Read through the following article (and, no, it is not satirical, so please take the story with a grain of salt, considering its source):
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-googling-travelers-before-they-enter-u-s/
Answer the following questions (and you will only be able to do so after our class discussion on Tuesday, December 3):
1. Why is Ellen Richardson so upset?
2. Even if the DHS' actions are validated, are they ethical?
3. Of the list we discussed in class, what type of logical fallacy is the DHS possibly committing?
4. Is Ellen Richardson exhibiting an example of inductive or deductive reasoning? Explain your answer.
Katy Howard
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she was denied access to travel because she had a hospitalization for clinical depression in the summer of 2012. The DHS' are not ethical because Ellen has the right to keep her private occasions private. Also, the type of logical fallacy that the DHS is possibly committing is ad hominem. This is because the DHS is attacking Ellen Richardson's character, rather than the topic. She is simply going on a cruise. Moreover, Ellen exhibits deductive reasoning because she links her premises with her conclusion. Furthermore, she reasons with her statements.
Kacy Howard
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she was not allowed to fly to New York to go on her cruise because she had previous mental health issues. The DHS' actions are not ethical because it is not right for them to snoop through someone's personal life that doesn't pertain to the situation. Yes, Richardson had a mental illness in 2012 which means she is more than likely over the illness and has been treated. The DHS is possibly committing the straw-man argument because they are coming to the conclusion that she still has a mental health issue just because she had one about two years ago. Richardson is showing an inductive reasoning because she assumes they will not let her go to New York and so she knows she can not go.
1) She is upset because she was forbidden access into the United States on account of her admission into a mental hospital for her problems with clinical depression.
ReplyDelete2) Their actions are ethical because of their concern for their passengers' safety. She was not denied because of the mental illness itself, but because of an "episode" she had that led the officials to believe she could possibly be dangerous. Therefore, the officials believed they were doing good in what they were doing, which makes their actions ethical.
3) Over generalizing is the logical fallacy the DHS is committing.
4) Inductive reasoning because she first provides the conclusion to what happened, then went back and explained all the details and evidence afterward.
1.) Ellen is upset because she feels very violated that they went through her files. Also because they would not let her into the country just so she can leave again.
ReplyDelete2.) They are not very ethical because they seem to have no real reasoning as to why they are looking into people's lives.
3.)Non- sequitur
4.) Ellen is exhibiting deductive reasoning because she uses many different examples, not only her own anecdote, to conclude her claim.
-Abbi Spencer
Ellen Richardson is upset because her privacy has somehow been broken because the DHS knows about her fight with depression which she wanted kept secret. I concede with the DHS for wanting to protect the United States citizens from people who are dangerous such as terrorists and murderers and so forth; but, they cannot simply keep a woman from entering the country because of something that happened to her in the past like having a "mental illness." What they are doing is not ethical. I know a family member that has a mental illness and it would not be fair for that family member to be barred from doing anything simply because of how they are. I believe the DHS is using a post-hoc logical fallacy because they are trying to say just because other people who have had "mental illnesses" have done harmful acts, then all people who have "mental illnesses" or past criminal records will also be dangerous. Ellen Richardson is exhibiting an example of inductive reasoning by showing how the DHS had to have googled her or delved into her personal records because there would not have been another way for them to find out. Inductive reasoning is when you arrive at a conclusion based on things you already know.
ReplyDelete-Bethany Lovell
Ellen Richardson is upset because she had already made several trips into the U.S , but she is denied access because of an personal incident that should not have been the governments concern. The DHS' action are not ethical because it invades a person's privacy ,and it can be used as a power tool to scare enemies or discriminate against anyone for personal or political gain. The DSH is committing over generalization because they think the worst from small evidence. if a person has a mental problem does not mean that they are then unstable and pose a major threat to the U.S. they could be coming to America to get further help ,but if they are denied their condition could worsen. it could also cause stress on the family. Ellen Richardson is using examples of deductive reasoning because the use of many examples like the Ontarian case and reporter being put on terrorist watch list. The CPIC is used for information on non-criminal with the FBI database. All this leads to is that leads the reader to make the conclusion that if a person from another country wanted to come to America would have to really watch themselves on social media and their mental health because one slip can cause them to be denied entrance to America. All these examples support an pathetic and ethical appeal because of it showcasing of how DHS and others related to the department are making it harder to come to the U.S. the U.S. is the place where dreams and hopes come alive. Why should a person be denied that based on a miniscule piece of evidence? They should not
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson was very upset because she was trying to do something as simple as go on a cruise and she was not allowed to because of a private health issue she had in the past. Although some may say that the DHS' actions are not ethical because it is a violation of privacy, the DHS' actions are justified. By discovering this information, they could be preventing potential threats on planes. With our nations violent history of plane crashes due to terrorists attacks and other incidents such as the Sandy Hook shooting, we have reason to believe that mental health could be a contributing factor to violence. Even though Richardson's mental health issues may have been minor and not threatening, the DHS was prepared for anything. However, the DHS' case is based off of a straw man argument. Just because Richardson had a small history of mental health issues, the DHS is led to believe that she could possibly be a threat. Ellen Richardson is exhibiting an example of deductive reasoning because the DHS believes if someone has a mental health history then they must be a threat. If they are a threat, they do not need to be on a plane. So if someone has a mental health history, they do not need to be allowed on a plane.
