In the sentence "These days, parents neglect to watch their children's social media use", we find an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
Hasty generalization does not present enough evidence to support the argument made and, therefore, generalizes a fact. In the sentence above, there is an affirmation that parents do not watch their children's social media use. How can the speaker state this? Who are these parents: all of them? Just a percentage? What about the parents who do watch their kids' use of social media? Do they not count?
As for the other options given, let's take a look at a brief description of what they mean:
Non sequitur is when a conclusion does not follow the evidence presented. It's an absurd conclusion, considering the information given. --> People like watching movies. Movies have violence. Therefore, having some violence happen to people is desirable.
Post hoc is a fallacy in which the speaker assumes there is a connection between events simply because they happened one after the other. That is, if B happened after A, then B happened because of A. --> If it rained after I had an ice cream, then it rained because I had the ice cream.
False analogy happens when the speaker analyzes two different facts under the same point of view and conditions, drawing a conclusion that is far-fetched. --> Monica is from South America. Alice is also from South America. Therefore, Monica and Alice are from the same country.
<span>This refers to Orwell's "1984". Smith is a bureaucrat in a large agency which revises texts based on the current version of political correctness. His job is drab but affected by internal politics which he must keep current on. The reader gets the impression that he has been in that job for a long time and that he is tired of it. </span>
Explanation:
What's the question? There is no image or question?
