Logic on a New Level Essay

In 1995, a talk show host, by the name of Rush Limbaugh was quoted while responding to a newspaper word written about a study completed by the NCEA (National Center for Economic Alternatives). According to this newspaper article, the study done by the NCEA claimed that American farmers manipulation chemical fertilizers, and that due to our large economy, small businesses, and families, America is a eat generating country. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to analyze the logic of Rush Limbaughs speech, given to ask against this study.In the first segment of Rushs speech he refers to the NCEA as environmentalist wackos which is a common fallacy made throughout his bid. This is referred to as a tu quoque fallacy, which shows that just beca delectation you are connected with a certain group of people does non mean you apply to commonly usaged stereotypes. The NCEA may afford done a study relating to the environment but that doesnt mean they are environmentalists. When Rush refers to the NCEA as wackos, this is attacking personal character that is not straightaway relevant to the issue at hand, this fallacy is know as ad hominem.Rush argues with the study, by first defending American farmers and exploiting the fact that farmers never intoxicate praise for feeding the world. We can conclude two fallacies from this accusation, one being over-generalizing( using such words as never can easily be proven wrong) and ignoratio elenchi, which is an irrelevant response. Feeding the world and using chemical fertilizers are two different topics that cannot be compared logically. If you consider the statement closely you will as well know that farmers do receive praise, their paycheck is the reward.When the NCEA concluded their study, they stated that America was waste generating. Rush attacked the NCEA for not considering our economy a beckon of hope. He argued that people from all around the world want to come to America. This is again a ignoratio fallacy bec ause it is simply irrelevant information. Rush is also attempting to appeal to a certain popularprejudice, he stated American families have worked generations for a high standard of living, no theyre not held up for praise. No sooner theyre all trashed. This statement is an ad populum fallacy, because he is appealing to a certain group without any connection to America being a waste generating society.He continues on during his speech to sarcastically suggest that the NCEA would rather us give up our technology and live to a greater extent like the Soviets. This is an ad poplum statement appealing to people that fear communism. Rush is attacking the personal character of Soviets, which is ad hominem and he is committing a tu quoque, which is stating that just because someone is a Soviet does not make them primitive. This statement can be simply concluded as a ignoratio statement and a slippery slope(just because one event takes place does not place any connection to another event) because it is completely irrelevant to America and its waste.In Rushs conclusion he tells the environmentalist wackos to shut up and stop speaking their opinion. Rush is familiar of the rights of every American, their freedom of speech, and is violating other peoples views and is being unconstitutional. Rush thinks that by shutting up the environmentalists and asking them to turn to more constructive work like himself, he will eliminate the problem. This is a straw-man fallacy, because he is twisting the issue around.After learning about fallacies and there use in proving someone to be illogical, I have determined that Rush Limbaugh has a very biest view point and does not always use the remedy solutions for a problem. He comes across like a very strong assertive person with a convincing argument but does not use logic to strengthen his beliefs.