In this 750- to 1,000-word essay, you will analyze the fallacies in a letter to the editor.
In this essay you will analyze the following letters from Section 3.5 Exercise Set I of your eText. (The content of the letters is included below).
Letter 2, by Isabel Fierman
Letter 51, by Matt Cookson
Please ensure that you include a bibliography of all material that you reference, and that you cite all material that you include in your essay that is not your own (Please use MLA format).
Analyze both letters (located below). In your analysis, please do the following:
Identify and systematically examine each of the arguments made in each letter.
Identify the type of argument (inductive or deductive) and clearly list the premises and conclusion (i.e., outline the argument in premise/conclusion from using numbered premises).
Evaluate the validity and soundness, or strength and cogency of each argument.
Identify and describe the fallacies present in the letter and discuss what might have led the author of the letter to commit these fallacies.
Letters to the Editor
The following was taken from a newspaper column written by Isabel Fierman (Letter 2): When will these upper-crust intellectuals realize that the masses of working people are not in cozy, cushy, interesting, challenging, well-paying jobs, professions and businesses? My husband is now 51; for most of the last 33 years he has worked in the same factory job, and only the thought of retiring at 62 has sustained him. When he reaches that age in 11 years, who will tell him that his aging and physically wracked body must keep going another two years? My heart cries out for all the poor souls who man the assembly lines, ride the trucks or work in the fields or mines, or in the poorly ventilated, hot-in-summer, cold-in-winter factories and garages. Many cannot afford to retire at 62, 65, or even later. Never, never let them extend the retirement age. It’s a matter of survival to so many.
The following was taken from a newspaper column written by Matt Cookson (letter 51): The Supreme Court recently ruled that a police department in Florida did not violate any rights of privacy when a police helicopter flew over the backyard of a suspected drug dealer and noticed marijuana growing on his property. Many people, including groups like the Anti-Common Logic Union, felt that the suspect’s right to privacy outweighed the police department’s need to protect the public at large. The simple idea of sacrificing a right to serve a greater good should be allowed in certain cases. In this particular case the danger to the public wasn’t extremely large; marijuana is probably less dangerous than regular beer. But anything could have been in that backyard—a load of cocaine, an illegal stockpile of weapons, or other major threats to society.