Logic on a New Level Essay

In 1995, a talk show host, by the name of Rush Limbaugh was quoted while responding to a newspaper article write about a study completed by the NCEA (National Center for sparing Alternatives). According to this newspaper article, the study done by the NCEA claimed that the Statesn farmers social occasion chemical fertilizers, and that due to our large economy, small businesses, and families, the States is a boast generating country. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to analyze the logic of Rush Limbaughs wrangle, effrontery to argue against this study.In the inaugural segment of Rushs public lecture he refers to the NCEA as surroundingsalist wackos which is a common fallacy sort out throughout his statement. This is referred to as a tu quoque fallacy, which shows that just because you are connected with a certain group of battalion does non mean you apply to commonly used stereotypes. The NCEA may have done a study relating to the environment but that doesnt mean t hey are environmentalists. When Rush refers to the NCEA as wackos, this is contend personal character that is not directly relevant to the issue at hand, this fallacy is know as ad hominem.Rush argues with the study, by first defending American farmers and exploiting the fact that farmers never receive praise for alimentation the world. We can conclude dickens fallacies from this accusation, one being over-generalizing( using much(prenominal) words as never can easily be turn up wrong) and ignoratio elenchi, which is an irrelevant response. Feeding the world and using chemical fertilizers are two different topics that cannot be compared logically. If you consider the statement closely you ordain similarly know that farmers do receive praise, their paycheck is the reward.When the NCEA concluded their study, they stated that America was waste generating. Rush attacked the NCEA for not considering our economy a beckon of go for. He argued that people from all around the world w ant to accompany to America. This is again a ignoratio fallacy because it is simply irrelevant information. Rush is also attempting to appeal to a certain popularprejudice, he stated American families have worked generations for a high standard of living, no theyre not held up for praise. No Instead theyre all trashed. This statement is an ad populum fallacy, because he is appealing to a certain group without any connexion to America being a waste generating society.He continues on during his speech to sarcastically suggest that the NCEA would rather us give up our engineering science and live more like the Soviets. This is an ad poplum statement appealing to people that fear communism. Rush is attacking the personal character of Soviets, which is ad hominem and he is committing a tu quoque, which is stating that just because someone is a Soviet does not make them primitive. This statement can be simply concluded as a ignoratio statement and a slippery slope(just because one even t takes place does not place any connection to another event) because it is completely irrelevant to America and its waste.In Rushs conclusion he tells the environmentalist wackos to closed up and stop speaking their opinion. Rush is familiar of the rights of every American, their exemption of speech, and is violating other peoples views and is being unconstitutional. Rush thinks that by shutting up the environmentalists and communicate them to turn to more constructive work like himself, he will eliminate the problem. This is a straw-man fallacy, because he is twisting the issue around.After culture about fallacies and there use in proving someone to be illogical, I have determined that Rush Limbaugh has a very biest view burden and does not always use the correct solutions for a problem. He comes crossways like a very strong assertive person with a convincing argument but does not use logic to intone his beliefs.