The Fallacies of Emotional Argument
Wang and Stevenson’s article contains one of the fallacies of emotional reasoning. The authors tell the story of real-life heroes, residents of Shanghai, who cannot get out of China due to the authorities’ policies. The stories told by Wang and Stevenson are meant to evoke feelings of regret and fear in readers. It is difficult to say whether the journalists intended to manipulate the emotions of those who would decide to read the article or whether it was accidental. However, what is clear is that the entire text is permeated with the idea of the excessive cruelty and even absurdity of a zero-tolerance policy toward COVID-19.
The authors argue that the government is destroying families through its actions, preventing the Chinese from traveling, and generally increasing their control over the locals. Wang and Stevenson (2022) refer to the accounts of people whose lives have significantly deteriorated since the imposition of travel restrictions. The journalists focus on the fates of ordinary people from Shanghai who are now unable to work, see their loved ones, and generally maintain their former way of life (Wang & Stevenson, 2022). These stories collide with the image that has been constructed around China. Once again, the country is presented as a place where the interests of the ordinary people are not taken into account, and everyone is constantly monitored. Readers begin to sense that the Chinese authorities are doing the wrong thing. Intentionally or unintentionally, the authors appeal to the feelings of justice in the hearts of those who read this text.
The authors’ argument is indeed effective, especially because only one point of view is presented. According to this perspective, the current order of coronavirus control should be changed (Wang & Stevenson, 2022). Nevertheless, the authors deliberately ignore the fact that it is through a quick and fierce response that the authorities have been able to contain new outbreaks of the virus. Americans and Europeans severely criticize China for its harsh measures against the virus. However, they would criticize the country even more if the world had to face another pandemic because of its irresponsible handling of the spread of covid.
The Fallacies of Ethical Argument
Melody Schreiber’s article contains an implicit but still misguided ethical argument. The author of the article cites the views of David Cohen and Michael Smith to demonstrate what the abortion situation is like in the United States (Schreiber, 2022). This is the essence of the fallacy of the ethical argument – the main argument is to appeal to expert opinion. Despite the authority of both Cohen and Smith, one cannot rely entirely on their opinions on a controversial ethical issue like abortion. The argument is especially ineffective when those interviewed use words like “I think” and “probably” (Schreiber, 2022). The use of these terms gives the news article the character of an opinion essay. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that readers will be influenced by the background of those who commented.
However, this is precisely what the situation with the errors in ethical argumentation is counting on. The point of view of a particular expert is presented as something objective and not to be questioned. All the more so when the content of the argument itself is convincing. No one would argue that after the prohibition of abortion, the state would ban abortion tourism, as Cohen suggests. Moreover, Mikaela Smith’s position that the imposition of abortion bans would increase disparities in access to health care seems logical. Overall, it can be stated that the author’s argument is ineffective, but presumably, many readers will be impressed by it.
The Fallacies of Logical Argument
In logic, philosophy, and other sciences that study cognition, a logical fallacy is an error associated with a violation of the logical correctness of inferences. Erroneousness is due to some logical flaw in the proof, which makes the proof as a whole incorrect. Jeff Sommer’s article contains a logical fallacy because his observations contradict his conclusions. The author states that despite the market falling for over seven weeks now, one should still invest in stocks (Sommer, 2022). Such a statement contradicts common sense, because investing is to make a profit. It will take many years before the market returns to pre-crisis levels.
The author admits to being upset that his portfolio is down 13% but still advises his readers not to stop investing. Moreover, he quotes one expert as saying that no one has a clear idea of what is happening to the market. One gets the impression that Jeff Sommer is advising his readers to risk the capital they have without promising any positive consequences in return. Such a contradiction between the author’s conclusions and his observations is perplexing and does not permit the conclusion that his arguments are effective.
A Rhetorical Analysis
The rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the content of a text in terms of three components: ethos, pathos, and logos. The first component involves analyzing the authors’ authority of the article and the reader’s trust in them. Jane Coaston’s goal is to change people’s attitudes toward the concept of fear (2022). According to this, the author believes that fighting fear is not always necessary because sometimes it can be helpful and rational. Coaston briefly discusses other points of view, focusing only on those arguments that support her point of view (2022). No specific knowledge is required to discuss the topic of fear, so it is not necessary to inquire whether the author has sufficient credibility. It is worth noting that Coaston cites research to support her position makes her narrative more compelling.
Next, it is necessary to analyze the second component of rhetorical analysis: pathos. There is no particular emotion that Jane Coaston is trying to evoke in her readers. Still, she mentally lowers the narrative’s tone by using slang and making sentences shorter and more straightforward. The text’s target audience under analysis is not limited since no specific knowledge is required to understand the author’s main arguments. Anyone can read the article’s content simply by clicking on the link. Perhaps, a more academic style of narration would have made the article more convincing, but that is only a guess.
Ultimately, speaking of the logos, it should be noted that although the author’s argument is understandable, it is difficult to call it successful. It is pretty easy to make arguments that would support the view that overcoming fears can significantly enhance one’s standard of living. The author’s arguments are built logically; there are no errors in their content. The writer uses statistical data to reinforce his conclusions – Coaston appeals to specific figures to convince readers. Anyway, they do not seem convincing because only one point of view is presented.
References
Coaston, J. (2022). Quit telling me to conquer my fear. The New York Times.
Schreiber, M. (2022). US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn. The Guardian.
Sommer, J. (2022). Stocks have been falling. I’m still buying steadily. The New York Times.
Wang, V., & Stevenson, A. (2022). As China doubles down on lockdowns, some Chinese seek an exit. The New York Times.