1. Item 1:
An atheist I met made some very irrational arguments.
Therefore, most atheists are irrational.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#520
– Analysis
+ Structure
Premise1: An atheist I met made some very irrational arguments
Premise 2: What is true for some members is true for the whole group
___________________________________________________
Conclusion: most atheists are irrational.
– Fallacy of presumption: Hasty generalization
The 2nd premise (What is true for some members is true for the whole group) is a false premise. In this case, the author met an atheist who made some very irrational arguments. More importantly, the writer only met one atheist, not the whole group of atheist. Nevertheless, he concluded that most atheists are irrational. In brief, the writer had made a wrong conclusion.
2. Item 2:
“If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine”
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
LSD: Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
– Analysis:
If we legalize marijuana
↓
We will legalize heroin
↓
LSD
↓
crack cocaine…
– Fallacy of presumption: Slippery slope
This is a slippery slope because it is a fallacy that asserts the result of some event without explaining how the result follows from the event (marijuana → heroin→ LSD→ crack cocaine). All of them are insufficient conclusions.
3. Item 3:
“If we do not provide farmers with low-interest loans, they will go bankrupt.”
http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htm
– Fallacy of presumption (lacks premises): False Dilemma
In this example, it is assumed there are only two choices for farmers: decreasing low – interest loans or going bankrupt. This statement neglects the possibility of other options. Strictly speaking, a dilemma means just two alternatives. However, in many cases, more than two alternatives are acceptable. In fact, if we do not provide farmers with low-interest loans, we can increase prices for farm products.