3.5 Applying the Template
Now let’s apply this template to specific examples.
Example 1
Consider this example of a possible short prompt:
The following short comment appears in the November 2024 issue of “Defending Our Future: Why Environmental Regulation Is Dangerous” and is written by Pierangelo Pacini[1].
Anyone who supports environmental regulations clearly hates economic growth. These so-called ‘green activists’ want to shut down our industries, kill jobs, and send us back to the Stone Age. I say to you: You’re either with us and support progress, or you’re with them and want to destroy our way of life. Besides, many of these activists fly on private jets—so how serious can they really be about climate change? If we don’t act now to stop them, our country will be overrun by radical policies that will bankrupt families and leave us defenceless.
Notice that this prompt includes the following errors:
- Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents environmentalists as anti-progress.
- Either/Or (False Dilemma): Presents only two extreme options—supporting industry or destroying the economy.
- Ad Hominem: Attacks the character of activists rather than their arguments.
- Appeal to Force: Suggests dire consequences without evidence.
Prompt Response 1
Here is a 5-paragraph response to the above example:
Paragraph 1: Introduction
In the comment titled “Defending Our Future: Why Environmental Regulation Is Dangerous,” Pierangelo Pacini presents a one-sided and emotionally charged argument against environmental activism. The author argues that supporters of environmental regulations are against economic progress, seek to eliminate jobs, and even threaten national security. Key supporting points include: (1) the belief that environmentalists want to destroy industry and jobs, (2) claims of hypocrisy by activists who use private jets, and (3) fear-based warnings that failing to oppose these activists will lead to economic and social collapse. The author is wrong because his arguments rely heavily on logical fallacies, biased assumptions, and lack balanced reasoning.
Paragraph 2: First Supporting Argument and Analysis
The author’s first main argument is that people who support environmental regulation are anti-progress and want to shut down industries. This commits a strawman fallacy, misrepresenting the position of environmentalists by reducing their goals to a risky misrepresentation. Most environmental advocates promote sustainable development—not economic collapse. The argument also lacks breadth, as it ignores the growing green economy, innovations in clean energy, and studies that show environmental regulations can boost long-term job creation.
Paragraph 3: Second Supporting Argument and Analysis
The author then argues that climate advocates are hypocrites because some of them use private jets. This commits an ad hominem fallacy, attacking individuals instead of engaging with the substance of their ideas. It also uses the tu quoque fallacy (“you too”) to dismiss legitimate concerns by pointing to perceived hypocrisy. This distracts from the relevance of climate science or the merit of proposed policies. Even if some individuals act inconsistently, the fundamental arguments for environmental action remain intact.
Paragraph 4: Third Supporting Argument and Analysis
Finally, the author warns that if we don’t “act now,” radical policies will bankrupt families and “leave us defenceless.” This is an appeal to fear, presenting a worst-case scenario without evidence. It also commits the false dilemma fallacy, suggesting we must either support unchecked industrial growth or face ruin—ignoring balanced alternatives like green innovation, transitional policies, or regulated growth. This argument lacks logic, depth, and fairness, and is designed more to provoke than to inform.
Paragraph 5: Conclusion
To conclude, the author’s central arguments are undermined by several critical thinking fallacies, including the strawman, ad hominem, tu quoque, false dilemma, and appeal to fear. These fallacies weaken the credibility and academic value of the author’s writing. While public debate about environmental policy is vital, this commentary fails to engage in that debate constructively or ethically. For these reasons, the author’s argument should be rejected as an example of poor reasoning and manipulative rhetoric.
Example 2
Now let’s explore a longer Prompt. Let’s work with the following example (Read carefully and take notes as you read):
The following editorial, “Why We Shouldn’t Feed the Homeless,” by C. Montgomery Hall, appears in the Community Voice column of the 2025 edition of Vancouver Monthly magazine[2].
Organizations like Mission Services, the Salvation Army, Women’s Community House, and even the United Way act as enablers of homeless people. The fact that these institutions run shelters and social programs actually increases the problem.
Some of us may even have known of one case where a person faked a psychiatric problem just to get some time away from work and live in an institution for a month. He probably got free room and board at the expense of government funds.
Street life is not so bad in any case. Perhaps folks have also heard of people making hundreds of thousands of dollars pan-handling from sympathetic strangers and then taking a tax-free trip to Florida in the winter!
People who send charitable donations to finance food banks, student share shops, and local church hot-breakfast programs are like smelt that end up en masse in fishermen’s nets! These kind souls are being trapped by their own good intentions. Most people on welfare are cheating the system, and those who finance these deadbeats are simply encouraging abuse of tax-payers dollars that could be used to fix roads or preserve the environment for future generations of cottage owners.
