What fallacy is this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lampo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lampo

Guest
If I argue that 4 weeks vacation is enough for a banker and my opponent tries to discredit my argument by pointing out that I’m not a banker, what fallacy is my opponent committing?
 
Oftentimes, people with financial authority are required to take four weeks vacation, so that if any of several different kinds of fraud have been taking place, it will automatically show up in the books because financials are usually done on a once a month basis.

If someone is engaging in fraud and if they are absent for a month, evidence of the fraud will pop up in the normal business accounting cycle.
 
Lampo said:
If I argue that 4 weeks vacation is enough for a banker and my opponent tries to discredit my argument by pointing out that I’m not a banker, what fallacy is my opponent committing?
Click to expand...
Possibly an ad hominem, although, it is difficult to see the fallacious argument with so little of the argument stated.

I hope this link might help you recognized fallacies in your arguments.
 
Lampo said:
If I argue that 4 weeks vacation is enough for a banker and my opponent tries to discredit my argument by pointing out that I’m not a banker, what fallacy is my opponent committing?
Click to expand...
Lampo:

That is the fallacy of *weak analogy *and/or a fallacy of ambiguous middle. An example might be: “This person shouldn’t be a law maker because she does not drive and she might be responsible for passing safe driving laws. IOW: how can she know that it’s unsafe to drive 10 mph over the speed limit?”

Now, your opponent might be correct; but, not because of his/her argument. The argument, in this case, exhibits an ambiguous middle. That is, there is no answer to the question, “Why?” … is the banker entitled to more than four-weeks of vacation? Another person, who’s job is to be a lifeguard at the No 1 beach resort in the world, could make the same assertion. This kind of argument always begs the next question: “Why?”

Furthermore, the question is left unanswered by the arguer. Therefore, it can never be any more than an unjustified conclusion, or a naked assertion. Of course, somewhere, buried within the concept of “banker” is supposed to be the justification. But, the opponent can’t “see” it. After a year of doing that job, the opponent might agree! 🙂

God bless,
jd
 
Thanks for the responses. Helpful. The argument actually was dealing with teachers. I contended that teachers automatically get 6 weeks off/vacation right off the bat. Summer break, Christmas break and Spring break. I argued that was a good deal. My opponent said I was off base because I’m not a teacher and don’t know the stress they are under dealing with kids day in and day out. I pointed out that if a teacher doesn’t like dealing with kids day in and day out, they might be in the wrong business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top