ReplyDeleteSydney Moore
-Mark Chapman
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she can't go on her freakin' cruise, due to the fact that she had a record of mental illness over a year ago (this is ironic, considering she was probably told by a psychiatrist that the way to cure her depression was to "take some time off and go on a cruise. It will make you feel better!" before being refused entry into the free world because of said depression) Also she is upset because the main source of her personal medical history can be found on Google.
I don't personally believe so. However, I do understand why they have their concerns, and I agree with the notion that truly innocent people should have nothing to hide. This seems like going a little overboard though. People shouldn't be declined access to the country because of their past medical record. This also could be considered an invasion of privacy, but we all know that the government isn't too concerned with how we feel about that (cough, Patriot Act, cough).
The logical fallacy that DHS is committing is over-generalization because they assume that people with mental illnesses in the past, such as Ellen, are going to freak out and murder everyone if they let them in the country. Or the TSA putting people who oppose them on terrorist watch lists.
Ellen is exhibiting deductive reasoning, because if the DHS knows of her mental episode, and they searched for her online, then the record of her medical health must be available online.
Ellen Richardson is upset because she could not enter the United States to go on a cruise that she paid and planned for. She also feels violated because the DHS monitored her and would not let her enter the United States because of her mental health records, which is private information. DHS' actions are ethical. They monitor people for the safety of everyone in the United States. Without this monitoring, terrorists, anarchists, communists, or other radicals could enter the United States and devastate the country. DHS is simply trying to keep everyone safe, which is completely ethical. DHS could be committing the logical fallacy of over-generalization. They are taking small samples of information and making large decisions based on an insufficient amount of information. The DHS is making an example of deductive reasoning in regards to Ellen Richardson. They are taking examples and parts of her life, and coming to a conclusion based of the examples.
ReplyDeleteChandaman97
Ellen Richardson is upset because she was denied entrance into the United States because of her medical history and because the United States miraculously possessed her past medical history without her knowledge. No, the DHS’s actions are not ethical even if they are validated because it is not ethical to discriminate against someone because of their prior medical history. It is also not ethical for the DHS to have access to Richardson’s medical records. The DHS is possibly displaying over-generalization in that they have probably correlated mental illness to crime based on few examples and are making it more difficult for people with a history of mental illness to get into the U.S. Ellen Richardson is exhibiting deductive reasoning because she experienced not being allowed into the United States firsthand, and then she comes to the conclusion that it is wrong for the United States to not let her in because of past medical history.
ReplyDeleteSidhanth Chandra
Richardson is upset because of the non ethical way the DHS is treating her. Because she had depression early last year and was hospitalized for it, she will not be allowed to enter into the US for any given reason. At least not until she gets "checked" by a medical evaluation by "DHS-approved doctors." I can understand that the DHS is doing the searching as a precaution, but c'mon. It's a *history* of mental illness that this woman has. She doesn't seem to have a criminal record, so there is no reason for them to be restricting her from entering the US. These types of actions represents a non-sequitur fallacy. The DHS came to the conclusion that checking people on Google was a safe way to monitor and approach safty precautions. This led to the search of Richardson and the discovery of her mental illness, which they labeled as a threat and prevented her from entering the US. Basically, they have a conclusion and have absolutely no basis for it except that in *June 2012* Richardson was in the hospital for depression. How scary. She's threatening the security of our country, guys! Ugh.
ReplyDeleteShe's exhibiting inductive reasoning because they give a "thesis" (Is the Department of Homeland Security Google searching the names of travelers before they enter the United States?) and then presenting facts to back it up.
