Part I: Fallacies
1. It’s ridiculous to worry about protecting America’s national parks against pollution and overuse when innocent people are being killed by terrorists. This statement lies under false analogy because the two things which are in question have an imperative elemental difference but again the two are important to the American people.
2. There can be no doubt that the Great Depression was caused by Herbert Hoover. He became President in March 1929, and the stock market crashed just seven months later. Post hoc. This is because according to the statement it is claimed that after Herbert become the president the stock market crashed. This is fallacious because the stock market drop was caused by Hatry case that occurred in September.
3. One nonsmoker, interviewed at a restaurant, said, “I can eat dinner just fine even though people around me are smoking.” Another, responding to a Los Angeles Times survey, said, “I don’t see what all the fuss is about. My wife has smoked for years and it has never bothered me.” We can see, then, that secondhand smoke does not cause a problem for most nonsmokers. This fallacy is called hasty generalization as the dimension of the model used to arrive at the conclusion is considerably excessively small. For instance, the sample is composed of two people who are not affected by secondary smoke but the country has about 313.9 million therefore the sample would have been about 25% of the total population.
Part II: Testing the Strength of Supporting Material
1. What was Nixon’s primary purpose in the speech?
Richard Nixon’s political committee/campaign officials wanted to further his political career so they came up with a sort of a fund which would be catering for his political expenses instead of using taxpayers’ finances to do so. After the public got wind of the fund, things got heated up and he saw it fit to address the nation and tell him the truth behind setting up the fund. Hence, the prime purpose of the fund/checkers speech by Nixon was to clear his name and more so defend himself against the numerous allegations which arose due to the fund.
2. Does the speech have more than one purpose?
Nixon’s speech had several purposes apart from trying to clear his name of any impropriety allegations stemming up from the fund set up by his backers to finance his political expenses. His political committee saw the power with which the television would help in shaping Nixon’s political image and furthermore aid in closing the gap between him and the American citizens. Therefore, probably directly or indirectly, Nixon was campaigning for himself on live television through portraying his honesty and accountability to the public and this saw him clinch the vice presidential seat at the end.
- Nixon’s claim
Nixon argued that the American taxpayers ought not to be required to finance items which were not official business. Therefore, according to him, the taxpayer was only to fund undertakings which directly affected them as people. Furthermore, the officials seeking any political seat should be affluent enough to cater for whichever of their expenses and if need be put their wives on pay rolls so that they can supplement their finances if need be. For instance, the vice president candidate on the democratic ticket has had his wife working for more than 10 years so she had a pay roll.
- Fallacies in Nixon’s speech
Throughout Richard Nixon’s speech, there were several observable fallacies which he deployed to the public so as to lure them into accepting his speech. For instance, he used post hoc fallacy when he said that the good leadership of Dwight Eisenhower was to eliminate the issue of corruption in the country. This is a fallacious statement since eradicating corruption will be tied to good governance of Mr. Eisenhower which in reality may not apply.
Nixon also plays the fallacy of exclusion whereby he excludes important evidence which in essence could undermine his allegation. He argues that there are only two ways to foot political finances which included being rich or including your spouse on the payroll. He omits the fact that even spouses can work and earn big finances to sponsor their husbands’ undertakings.
Another fallacy which Nixon deploys is that of paralepsis which basically means that he raised an issue even though he indicated that he won’t make a big deal. He alleges that his opponent on Democratic ticket had his wife on payroll for the past 10 years and noted that it was his business and apparently he wasn’t critical on him doing such a thing. This is fallacious as he brought up a serious allegation and points out to the public that he didn’t care that much about his opponent’s deeds and gave the public the judgmental stick.