# 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
There is no evidence that prohibiting drugs will lead to banning alcohol and cigarettes and cause more problems. So, you are asserting that a small step will lead to a chain of events without evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.subject
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty generalization

The speaker's father doesn't represent all of the smokers, so it's a statement that was based on insufficient evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.subject
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

-It suggests only two options: prohibiting everything or not.

Slippery slope

-It asserts a chain of events resulting in drastic changes.

# data[].attributes.headline
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.subject
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

It provides only two options(better salaries or lower salaries for low-level workers), but there can be other compromises.

# data[].attributes.body
You're addressing the Either-Or logical fallacy. You derived the listener to choose an unbeneficial option for low-income labors and make him or she cannot come up with the better alternatives.

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

It oversimplifies a complex issues by giving only two options.

# data[].attributes.body
there isn’t only one solution to the problem.

There might be many solutions to the problem, but you are suggesting only one solution. That means that you ignore all the variables.

# data[].attributes.body
You're addressing the Hasty Generalization. One example cannot generalize a fact as it may not be true for others. Your father would be an exception.

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty generalization

The only sample provided is the speaker's father.

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty generalization

The conclusion is based on a single sample, which can be an exceptional case. It can lead us to stereotype about smoking.

# data[].attributes.body
You are basing your opinion only on your father's case. One example might not be the same as other cases.

# data[].attributes.body
You're addressing the Slippery Slope. You're exaggerating the government's reasonable act and rushing to the unrelated conclusion. The government's prohibbiting drugs can't be seem to lead to every aspect of our lives being controlled.

# data[].attributes.body
False cause

Since the cause(donating) and the effect(winning lottery) isn't really connected, this conclusion may be a single coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Slippery-slope

There is no direct evidence saying that the chain reaction will definitely happen.

(Either Or

It's 'The government will regulate everything about our life!' or the government does not regulate anything

maybe...?)

# data[].attributes.body
It took a leap forward by expanding one drug regulation case to routine control, even though it did not bring direct consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

Gives only one option: increase price, while government subsidy is available.

# data[].attributes.body
You're addressing the False Cause logical fallacy. Your winning a lottery ticket may not be the consequence of your having dropped off donations for the food bank.

# data[].attributes.body
False Cause

The two events are not necessarily causally related.

It is only a coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Hasty Generalization

Just one case (in this case, the father's case) can't be a common phenomenon for all. It is suggesting insufficient evidence + example.

# data[].attributes.body
You dropping off donations for the food bank, doesn't cause you winning a lottery. so you are assuming that two events are causally connected when they aren't.

# data[].attributes.body
Slippery Slope

It is suggesting if the government prohibits drugs, it will ultimately cause the government would control every aspect of our lives, but there is no evidence to prove this result will inevitably happen.

# data[].attributes.headline
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.subject
G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

# data[].attributes.body
False casuse

There is no causal connection between donating for the food bank and winning the lottery. It seems to be just a coincidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Milk has no effect on my height because I haven't grown an inch despite having a glass every morning.

# data[].attributes.body
Either-or

There is no significant connection between higher salaries for low-level employees and increasing prices.

# data[].attributes.body
False Cause

That two phenomena (donating and winning the lottery) can be a coincidence and can't be said as actual cause and effect.