Home > Free Essays > Law > Homeland Security > Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay
Cite this

Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay


Stephen Toulmin is a British theorist of the 20th century. He realized that calm and sensible arguments typically comprise of seven elements.

These include claim, ground, data, warrant, backing statement, rebuttal and qualifier. Claim refers to the key point that the biographer is attempting to argue. Ground is the foundation of actual persuasion and is the reality on which the claim is founded. Data refers to the available information regarding the subject topic.

Warrant refers to what the spectators have to presume so as to make the argument function. Backing statement provides extra back up to the warrant by responding to distinct questions. Qualifiers involve the use of credible language rather than complete language.

They designate the strong points of the leap all through to the warrant and may restrict the generality of the claim. Rebuttal refers to the expected alternative observations as affirmed in the argument that need answers.

This can be oppositional or distinct viewpoints on the issue (Govier 278). This paper will use Tolmin analysis to identify the Tolmin elements in the article “Prevent Gun Control Laws” by Charles Martin. This will be followed by a systematic analysis of each logical fallacy in this article.

Discussion

Toulmin analysis

The American people are traditionally a gun loving people, and as part of this tradition, typically strike down any attempt by the government to institute strict gun control laws (Claim). If the rumors about the New World Order are true, and elitist tycoons plot to enslave the entire world, then the fact that most Americans have firearms is certainly going to be a problem (Claim).

That is why gun control is so crucial for tyrants, because resisters with weapons can defeat oppression (Ground). Although not all of these efforts are successful, many of them do end in success (Qualifier).

For these reasons, it is increasingly critical to protect gun rights and gun confiscation programs from ever getting off the ground, this way the government will be too fearful to attempt anything funny on the American population (Ground). Legislation against gun rights serves no purpose but to guarantee that law-abiding people are put in situations where there’s nowhere to run (Warrant).

This idea of disarming those who can make a positive difference is probably one of the biggest disgraces when it comes to gun control (Warrant). Gun control laws have never been able to prevent criminals from using guns while committing crimes because criminals do not respect laws.

Criminals do not abide by or even notice the existence of most laws, and so it comes as no surprise that they would use a gun even though that gun may be considered illegal and contraband (Backing statement). Because of this, gun control laws serve only to protect criminals and enhance their ability to conduct crime by increasing the likelihood of any criminal action becoming successful (Backing Statement).

Gun control laws can also enhance the power of an oppressive government, by allowing it to have free reign when it comes to battling the citizenry as the government will have guns and the citizens will not (Backing Statement). This situation has happened many times before, historically, in most harsh dictatorships (Qualifier).

The practice of confiscating weapons from citizens in order to make them less able to defend themselves from government abuses dates back thousands of years. Perhaps one of the most famous cases of this occurring was several hundred years ago in Japan (Data).

Because of these facts about the history of weapon confiscation, it is painfully obvious that gun control is directly related to oppressive measures conducted by tyrannical governments (Rebuttal). People in nations where gun control already exists, and the majority of citizenry have no means of self-defense, the government can easily trample over them at any time simply because the government has guns and people do not (Rebuttal) (Hitchcock & Verheij 176).

Logical fallacies

Fallacies are faults that make arguments in an article weak. The sentence “The American people are traditionally a gun loving people” is a fallacy of hasty generalization. This is because it makes suppositions concerning all Americans based on an inadequate sample. This might be different since not all Americans love guns. The author uses this fallacy to come up with a conclusion (Fischer 219).

There is also the fallacy of post hoc. It is also known as the fallacy of false cause. This is seen in” It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. and knew that almost all households had guns”.

This is a fallacy since the author has assumed that Japan did not attack the US simply because all households in this nation had guns. Sometimes, two proceedings that seem connected when it comes to time may not be associated. Relationship is, therefore, different from causation.

In this argumentative essay, the author uses this fallacy to show that something led to another. Another fallacy of post hoc is seen in the passage “An oppressive shogun had determined that a group of citizens many of whom had just been subjugated were dangerous and could resist their rule, so the law banning swords came into being” (Fischer 219).

The fallacy of the slippery slope is also evident. This is seen in the passage “If the rumors about the New World Order are true, and elitist tycoons plot to enslave the entire world, then the fact that most Americans have firearms is certainly going to be a problem”.

The author asserts that a chain reaction, typically ending in some terrible consequence will occur, but there is no adequate evidence for that supposition. There is no satisfactory reason provided to accept the author’s conclusion. The author uses this fallacy to show the effect of prediction (Fischer 219).

Works Cited

Fischer, Hackett. Historians’ fallacies: Toward logic of historical thought. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970.Print.

Govier, Trudy. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Holland; Foris Publications, 1987. Print.

Hitchcock, David & Verheij, Bart. Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print.

This analytical essay on Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Need a custom Analytical Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

301 certified writers online

GET WRITING HELP
Cite This paper

Select a citation style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2019, October 21). Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/toulmin-and-logical-fallacies-analysis/

Work Cited

"Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay." IvyPanda, 21 Oct. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/toulmin-and-logical-fallacies-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda. "Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay." October 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toulmin-and-logical-fallacies-analysis/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay." October 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toulmin-and-logical-fallacies-analysis/.

References

IvyPanda. 2019. "Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay." October 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toulmin-and-logical-fallacies-analysis/.

References

IvyPanda. (2019) 'Logical Fallacies and Toulmin Analysis Example Essay'. 21 October.

More related papers