Because she is being descriminated against by a group of tyranical beasts that made her miss her cruise. they are so immoral it makes me sick to even know its happening. DHS is POST HOC because they are using the fact that yes she had a mental breakdown so in their mind it means she'll have another and hurt someone. the article was written inductivley.
ReplyDelete-Nicholas I hope it came through Davis
Nisha Singh
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she was trying to go on a ten day cruise and
was denied entry into the U.S by the DHS. They claimed due to the fact she was
in the hospital for clinical depression. DHS may be valid but they are certainly
not ethical. You can deny someone entry because of mental health reasons, that
is simply not justified for.The type of logical fallacy the DHS is committing is
over generalization. Ellen Richardson is committing inductive reasoning because
strong evidence is clearly shown in this case to conclude a conclusion.
-Sweg is life-
1.Because she was turned away by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent as a result of being hospitalized for a mental illness last year.
ReplyDelete2. No, because they are invading someone’s personal information that is supposed to be private.
3. The type of logical fallacy the DHS is possibly committing would be the overgeneralization. They are blowing it out of proportion because they just knew she just had “had a medical episode in June 2012” and because of this “mental illness episode” she would be required to undergo medical evaluation by DHS-approved doctors before being accepted.’’ They are blowing her mental illness episode out of proportion because she was turned away by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent.
4. Ellen Richardson is exhibiting an example of inductive reasoning because she came to a claim that “she would be refused entry, ‘because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression.”’ She gave her claim before giving out any examples.—Kelsey Skurka
Richardson was so upset because she is clinically depressed! Haha jk. She was
ReplyDeleteupset because she wasn't aloud to go on a cruise from the US because when
traveling to the US, DHS googled her and saw she had a mental illness (clinical
depression) a year before. I do not think DHS' actions are ethical, even if that
are validated.I believe this because the past is the past and Richardson was
depressed and just wanted a vacation to relax and she couldn't have one because
someone googled her? That's unethical because no one should be googled (stalked)
and people can change their life around and be just fine. They should not be
judged on their past. DHS is committing the logical fallacy of over generalization "use tiny evidence to come to a very big conclusion." They have the small evidence from google about Richardson's depression and are making a big conclusion that she could be dangerous. Richardson is exhibiting an example
of inductive reasoning because the article states people are rejecting people's
entry into the US after googling them and Richardson is the example to make the
articles claim.
Brooke Gilbert
Abriana Fornis
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is so upset because the United States government invaded her privacy and discriminated against her because of a mental health problem she had in the past; even if the DHS' actions were valid, they are unethical because they invaded her privacy without her knowledge and used private information against her. The DHS is employing an over generalization by using the small fact that Richardson had a mental health problem in 2012 to come to the conclusion that she, along with other mental health patients, should not enter the United States.
Richardson is using deductive reasoning because she presents examples of other people being turned away and how her book describes the her struggle with paralysis and depression before coming to the conclusion that DHS is using Google to find private information on foreign people trying to enter the United States.
Ellen Richardson is upset because she was banned from crossing the border and going to the US due to having clinical depression in the summer of 2012. She is most upset because she has spent many trips in the US since 2001, and is now unable to go. I believe that the DHS' actions are unethical. They should not be able to view that information or hold someone accountable for an action that has never happened before, and wouldn't happen again. I also think that going on a vacation to a cruise would help with her depression; instead, she is going to be even more depressed than before because the ban of traveling. The logical fallacy that the DHS is committing is over generalization. I think that banning her from going to the United States is a huge price to pay just for going through some clinical depression. I think Ellen Richardson is exhibiting deductive reasoning because the DHS is saying if Richardson has been through depression, then she is not able to go to the US.
