Saturday November 5, 2011
Our city is well poised in Berkshire County, with its cultural institutions and beautiful landscapes of lakes and mountains, to attract new businesses. However, I’m very concerned about the recent increase in crime.
This is not an asset for attracting people to Pittsfield. When is there going to be a leader in City Hall who will address this issue head-on? I’ve watched the debates on PCTV, listened to the radio and read the newspaper and the only candidate who appears to have a real plan to tackle crime is Dan Bianchi. Dan has stressed the need of collaboration between Pittsfield law enforcement, the sheriff’s office, local police departments and the state.
Join me on Nov. 8 in voting for Dan Bianchi because he is committed to addressing crime in our community and making our streets safe.
REBECCA KNOX
Pittsfield
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/letters/ci_19269178
Does anybody detect any fallacies here? I actually did not find any.
If you know what she is referring to you may think there is a fallacy. Not sure of which one it is. They are saying that Dan Bianchi is the reason that crime dropped in a certain neighborhood. The fallacy right there is saying that his actions were the cause of the decline in crime in that area. So this author is assuming that Dan Bianchi can handle crime. Sounds like a red herring at some degree.
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems like slippery slope.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I feel that way:
We should elect Dan Bianchi because he is the only candidate who will create a collaboration between Pittsfield law, the sheriff's, local police, and the state.
This collaboration will be effective in tackeling the recent increase in crime head-on.
With crime rates lower, new people and businesses will be attracted to Pittsfield because of its cultural institutions and beautiful landscapes.
These new people and businesses will jumpstart the local economy.
With the extra money from this push, people will be happier.
We should elect Dan Bianchi.
Josh's reconstruction works pretty well, and the inference looks good. My concern would be the first premise -- why would he be the only candidate so disposed, especially if they other benefits will follow? Perhaps there's the whiff of a false cause here...?
ReplyDeleteJosh, your slippery slope idea seems to fit very well here. With you rewriting it the way you did, it helped to make it clear that there is a slippery slope involved here. I also agree with Professor Silliman that there may be a false cause here. Well, I clearly missed the fallacies at first, but thank you guys for helping me to recognize them!
ReplyDelete