Question

Many people argue that the death penalty deters murder. However, the notorious killer Tom Hanks deliberately moved to a state that imposes the death penalty just before embarking on a series of ferocious murders. Thus, it seems clear that the existence of the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to murder. The argument above may best be characterized as:

• A. an appeal to emotion.
• B. a flawed analogy.
• C. a general conclusion based on a specific example.
• D. circular reasoning.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

To solve the problem, let's analyze the argument provided about the death penalty. The argument states that despite the presence of the death penalty, Tom Hanks, a notorious murderer, intentionally moved to a state where the penalty is enforced and committed more murders. The argument concludes that the death penalty does not deter murder. This line of reasoning involves drawing a broad conclusion from a specific scenario. Now, evaluate the options:

• An appeal to emotion: This involves using emotional persuasion rather than logical reasoning, which doesn't apply here since the argument focuses on factual assertions.
• A flawed analogy: A flawed analogy would involve comparing two dissimilar cases as if they were similar, which is not the case here because the argument does not rely on analogy.
• A general conclusion based on a specific example: The argument draws a general conclusion (the death penalty does not deter murder) based on a single case (Tom Hanks' behavior), fitting this description.
• Circular reasoning: This involves repeating the same statement as if proving a point, which does not apply here as there are no repeated assertions.

The argument fits the description of a general conclusion based on a specific example since it makes an overarching conclusion from the specific instance of Tom Hanks. Therefore, the correct answer is "a general conclusion based on a specific example."