Final answer:
The argument contains a fallacy of relevance by using personal experience to dismiss claims that fracking causes earthquakes, but this anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to make a generalized conclusion. The USGS acknowledges a connection between fracking and earthquakes, demonstrating that the argument does not align with scientific data.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument being analyzed states: "Claims that fracking causes earthquakes are ridiculous. I live near an oil well and have never felt an earthquake." The premise of this argument is the individual's personal experience of living near an oil well and not feeling earthquakes, and the conclusion drawn is that fracking does not cause earthquakes. This argument is deceptive for several reasons.
Firstly, the argument commits a fallacy of relevance, specifically the anecdotal fallacy; the argument relies on personal experience rather than scientific evidence or data. The validity of a claim about fracking and earthquakes cannot be legitimately dismissed based on one individual's lack of experiencing earthquakes. Additionally, the argument could also be considered a hasty generalization, where a conclusion is drawn about a whole category based on an insufficiently small sample.
It is important to note that according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), there are indeed connections between earthquakes and oil and gas production activities, including fracking. Therefore, the premises are questionable, and the argument fails to construct a strong inductive reasoning, which makes it illogical and misleading.