In the reading “Help Those Who Help, Not Hurt, Themselves,” Christian Brahmstedt presents an argument why the homeless should not be supported by the public or government. However, in supporting this argument, Brahmstedt makes several invalid and unsound points in the form of fallacies. In Brahmstedt’s “Help Those Who Help, Not Hurt, Themselves” he uses material fallacies, which are flaws given or material used, in order to support the idea that the homeless should not be supported by public or government aid. One of the material fallacies that appears is in paragraph two, in which Brahmstedt defines the “homeless” as different from the poor. The poor are defined as a part of civilization everyone has been part of at some point; they are
…show more content…
By inferring a cause-and-effect relationship between supporting the “homeless” and their continued begging, the material fallacy “false cause” is used. This is because the relationship between being supported and continued begging does not have sufficient evidence. The only support given that this is a real relationship is the anecdote about the returning gray squirrels on Capitol Hill. However, a false connection between events based on time or place instead of actuality occurs. While the gray squirrels do indeed return the next day, there is no evidence that it was the heavy feeding that prompts the squirrels to return to the same spot. This is similar to how the events of supporting the homeless and seeing them continue begging are possibly not related, as there is no way to tell if the support is what causes the homeless to come back. To say that “this support is not helping the homeless; it is only teaching them to rely on it” (Brahmstedt) commits the “false cause” material fallacy. In order to prevent committing this fallacy, Brahmstedt could have possibly used scientific evidence as to how handouts to squirrels triggers something in order to make them return, and then relate this to the homeless receiving …show more content…
They will learn to support themselves and learn that society demands honest work for an honest dollar.” This ends up falling under the material fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, or “non-sequitur.” The phrase “non-sequitur” means “does not follow,” and implies that the conclusion made does not connect with the basic information in the premises. This occurs in Brahmstedt’s conclusion, as there is no evidence that a “homeless” problem will go away only if Washingtonians refuse to feed them; nor is there evidence that the homeless do not understand that society demands honest work for an honest dollar. The conclusion that is drawn ends up being unsupported by any facts, and relies on assumptions that also do not have any basis behind it. If evidence such as a paper showing cities that do not run a homeless aid program having reduced homelessness were to be referenced to, then the conclusion may not have fallen under the material fallacy. Overall, the reading “Help Those Who Help, Not Hurt, Themselves” commits several fallacies. One of the major fallacies seen is a material fallacy, which is a flaw in the information given or used. These fallacies end up weakening the argument that the homeless should not be supported by the government or public, and make Brahmstedt’s argument less
By inferring a cause-and-effect relationship between supporting the “homeless” and their continued begging, the material fallacy “false cause” is used. This is because the relationship between being supported and continued begging does not have sufficient evidence. The only support given that this is a real relationship is the anecdote about the returning gray squirrels on Capitol Hill. However, a false connection between events based on time or place instead of actuality occurs. While the gray squirrels do indeed return the next day, there is no evidence that it was the heavy feeding that prompts the squirrels to return to the same spot. This is similar to how the events of supporting the homeless and seeing them continue begging are possibly not related, as there is no way to tell if the support is what causes the homeless to come back. To say that “this support is not helping the homeless; it is only teaching them to rely on it” (Brahmstedt) commits the “false cause” material fallacy. In order to prevent committing this fallacy, Brahmstedt could have possibly used scientific evidence as to how handouts to squirrels triggers something in order to make them return, and then relate this to the homeless receiving …show more content…
They will learn to support themselves and learn that society demands honest work for an honest dollar.” This ends up falling under the material fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, or “non-sequitur.” The phrase “non-sequitur” means “does not follow,” and implies that the conclusion made does not connect with the basic information in the premises. This occurs in Brahmstedt’s conclusion, as there is no evidence that a “homeless” problem will go away only if Washingtonians refuse to feed them; nor is there evidence that the homeless do not understand that society demands honest work for an honest dollar. The conclusion that is drawn ends up being unsupported by any facts, and relies on assumptions that also do not have any basis behind it. If evidence such as a paper showing cities that do not run a homeless aid program having reduced homelessness were to be referenced to, then the conclusion may not have fallen under the material fallacy. Overall, the reading “Help Those Who Help, Not Hurt, Themselves” commits several fallacies. One of the major fallacies seen is a material fallacy, which is a flaw in the information given or used. These fallacies end up weakening the argument that the homeless should not be supported by the government or public, and make Brahmstedt’s argument less