Consider whether the claim contains fallacies and, if so, which:
When the government bailed out General Motors it set a bad precedent. Now it will be bailing out banks and the automobile industry and any company that isn’t competent enough to stay in business on its own.
The correct answer and explanation is :
The claim contains several logical fallacies, which can be identified as follows:
1. Slippery Slope Fallacy:
The slippery slope fallacy occurs when it is argued that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events with significant and undesirable consequences, without providing sufficient evidence for the inevitability of such events. In this case, the claim suggests that the government’s bailout of General Motors (GM) will lead to an ongoing pattern of bailing out various industries, like banks and the automobile industry, without adequately justifying why the bailout of GM will automatically result in such widespread bailouts. The claim assumes that the bailout of one company leads to a series of further bailouts, but this is not necessarily true.
2. Hasty Generalization:
A hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn about an entire group or category based on a limited sample or insufficient evidence. In this case, the claim suggests that the bailout of General Motors sets a “bad precedent” that will inevitably result in more bailouts, including for industries like banks. The speaker is generalizing from a single instance of a government bailout and making the assumption that this one event will dictate future actions, ignoring the possibility that different circumstances or government policies could prevent similar actions in the future.
3. Appeal to Emotion:
The argument appeals to emotions by invoking the idea that the government’s actions are fostering incompetence among companies. By stating that companies that are “not competent enough to stay in business on their own” are receiving bailouts, the claim seeks to evoke frustration and anger among the audience. This type of appeal distracts from the reasoning and evidence and focuses on the emotional response to the bailout situation.
Conclusion:
The claim suffers from a slippery slope fallacy, hasty generalization, and an appeal to emotion. The argument is not logically sound because it assumes without sufficient evidence that one bailout will lead to an ongoing pattern and uses emotional language to bolster the argument.