If a person were to lose all financial support systems, have psychiatric problems or suffer from abuse as a teen, he or she would not necessarily hit the streets—the “victim” of such abuse could take up residence in one of the convenient shelters run by tax-payers dollars and the donations of fools. Why should people worry when these rescue operations can look after them?
We should all go with the majority on this issue, since charitable donations to organizations that feed the homeless are noticeably down in recent years: people are getting wise when it comes to saving their own money and not wasting it on those who do not deserve our sympathy or our care.
Prompt Response 2
Here is a response using the template:
Paragraph 1: Introduction
In the editorial “Why We Shouldn’t Feed the Homeless,” published in the Community Voice column of the 2009 edition of Vancouver Monthly, author C. Montgomery Hall argues that charitable organizations and social programs worsen homelessness by enabling dependency and the abuse of public resources. Hall claims that shelters and food programs encourage people to remain homeless, citing anecdotal examples of individuals faking mental illness or profiting from panhandling and then going for a vacation in Florida. He also suggests that most welfare recipients are dishonest and that charitable donors are naïve. Hall then concludes that declining donations reflect growing public awareness of the fact that the homeless are undeserving of support. While Hall raises concerns about a potential misuse of social services, his argument is largely flawed, exaggerated, and lacking in fairness and depth, and it relies heavily on logical fallacies that weaken its credibility.
Paragraph 2: Analysis of the First Argument
Hall’s first major argument is that shelters and social programs increase homelessness by making it easier for people to avoid responsibility. He cites organizations like Mission Services and the Salvation Army as “enablers” and implies that access to support encourages laziness and fraud. This reasoning commits the hasty generalization fallacy—drawing a broad conclusion from very limited evidence or hearsay. Additionally, Hall’s use of emotionally charged language like “enablers” and “deadbeats” reflects an appeal to emotion, which distracts from rational analysis and an Ad Hominem attack aimed at the homeless. His failure to provide data or consider the structural causes of homelessness also reveals a lack of depth and accuracy in his argument.
Paragraph 3: Analysis of Second Argument
The second argument Hall presents is that some homeless individuals exploit the system for personal gain, such as faking psychiatric issues or earning large sums through panhandling. He even suggests that some take “tax-free trips to Florida.” This claim relies on the anecdotal fallacy, using isolated or exaggerated stories as if they represent the norm. It also borders on the false cause fallacy, implying that the existence of shelters causes homelessness without evidence of causation. Furthermore, Hall’s sarcastic tone and sweeping generalizations reflect bias and a lack of fairness, undermining the credibility of his claims.
Paragraph 4: Analysis of Third Argument
Hall’s final argument is that charitable donors are foolish and that welfare recipients are “deadbeats” who cheat taxpayers. He suggests that public funds should be redirected to infrastructure or environmental preservation. This reasoning includes an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the character of welfare recipients and donors rather than addressing the effectiveness of social programs. It also commits the false dilemma fallacy, presenting a choice between helping the homeless or fixing roads, as if both cannot be done. His argument lacks relevance, logic, and breadth, as it ignores the broader social and economic benefits of supporting vulnerable populations.
Paragraph 5: Conclusion
In summary, Hall’s editorial relies heavily on logical fallacies such as hasty generalization, anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks, and false dilemmas. These errors in reasoning, combined with a dismissive tone and lack of evidence, weaken the overall argument. While accountability in social programs is a valid concern, Hall’s approach lacks the clarity, fairness, and critical depth required for a persuasive and ethical argument. For these reasons, his position should be rejected on academic and logical grounds.
The anecdotal fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when someone uses a personal experience or an isolated example to support a claim, rather than relying on more robust evidence. It is a type of informal fallacy where an individual relies on anecdotal evidence (stories, personal experiences, isolated examples) to draw a conclusion, even if that evidence is not representative or statistically significant.
The false cause fallacy, also known as the fallacy of questionable cause, occurs when someone incorrectly assumes a causal relationship between two events or phenomena. This means they mistakenly believe that one event caused the other, simply because they are related or occur in a sequence, when there is no actual evidence to support that claim. Essentially, it's an error in reasoning where a correlation is mistaken for causation.
A false dilemma fallacy, also known as a false dichotomy or either-or fallacy, is a logical fallacy where only two options are presented as possibilities when more options exist. It oversimplifies a situation by suggesting there are only two choices, when in reality, there are other alternatives available.
