Mayor: Conclusion The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. βββββ ββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββββ β ββββββ ββββββββ β βββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββββ βββ βββ βββββββ βββ βββββββββ ββ βββ βββ βββββ βββ ββββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββ βββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββββ βββββ βββββ βββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββ ββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ βββββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ
The mayor concludes that the law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights is useless. He supports this with three premises:
(1) To be useful, a law must prevent the behavior that it bans.
(2) Pedestrians who always break this law are not dissuaded by it.
(3) Pedestrians who always follow the law donβt need it, because they wouldnβt cross on red even without the law.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of βfalse dichotomy,β where the author falsely divides the world into two binary halves. In this case, the mayor divides the world into pedestrians who always break this law and pedestrians who never break it. He doesnβt consider that there might be other people who only sometimes break this law; how might the law affect them?
Analysis by EleanorRoberts
The mayor's argument is flawed βββββββ ββ
takes for granted ββββ ββββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ
uses the word βββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ βββ ββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ
ignores the possibility ββββ β βββ βββββ βββ βββββ β ββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββ ββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββ
fails to consider βββββββ βββ βββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββββ βββ βββββββββ βββ βββ ββββββ βββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ
provides no evidence ββββ ββββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββ