Baseball players should chew tobacco just like runners drink water during long runs.

Which answer choice BEST identifies the logical fallacy in the above statement and explains why the conclusion is false?
A.
hasty generalization: The statement says that all baseball players chew tobacco just like all runners drink water.
B.
testimonial: A pro-baseball player endorses the use of chewing tobacco while a marathoner endorses bottled water.
C.
faulty analogy: This statement compares tobacco to water. Whereas runners need to drink water during long runs to keep hydrated, which helps them continue running, baseball players don’t need to chew tobacco to play a game.
D.
The statement is NOT a logical fallacy but a valid conclusion.

It states that,
"Baseball players should chew tobacco...".
It doesn't quite say, "...need to chew tobacco...".

I don't know much about logical fallacies but that might sway your reasoning
towards a better suited answer.

Answer Link

cramponsdownholland cramponsdownholland · Answer 2 · 2019-02-28T18:05:46+01:00

The correct answer is option C) "faulty analogy"

Faulty analogy is one type of logical fallacy in which a comparison is made between two ideas or objects that seem similiar but are substantially different.

In this statement,the comparison is made between two types of sport players and what can they drink or eat when practicing it. Even though baseball players and runners practice sports (similarities), we cannot compare drinking water to chewing tobacco since they are substantially opposing things and are used for different purposes.

So the option that best explains why the statement is false is "faulty analogy".