Original Article
The article is about how "A 2010 video of an airport screener patting down a 3-year-old boy in a wheelchair has become the latest Rorschach test of the public's attitude towards the TSA, pitting agency defenders against those who say the video shows the child being treated like a terrorist."
I found two logical fallacies in this article.
1. ""There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police.""
This is a non sequitur, which is "distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made" (Writ 140 Course Book). The father suggests that society would not accept if an older man touched a young child in a McDonalds, which is, of course, true. However, this incident did not take place at McDonalds; on the contrary, this occurred as a security measure at an airport, where it is common practice to pat down travelers. Honestly, an old man touching anyone at McDonalds would not be appropriate, so this father's McDonalds connection really suggests that pat-downs are wrong on anyone, which is not what he appears to be arguing.
2. ""Totally unacceptable," wrote one YouTube commentator. "I look at the abject terror in this tiny child's eyes, and I know who caused it. I know who the terrorist is -- it's the creep in the blue shirt.""
This is a Youtube comment in response to the video of the pat-down, one of the two CNN highlights in the article. It is a hasty generalization which the Writing 140 Course Book defines as "a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, and sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples." The commenter suggests that just because of this one incident, the TSA agent is a "creep" and a "terrorist." This does not take into consideration that the agent is simply carrying out his job and that perhaps he didn't even make the decision to do the pat-down, but was instead told to. The comment takes one short incident and very harshly labels an individual and his entire character.
The article is about how "A 2010 video of an airport screener patting down a 3-year-old boy in a wheelchair has become the latest Rorschach test of the public's attitude towards the TSA, pitting agency defenders against those who say the video shows the child being treated like a terrorist."
I found two logical fallacies in this article.
1. ""There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police.""
This is a non sequitur, which is "distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made" (Writ 140 Course Book). The father suggests that society would not accept if an older man touched a young child in a McDonalds, which is, of course, true. However, this incident did not take place at McDonalds; on the contrary, this occurred as a security measure at an airport, where it is common practice to pat down travelers. Honestly, an old man touching anyone at McDonalds would not be appropriate, so this father's McDonalds connection really suggests that pat-downs are wrong on anyone, which is not what he appears to be arguing.
2. ""Totally unacceptable," wrote one YouTube commentator. "I look at the abject terror in this tiny child's eyes, and I know who caused it. I know who the terrorist is -- it's the creep in the blue shirt.""
This is a Youtube comment in response to the video of the pat-down, one of the two CNN highlights in the article. It is a hasty generalization which the Writing 140 Course Book defines as "a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, and sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples." The commenter suggests that just because of this one incident, the TSA agent is a "creep" and a "terrorist." This does not take into consideration that the agent is simply carrying out his job and that perhaps he didn't even make the decision to do the pat-down, but was instead told to. The comment takes one short incident and very harshly labels an individual and his entire character.
No comments:
Post a Comment