Question

--

Answer 1

Do you know what those two terms mean?

Answer 2

"Fallacious reasoning" and "opinion"

Answer 3

Fallacious reasoning is just reasoning that isn't valid, or based in logic. An example of this would be someone assuming that you are a volleyball player because they know that the rest of your family plays volleyball. Whilst they run off of facts, it isn't grounded in any reason as far as knowing for sure if this individual is a volleyball player.

An opinion can be both correct and incorrect. It's most easily defined as a viewpoint from an individual, as you said.

Someone can have an incorrect, or invalid opinion, which can have fallacious reasoning. Thus it could be said to be an opinion.

Answer 4

Sure

Answer 5

Glad you put a space between that :)

Answer 6

Did you read through it already?

Answer 7

Oh. So have you already located some sentences?

Answer 8

The sky is blue because the ocean is blue.

Answer 9

That isn't relevant. Especially if you know how the sky actually becomes blue (through light scattering off dust particles in the air).

Answer 10

So it's asking you to look at the facts Paine uses to support his claims. The claim in my sentence is "the sky is blue" with my fact supporting the claim being "because the ocean is blue." Then we can look at that fact and ask, 'is this relevant?'

Answer 11

Since you have already read the passage, what do you think?

Answer 12

I was thinking about that one too. He doesn't have much of a reason to say that America would have been better off without European influence. He basically says due to the "commerce" that America "enriches" itself are the "necessaries of life" and thus will always be successful in the market "while eating is a custom in Europe."

1. This logic has no basis to say that America would have been fine economically without Europe. He doesn't say where else they would trade, and setup a market with.

2. His logic seems to eat itself. He says they don't need European powers, then says America will be fine as long as "eating is a custom in Europe." So we don't need Europe, but we'll be fine as long as European people still need to eat (we'll sell them food).

See how that doesn't make sense?

Answer 13

Maybe he means we don't need them, but they need us. But it seems that he wants nothing to do with Europe, and would rather work with other people. He obviously despises Europe and the persecution it had for individuals who wanted to practice the religion of their choice, but his bias seems to hinder his reasoning.

Answer 14

You could poke at the first sentence of the third paragraph since Europe is a continent, not a country.

Answer 15

He does point out fallacious reasoning in the opinions of people who support a continued relationship with Great Britain in the second paragraph, and provides sound logic as to why it is fallacious. You should note that in your assignment (the milk analogy).

Answer 16

I don't think it was a country back then. And isn't your assignment asking for valid reasoning?

Answer 17

Not fallacious reasoning, so point out the milk analogy.

Answer 18

Unless it is in your opinion that he is using fallacious reasoning, and that's what you're trying to point out.

Answer 19

His 4th paragraph is good reasoning, though at the time they didn't know that there was a plethora of gold in the West, as well as in Alaska.

Answer 20

His 5th paragraph seems quite off, as there must be some advantage to having access to a large market in Great Britain.

Answer 21

Yes

Answer 22

Yeah, if you need more fuel, you can look at the 6th paragraph, the big one. He makes a lot of claims, such as if you cannot love and honor Great Britain, then the relationship will be forced and unnatural. He can't speak to everyone and say this, as well as they would be deceiving themselves. He says that the future will be bad, and fall into a wretched state with such a relationship. We didn't cut ourselves off from Europe, and look at us now, #1 allies to each other.

Also, he says that no one who had anything bad happen to them can't speak to whether if they should have a continued relationship with Europe. That's asinine, and smells of the argument from authority, which is a fallacious argument. The argument basically goes like this: only certain people can speak on a topic if they are a person in that field, biology for example. But in fact, anyone can read a biology textbook, and still talk about biology. You don't need to get a PhD in biology to be able to talk about it. You don't need something bad to happen to you (by Great Britain) in order to discuss the future of America and whether if it should have a continued relationship. It is especially asinine since if a person has not had something bad happen to them, they still have a stake in the conversation as an American, living in the country.

Answer 23

No problem

Answer 24

Also, I am going to move this to English as it seems to be more in that kind of subject

Answer 25

Mathematics

Answer 26

It's okay :P