Looking through the local letters to the editor I found heaps of faulty logic buried within wrtiers trying to sound convincing. I picked out one of the more obvious ones below:
And as a creative person, I feel a little insulted that Coun. Terry O’Neill seems to consider artistic output “propaganda.” Do councillors O’Neill or Lou Sekora ever listen to music? Go to a movie? Read a book? Visit a museum or gallery? Look around the gorgeous council chambers they deliberate in weekly? These are all expressions of art, of design, of creativity.
Looking over this. you can easily detect the presence of rhetorical questions in the writer’s argument. However, the way erotema is used to reinforce her point is a logical fallacy of Ad hominem. Even if Councillors O’Niell or Sekora do not listen to music, it is not logical to use this as an argument against their points because it is considered a personal attack. By presenting this view to his or her audience, the writer has attempted (consciously or otherwise) to impress upon the reader that the two councillors are not qualified or apt to be making decisions rather than make a point against their argument.
In addition, the effects of the writer’s fallacy are not confined to this particular argument. People who have read this article will now be (to some extent) influenced by the idea that the councillors are not art oriented people. In a sense, everything that the councillors say in defense or response will be considered with an alternate view as a result of the writer poisoning the well.