Final answer:
The statement given involves begging the question or circular reasoning by assuming marijuana is harmful without providing evidence. Further examples show the importance of distinguishing between truth and logical analysis and avoiding fallacies such as suppressed evidence or ad hominem attacks.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'You can't possibly think pot is good for you, in view of how harmful it is' could potentially represent the fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning. This is because the statement assumes what it is supposed to prove - that marijuana ('pot') is harmful. It provides no evidence for its harmfulness; instead, it takes its harmfulness for granted to argue against its goodness or benefits. This type of reasoning does not allow for the possibility that the substance could have both harmful effects and benefits, which must be weighed against each other.
Moreover, arguments and disputes surrounding smoking and its effects on health often involve several logical fallacies. The information provided shows instances of overlooking evidence due to biases or conflicting interests, especially from stakeholders such as the cigarette industry. This could be considered a form of the fallacy of suppressed evidence or cherry-picking data to support a preconceived conclusion. Similarly, the claim that 'nicotine is addictive and harmful to human health' being denied due to company profits introduces another layer of complexity to the analysis of these arguments.
Finally, understanding the difference between a truth analysis and a logical analysis is crucial. Someone's credibility or past actions, like the father who used to smoke, do not necessarily invalidate their arguments. This reflects the ad hominem fallacy, where an argument is dismissed based on personal characteristics rather than the validity of the argument itself.