, you're one of us." This conversation exhibits multiple fallacies. For one, McCain appeals to authority, looking to validate his argument through use of the credibility of an uniformed border officer. Also, McCain appeals to popular opinion when referencing the crimes committed. He associates all of these injustices with people who cross the border, no doubt affirming the thoughts of many across the nation. Finally, if someone could figure out this last one, it would be great. The border patrol moves from "completing the danged fence" to outright saying, "Senator, you're one of us", as if the entire situation is one of patriotism. This argument also includes the complete disregard for the reasons people cross the border, even if they come to America for opportunity, family, etc.
The logical fallicy called false cause or faulty cause/effect is present everywhere around us. It can occur when people make an assumption that two things are caused by each other when they are not or when a person jumps to a biased conclusion. An example of false cause is in this article.
The article starts talking about how horrible the shooting at Columbine High School was and then jumps to talking about abortion. Even though they do try to find similarties between the shooting and abortion, there is not enough evidence to back up that the two are related or that the shooting was caused by abortion. They go on to argue that abortion is wrong and that it is the reason why there is so much violence in the world.
The reason this is false cuase is because they are trying to link two things that do not have anything to do with each other. It is too much of a stretch to blame a school shooting on abortion. They should not have jumped to a conclusion that the two were related.