Which line or lines in this editorial show faulty reasoning? Save Teenage Driving: A Call to Arms an editorial by Sophie Behrend
Recently, House Representative Ken Weaver of Washington State proposed a bill (House Bill R-9687b) that would raise the legal driving age to 21. You heard me right—Congress is considering raising the driving age to 21. If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it.
"If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it."
Explanation:
This is the line that best shows faulty reasoning. This is because the conclusions that the speaker gets to are not supported by the premises. We know that the bill has been proposed, and that the bill would raise the legal age to 21. However, none of this indicates that the law will be a catastrophe, or that it would be the end of life as we know it. The conclusion is ineffective because the author reaches a conclusion while failing to provide any evidence that supports it.
"If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it"
Illogical conclusions shows a cause-and-effect relationship that does not exist, based on something that doesn't make sense. To find an illogical conclusion, you can ask how the initial information is linked to the final conclusion. Is there any information that supports it?
