''It would be wrong to censor violent programmes on television, because people's behaviour isn't really affected by what they see on the screen. All the same it would be a good idea to have more programmes showing the good sides of our national way of life, because it would straighten out some of the people who are always knocking our country. '' How do you evaluate this statement according to logic...?
Sep 18, 2021Well if we take the first part as a given, then the second part will fall flat on its face. If people's behaviour isn't really affected by what they view, then showing them the good sides, wouldn't move them.
Sep 19, 2021Fallacious in many ways It creates a fallacy of presumption because the first statement is vague. There seems to be a critical premise that is left on the argument. ( a premise that answers why peoples behavior isn't affected by what they see... Perhaps a research or sth... It just assumes it true) The second statement also the same... It misses a critical premise. The argument is very weak
Sep 19, 2021These is a hard question for me, but I think this is not an argument because I don't see any conclusion following the premise or the premise trying to support the conclusion.....if we cut the first part out we may consider it as an argument
Sep 19, 2021