# data[].attributes.body
If you want better salaries for low-level employees, we'll have to significantly increase prices, which will hurt consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise, the government would also have to ban alcohol and cigarettes. And then sugar and junk food would have to be regulated, too. Next thing you know, the government is forcing us to exercise every day! In the end, the government would control every aspect of oru lives!

# data[].attributes.body
After I dropped off donatiaons for the food bank, I picked up a lottery ticket at the corner store, and it was a winner. That must've been my reward for doing a good deed.

# data[].attributes.body
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day from age 14 and lived until the age of 95. So smoking really can't be that bad for you.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s an ’either-or’ situation, where the possibilities are only limited to two dramatic options.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s a hasty generalization, where a conclusion is made based on insufficient and singular evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Hastly generalization

Rushing to a conclusion with only an exceptional case without sufficient evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.body
“That must’ve been my reward for doing a good deed”

FALSE CAUSE

There is no connection between donating to the food bank and winning the lottery. It’s just a coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s a slippery slope, where just a small action is exaggerated into chain of events that results in dramatic situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty generalization - The reasoning that leads to longevity has insufficient evidence. It might be a small sample or exceptional cases.

# data[].attributes.body
<Hasty generalization>

One possible outcome of smoking doesn't mean it applies to every case. The statement is based on insufficient evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Slippery slope

Assuming that one thing will lead to another without evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s a false cause, where one incorrectly linking two irrelevant events, assuming they have a causal relation

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

Saying they’ll have no choice but to increase the prices when there may be alternative outcomes or solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty Generalization

The conclusion is based on only one evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Slippery slope

they are no clear casual relation between banning alcohol and cigarettes and regulating sugar and junk food, forcing us to exercise

# data[].attributes.headline
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.body
Either-Or fallacy, they oversimplify the issue by making the only solution raising prices, there are other solutions and alternatives.

# data[].attributes.body
False cause

Assumed that since they did a good deed, they won the lottery.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.body
Slippery-slope - fallacy, the government prohibiting drugs may not lead to the government banning sweets, making you exercise, or controlling your life - it’s a drastic conclusion with no evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s slippery slope, because the person exaggerated a small step to drastic change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group #4 (Brought to you by 백주현, 원선우, 황채원, 구민주, 조민서)

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty Generalization - Just because his father lived smoking 4 packs a day does not mean it is good, the single case of his father is not sufficient evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
<Slippery slope>

The cause and effect of the events are invalid and exaggerated.

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

they are more than just two choices but the writer is suggesting only two extreme choices which leads to logical fallacies.

# data[].attributes.body
False Cause-Incorrectly assuming that there is a casual realation between dropping off donation and winning the lottery. In fact, there isn’t.

# data[].attributes.body
False cause

There are no casual relation between donation and a reward

# data[].attributes.body
<Either-or>

Significantly increasing prices is not the only choice the speaker has, and the outcome is too dramatic.

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

Although there are choices more than two, writer oversimplifies the issue and suggests only two choices.

# data[].attributes.body
<False Cause>

Doing a good thing doesn't lead to winning a lottery ticket because lottery is based on luck.