Introduction
An argument is used to support conclusion. An argument uses a set of facts or assumptions. An argument is a reason or reasons offered for or against something.
A set of facts or assumptions (proposition) upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn, is called premise.
An argument that is logically inconsistent and fails to create a compelling case for its conclusion might contain error in reasoning, or fallacy (From the Latin fallacia (“deceit,” “trick,” or “fraud”).
An argument that is not supported by and is incompatible with logic when analyzed with care is called fallacious argument (deceptive argument).
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Lake many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion.
Example
At a party leaders’ televised debate the leader of the largest opposition party asks why the governing party has done nothing to stop its practices of giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids to its party-friendly firms. The leader of the party in power replies by detailing how many times the opposition party’s previous government has also given lucrative contracts to its party-friendly firms.
Discussion
As in the previous example above, the replying party’s leader makes an argument, but it is an irrelevant one that says nothing about why the wrong practice was not ceased.
The unstated premise is that giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids to your party-friendly firms (the wrong) is justified, as long as the other party also does so.
Although some strong supporters to the party might cheerfully react to the answer “You guys did the same thing a few years back,” it should be noted however that giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids (1) is at least a wasteful spending of taxpayers money; (2) is an act in which corruption might have played a role; (3) sets a precedent for an excuse of abuse of power and public funds while a criminal activities might have also been involved.
Politician who tries to justify his or her immoral and unethical conduct with other’s party equivalent or similar conduct should be condemned, denounced, and hold accountable, whenever possible.
In Conclusion
- Public officials who deliberately use fallacy believe that you are not smart enough to detect the techniques they use to deceive or mislead you.
- Use logic and critical thinking to prevent dishonourable politicians from making a fool out of you.
- The more critical thinkers, the better the politicians running our government and the better the quality of life for everyone.
Missing the Point
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Appeal to Fear
Personal Attack
With files from various sources
Related Articles, Links and Materials
Currently not available
