Analyze Fallacy in Cheating
Justin Tran
Professor Howard
English 1302-S52
22 February 2017
Analyze Fallacy in Cheating
A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more an argument's logical soundness. “A letter to the editor” is one of the examples that fallacy in students where the writer of compiled his opinion about cheating is completely acceptable since he called it “A little giving or taking information in the examination…” and admit cheating can’t be very wrong. However, people may not agree with this logic -especially to me personally– and vehemently denied the argument if cheating should be standard in college testing which eliminates the purpose of test taking.
There are 59% of students averagely successful in graduating after four years of college, with the knowledge people learn throughout school, only 76% of them could be able to be employed. This statistic shows us that knowledge is the most important thing and also one of the main point of the competition in finding a job is different in knowledge and experience. Testing is one of the principles determined personal knowledge and promote where you stand in society.
However, the writer of “A Letter to the Editor” put cheated in a quotation which announced to the reader cheating is not a broad topic as people thing. Also, using the comparison in the first body paragraph, he prefers cheating as “A little giving or taking of information on an examination,” or equalize “the use of crib notes” with “some elaborate systems for memorizing facts” to soften the deliberate of cheating individually. By saying using the note and remembering something is similar in testing, set the writer back to his knowledge for the purpose of testing which once proven his agreement upon cheating.
Once again in the third paragraph, the quotation outside of the word dishonesty and phrased it “so smugly denounced” could prove his fallacious argument since what a purpose of life without honesty, unless the writer himself already being an unscrupulous person. Also, the author uses his view from another angle to back up his fallacy by using the phrase “take along the things you were needed to survival” contrast with “taking crib notes into the unknown territory of an examination” is a complete debacle in his logos. Considering a moment between life and death be compared to a time of a fruitless person who didn’t choose to study by their will are comprehensively unrelatable.
Study or not on the test are most likely to depend on the individual who is taking the test, even if they fail it wouldn’t cost them their life since it’s just a knowledge checker. Nonetheless, the scenario “needed of water or food or help” could cost people life are incomparable to the needed of answer for the test. Further to the end, announcement to the reader that “helping someone on an examination isn’t any different” preferring to saving people life would be the same in test taking and surviving the wildlife are the absolutely madness of his logical by using an incorrect pathos for “life-saving moment” throughout helping one another to cheat.
Step into the fourth paragraph, the writer immediately using the definition of charity to cover the inconsistency making throughout the letter. Analyzing his logic of “giving to a person in need” as a “performing an act of charity during the examinations” is an irrational choice since charity during an exam more likely to be a defrauding situation where the person who “need” chose to bring his foolish mind into the exam room without studying is a price for the causality decision they have made. Saying “The fact that one isn’t giving money or food doesn’t make the act any less charitable” is untruth statement upon the writer and his assumption of legitimate in cheating since he looks at giving people answer as a charity to lessen the unfavorable of cheating then it already is. Charity is just an excuse and writer abuse it to support his fallacy. Maybe the information he gave would help them now, but the test wouldn’t determine who they truly are which later on in life they would struggle in multiple occasions.