"This administration is not anti-German, as it has been alleged. Germany is a great country. It has contributed immensely to the world's artistic treasury. Goethe and Schiller made magnificent contributions to literature, and Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms did the same in music."
(#14, p. 167, Hurley)
This question stood out to me in class. I would say that it "misses the point", as simply describing great German artists does not defend "[the] administration" to be "pro-German". However, I noticed that this phrase had to be taken out of context to commit a fallacy; given the proper surrounding information, a statement like this might be viable. For example, if the problem had noted that the administration was for an arts council, and that the speaker was the lead member of said council, then his admission that there are many great German artists would have been on track. However, it still wouldn't be much of a convincing argument, as it still does not note whether the entire administration, including all members, feel the same way as the speaker. This led me to think that from time to time fallacies can be commit by accident due to a lack of relevant information.
Does this attempt eliminate the fallacy?
Does my reasoning support the notion that committing fallacies by accident is easy?
No comments:
Post a Comment