Fallacious Reasoning
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Fallacious Reasoning
Though the article is much persuasive and with a logical flow of information, it is fallacious due to the below weaknesses in the argument presented.
Rushed generalization. The assumption about various cases of people’s preferences and influence on the color-coding has been made, yet there is no support information. Though the sample has provided various colors, it has assumed most of the people’s opinions concerning the different colors.
Overlooking what’s really important. The contention premises do uphold a specific end, but the arguer draws to a different conclusion. Though the arguer had intentions to show and conclude how colorstrology works for individuals, the arguer has presented the relevance of colorstrology instead.
The analogy is weak. The two ideas being compared with color coding and individual preferences do not really conform as required. The weak analogy, therefore, weakens the dependent analogy. Some of the color comparisons to the impact on people have not correlated effectively.
Evasion. There has been sliding between at least two distinct implications of a solitary word or expression critical to the contention. The arguer has failed to explain how color influences people’s characters scientifically.
False dichotomy. The arguer has developed situations so that it would seem that there are just two choices. The arguer has then eliminated one of the decisions to make it appear for the readers to be left with a single decision that the arguer planned us to take initially. But on keen observation of the argument, there are numerous options for the audience to pick rather than the arguer recommendations. For instance, the reader might decide to view the limitations of colorstrology rather than only how it can be utilized.