ReplyDelete~ Emmy Melchior
Ellen Richardson, 50 year old Canadian resident, was denied entry into the United States by a DHS officer after having entered the country on several occasions with no problems. Richardson stated that she was denied entry “because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression.” A document was given to her explaining that she would have to be evaluated by DHS-approved doctors before being accepted because of her “mental illness episode.” Richardson was outraged because she had had no problem previously entered and now, because she had an illness, she would have to be evaluated. Even though this may be legal under the law, it raises a major ethical concern. Medical histories are suppose to stay private and are the property of the doctors and their patients. HIPAA, an act signed in 1996, contains provisions that protect people’s medical records from being seen by any unspecified person. Essentially by looking at her medical records, the officers are breaking a rule that is heavily enforced in their own country. Is it right to deny people things because of things that occurred in their past? If one night you decided to get drunk which lead you to shoplift, would you want to be denied for something that occurred years ago before you changed your life? No, you would want to be looked at for how you are today. This was wrong because she had no control over developing a mental illness and if she went to the hospital and had it dealt with, then she should be allowed to enter. By looking at her health records, they are just breaking a law that has been set in their country. When people start to see that they are denying people into the United States on the basis of mental illness, people are going to be afraid to seek help and it will simply make the problem worse. The DHS is looking at the small situations of mental ill people who are involved in criminal crimes and deciding that every mental ill person will act out such as the murderers in Truman Capote’s novel, In Cold Blood. A very small amount of people with mental illness will ever commit any violent crime and the DHS officers are over generalizing all mental illness people into the category that they will act. Richardson is exhibiting a deductive reasoning approach because her assertion comes after she has gone through the process of being turned away. She has the experience and then comes to the claim that is presented, so it is deductive reasoning.
ReplyDelete~~Colton Herren~~
Reece Johnson-
ReplyDeleteShe is so upset because she is denied entry to the united states because of her mental health history and because she doesn't know how the DHS found this out in the first place. I think the actions are unethical because they turn away people from the U.S. just because of their mental health that is just wrong. Also, goggling someone can not give you sufficient evidence that they are a danger. It could be a non sequitar because they are coming to a conclusion that she is dangerous without any basis. Deductive because it gives the example of her not being admitted because of her mental health and then showing the claim that this makes her dangerous.
Timothy Brown
ReplyDelete- Ellen Richardson is so upset because one she can't go on her cruise, and secondly because she felt like it's dangerous that people can just Google and find anything they want to know about a person. The DHS actions aren't ethical because it shouldn't matter what she USE to have she had been treated for it, and was doing she was going on a 10 day cruise, I'm pretty sure she was more than fine. Richardson is exhibiting inductive reasoning, I say that because she says that every time someone calls the police someone will be able to go back and listen to it, and they might be scared. Straw-man ?
Sierra Chunko
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she was due to flight to New York for a ten day cruise, but was denied entry in the U.S because of her hospitalization for clinical depression in the summer.The DHS' actions are not ethical even if they are validated. Prohibiting someone entry into the U.S. because of their medical history is not morally right, and to go the lengths to find the history isn't right. The DHS is committing a straw-man argument. They use Richardson as an example and mention a few other cases in which people were denied access across the boarder to state how they should have the right to check the mental issues of any one crossing over. Richardson uses deductive reasoning because she states her examples before discussing the main point.
1.Ellen Richardson was so upset because she was refused entry into the U.S after being hospitalized in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression
ReplyDelete2.Yes they are moral and concerned with the principles of right or wrong behavior that's why they are evaluating Ellen
3.I say Ad Hominem because they are not really focused on Ellen's issue more so of what her 'problem is' (and its partially non sequitor but they have a basis for their conclusion.)
4.Ellen is exhibiting Inductive reasoning-using a train of logic of why she was refused entry, she says she has been visiting the U.S since 2001 and because of her hospitalization is why she was refused entry
-Shaquala Courtland
Shelley curry
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is so upset because while trying to enter the U.S to go on a cruise she was denied the right. At the airport in Taronto she was told that she would not be allowd to go because of her recent mental health problems. The DHS' actions were not ethical in any way. They got private information about her and scrutinized her for her mental state. Logically fallacy used by the DHS would be over generalization. She used inductive reasoning to help support her conclusion.
1. Richardson is so upset simply because the United States had information about her that no one else should have had. Also, she was on her way to New York to leave for a 10 day cruise, which was cancelled because of the issue. She was frustrated for a number of reasons but the main one was the United States denied her entry in because of reasons they should have never has access to. She did not completely understand why she was not being let in.
ReplyDelete2.I do not think their actions were ethical. They did not have a good enough reason to not let her in.
3.Overgeneralization
4. Richardson exhibits inductive reasoning because she made broad generalizations from small observations.
Janna Meeks
Ellen isupset because she was supposed to fly to New York City to then go on a ten-day cruise but the DHS officials denied her because she was in the hospital last year for clinical depression. The DHS’s decision is not ethical. A person should not be punished for an illness or mental disability that they cant help they have. The logical fallacy displayed in this article is over generalization. The officials are taking a small personal trial and blowing it out of proportion and not letting her get into the country. Ellen is displaying inductive reasoning because she gave her concluding claim, which was that, the DHS officials wouldn’t let her go into the country then she supported that claim by explaining how and why they denied her.
