Argumentative fallacy 's can be seen in everyday life from talking with one 's mom to speaking with their boss, the trouble is identifying these fallacy 's and being aware that they do exist and can affect oneself and the person they are speaking to. Being able to know the difference between an ad hominem and straw man could be the difference between winning one 's argument. To begin with, two quite opposite articles have been provided that contain a central claim about the Iraq war. One of these articles is written by Anna Quindlen, 'We 've been here before ', while the other one is by Donald Stoker, 'Insurgencies rarely win '. Quindlen 's article contains much argumentative fallacy’s that can be found throughout her writing, limiting the
…show more content…
In Quindlen 's article, one of the prominent argumentative fallacies made is in the last paragraph, as she states, “Someone with a trumpet should play taps outside the White House for the edification of a president who has not attended a single funeral for the Iraqi war dead” ( Quindlen). The fallacy made here is an ad hominem because although Bush is guilty of not appearing at any funeral for the Iraq war, the personal attack is irrelevant to the topic at hand and all it does is show how much Quindlen hated Bush. The fact that Bush had not attended any funeral can be supported by an interview Bush agreed to do from a reporter from the Defense Departments Stars & Stripes newspaper. In this interview, one of the questions prompted was, “why, to date, he has not …show more content…
What was the cause, the point, the strategy? And suddenly many Americans started to realize that there was no good answer” (Quindlen). By giving her audience the background knowledge that she was a mother who had a son dead, she provokes emotion into the audience that makes them feel sorry for Sheehan and helps them jump onto Quindlen 's bandwagon that Bush is a horrible person since he refused to speak with her. Quindlen was correct in saying that Sheehan had showed up at Bush 's ranch, wanting answers about her son’s death from the Iraq war. This can be proven as there is a news report on Sheehan saying, “Sheehan, who co-founded the anti-war group Gold Star Families for Peace led about 50 demonstrators near the Bush ranch Saturday.” (Quijano) asking “ 'why did he kill my son? '” and “ 'ask him [the president] what that noble cause was '”( Quijano). These direct statements for the source herself, Cindy Sheehan, prove that Quindlen did not make a fallacy with her information, just with her choice of words/placement. Compared to Stokers article, Quindlen 's article appears full of emotional appeal to get her audience to join her in her 'Bush hating club '. This sharp contrast in Stoker 's article can be seen as he states, “When the
In Quindlen 's article, one of the prominent argumentative fallacies made is in the last paragraph, as she states, “Someone with a trumpet should play taps outside the White House for the edification of a president who has not attended a single funeral for the Iraqi war dead” ( Quindlen). The fallacy made here is an ad hominem because although Bush is guilty of not appearing at any funeral for the Iraq war, the personal attack is irrelevant to the topic at hand and all it does is show how much Quindlen hated Bush. The fact that Bush had not attended any funeral can be supported by an interview Bush agreed to do from a reporter from the Defense Departments Stars & Stripes newspaper. In this interview, one of the questions prompted was, “why, to date, he has not …show more content…
What was the cause, the point, the strategy? And suddenly many Americans started to realize that there was no good answer” (Quindlen). By giving her audience the background knowledge that she was a mother who had a son dead, she provokes emotion into the audience that makes them feel sorry for Sheehan and helps them jump onto Quindlen 's bandwagon that Bush is a horrible person since he refused to speak with her. Quindlen was correct in saying that Sheehan had showed up at Bush 's ranch, wanting answers about her son’s death from the Iraq war. This can be proven as there is a news report on Sheehan saying, “Sheehan, who co-founded the anti-war group Gold Star Families for Peace led about 50 demonstrators near the Bush ranch Saturday.” (Quijano) asking “ 'why did he kill my son? '” and “ 'ask him [the president] what that noble cause was '”( Quijano). These direct statements for the source herself, Cindy Sheehan, prove that Quindlen did not make a fallacy with her information, just with her choice of words/placement. Compared to Stokers article, Quindlen 's article appears full of emotional appeal to get her audience to join her in her 'Bush hating club '. This sharp contrast in Stoker 's article can be seen as he states, “When the