Question

Read this excerpt from the persuasive essay, "saying no to phosphates." then, answer the question below.

phosphates are going to destroy our water supply if we don’t stop using them soon. they have already caused serious damage to rivers and lakes throughout the country. companies that use phosphates in the manufacture of detergents don’t care about the environment. they only care about making money. that’s why they opposed the laws that ban phosphates from detergents. so, if phosphates are not banned in detergents, let’s not use detergents at all. in the 1970s, when people first started worrying about phosphates, the detergent companies said that soap without phosphates wouldn’t clean clothes and dishes properly. i think using water to wash clothes and dishes is good enough. it won’t pollute the environment, and we will have a cleaner planet. water is a good cleaning agent. in the past, our ancestors did not have soaps and detergents and they managed well. we can also do the same if we put our mind to it.




which logical fallacy is evident in this excerpt?
a. false dichotomy
b. ad hominem
c. ad populum
d. post hoc

Answer 1

Option (a), The logical fallacy in the excerpt is a false dichotomy, as the author presents only two extreme options regarding the use of detergents without considering phosphate-free alternatives.

Step-by-step explanation:

The logical fallacy evident in the excerpt from the persuasive essay, "Saying No to Phosphates," is a false dichotomy. This fallacy is present when the author suggests that the only two options are to either continue using phosphorus-containing detergents which cause eutrophication, or to avoid using detergents altogether.

The author fails to acknowledge that there are phosphate-free detergents that can be used as a compromise solution, which contain phosphate substitutes such as derivatives of acetic acid or other carboxylic acids.