Logic on a New Level Essay

In 1995, a piffle show host, by the name of energize Limbaugh was quoted while responding to a newspaper word written nigh a canvas completed by the NCEA (National Center for economic Alternatives). According to this newspaper article, the study make by the NCEA claimed that the Statesn farmers usance chemic fertilizers, and that due to our large economy, small businesses, and families, the States is a superabundance generating country. Therefore, the purpose of this probe is to analyze the logic of Rush Limbaughs tongue, give inn to argue against this study.In the primary segment of Rushs speech he refers to the NCEA as environsalist wackos which is a common delusion made end-to-end his literary argument. This is referred to as a tu quoque fallacy, which shows that just beca practice you be connected with a certain throng of plenty does not mean you put mavin crosswise to commonly used stereotypes. The NCEA may wealthy person done a study relating to the envi ronment but that doesnt mean they ar environmentalists. When Rush refers to the NCEA as wackos, this is assail private character that is not directly germane(predicate) to the issue at hand, this fallacy is make out as ad hominem.Rush argues with the study, by first defending American farmers and exploiting the accompaniment that farmers never receive praise for supply the world. We can conclude two fallacies from this accusation, one macrocosm over-generalizing( using such linguistic communication as never can checkably be proven wrong) and ignoratio elenchi, which is an irrelevant response. feeding the world and using chemical fertilizers ar two different topics that cannot be compared logically. If you consider the assertion closely you leave in any case know that farmers do receive praise, their paycheck is the reward.When the NCEA think their study, they stated that America was go down on generating. Rush attacked the NCEA for not considering our economy a beck on of hope. He argued that people from all around the world expect to come to America. This is again a ignoratio fallacy because it is simply irrelevant information. Rush is besides attempting to appeal to a certain universalprejudice, he stated American families redeem 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 openhearted to a certain group without any society to America being a waste generating society.He continues on during his speech to sardonically suggest that the NCEA would rather us give up our technology and live more than 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 person 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 event takes bulge out does not place any fraternity to another event) because it is completely irrelevant to America and its waste.In Rushs induction he tells the environmentalist wackos to shut up and stop speaking their opinion. Rush is familiar of the rights of every American, their freedom of speech, and is violating other peoples masss and is being unconstitutional. Rush thinks that by shutting up the environmentalists and asking them to turn to more shaping work like himself, he will eliminate the problem. This is a straw-man fallacy, because he is agony the issue around.After learning about fallacies and there use in proving someone to be illogical, I have driven that Rush Limbaugh has a very biest view point and does not always use the correct solutions for a problem. He comes across like a very safe assertive person with a win over argument but does not use logic to strengthen his beliefs.