Fallacy Overload

Winston Churchill. Former president of England during some of the most trying times the country has faced. After dealing with World War Two, the issue of the independence of India came into the picture. In this speech Churchill speaks about the issues, but also weighs in on how it is not beneficial to anyone. This speech was full of fallacies. It wasn't that hard to spot them and its still surprising how many were used.

First, hasty generalization is used throughout the whole speech. Whenever things are assumed without concrete proof, which happens a lot in this speech, there is hasty generalization. When Churchill talks about how the British got hurt or how the people of India don’t know where to turn. He is making conclusions regarding these issues with very little proof. Along with this, there is a constant repetition of ideas. Using this tautology, Churchill reminds the audience how the Indians can’t rule themselves, will erupt into social chaos, and how the British are keeping things under control. He repeats the premise many times to showcase the point that the British are the best thing that could have happened to India.

There is a prime example of slippery slope when Churchill says: “in imagining that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Gandhi and Lord Irwin are going to bestow peace and progress upon India, we should be committing ourselves to a crazy dream, with a terrible awakening.” Basically we can expect the worst from doing something reasonable. Along with assuming the worst he uses the fallacy of antecedent to make it seem that things will continue as they are. Especially when he mentions Socialist and how what they are doing now wont change in the future.

Churchill is saying this speech in front of a large crowd and uses the fallacy of appeal to popularity to get a patriotic sentiment from the audience. When he uses the word “we” he is referring to the English and how it is their burden to help the Indians. When he says “Such are the follies we are forced to expose.” He isn't simply referring to the government but to every single person listening to his speech.

To finish my post, there is the use of unit fallacy:

“…are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call 'untouchable'.”

There could be more or less people who are being denied rights and this number is probably not exact. By saying specific numbers of any kind, the audience might be swayed to believe that the data is real.