ReplyDelete-Danielle Deese
Ellen Richardson is upset because she was told by a DHS official at Toronto’s Pearson Airport that she would be refused entry of her flight to New York City where she would leave for a ten day cruise,“because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression.” And because the DHS' actions are validated does not mean they are ethical. The type of logical fallacy that the DHS is committing is Over Generalization. And Ellen Richardson exhibits deductive reasoning because she gives examples first and then her claim.
ReplyDeleteJala Thomas:
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson, an Canadian citizen is denied entry into the U.S by the DHS due to an mental health illness that she had in the past on her medical health records. Even though the DHS' actions are validated, they're still ethnical, because of their judgement toward a non-U.S citizen. It was not right for them to deny her from entering into the U.S because of her past health problem of mental illness, but they did what they wanted to anyway, even though the mental illness had nothing to do with entering the whole conclusion. Out of all the logical fallacies we have discussed in class, I would come to a conclusion that this article is an example of over-generalization(using tiny evidence to come to a very big conclusion.) they used Richardson's mental illness(tiny evidence) to come to a big conclusion such as denying her entry into the U.S over an mental illness that she dealt with in the past. They took that one little thing & kept her from coming U.S. Obviously they assumed that this mental illness that Richardson had made her ineligible to enter the United States. I also think that Richardson is exhibiting an example of deductive reasoning because it explained & gave the example of Richardson having a past record of mental illness, & the conclusion/claim was that she was in eligible to enter the U.S because of the mental illness in the past. That example was used to show that the DHS may be googling non-U.S citizens before they come into the U.S and having access to personal information of people.
Megan Bandy
ReplyDelete1. Ellen Richardson was denied access into the the United States due to a "mental illness episode" and her privacy was invaded.
2. Yes it is ethical, if you write a book about yourself, post it on a social media site than you're open game. I think DHS has the right to screen anyone who might be a potential threat to the U.S
3.The logical fallacy the DHS is committing is ad hominem
4.Inductive because if her argument is good enough and the situation is true it onle establishes that it's conclusion is probably true. People oftem choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion with what they think is true.
Iyana Gray
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because her medical history prevented her from entering the United States, but more importantly that her personal information was able to be accessed without her prior knowledge.The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) actions are validated to an extent. For instance, if Richardson had been allowed into the U.S. and had an episode (due to implements her of depression) she could have (by some extreme turn of events) taken part in actions that were extremely harmful to those around her while here; the U.S. department would have been blamed for this. However, the idea behind going into someone's private records is invasive, transcendent of the barrier between public and private realms; the divulgence of such personal information could affect Richardson's private life in a negative way. The DHS could possibly be committing to an over-generalization seeing as how I stand under the assumption that DHS did not want Richardson in the United States due to the possible accumulation of blame for harmful actions potentially taken by her in regards to evidence that merits personal disorder. Depending on your viewpoint, you could say that in the case of Ellen Richardson, by the DHS an assertion was made followed by examples of previous cases in which people were refused entry into the U.S. based on their own mental health history to Richardson's, therefore, I would say inductive reason was employed.
Silvia Brosolo
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset about the fact that the US Department of Homeland Security denied her a Visa because of a record of hospitalization that should have been private.
But I think that if those information were available on Google there's nothing weird in the DHS knowing that. The point is that it should not be used to prevent someone to have a temporary visa like Ms Richardson.
The logical fallacy in DHS reasoning could be over generalization since they found a small episode of hospitalization of Ms Richardson and concluded that it was dangerous to let her have a Visa.
Ellen Richardson is exhibiting an example of inductive reasoning because she has a fact (DHS's possess of information about her) and she goes up to the fact that they must have looked it up on the internet or on personal records.
1. Ellen Richardson is upset because she could not the United States due to mental illness history and it caused her to miss her Cruise.
ReplyDelete2. Medical records are not supposed to be shared. Reporters can’t even discuss athletes injuries on TV due to privacy rules. People can’t just go in and get records so how did the government do it.
3. DHS is committing Moral Equivalence. Just because Ms. Richardson was hospitalized for depression, they are assuming that she is as bad as a terrorist.
4. I would say Ms. Richarson is using Deductive reasoning. She is being prohibited from entering a country due to medical records; therefore someone in the government had to get a hold of her private record and make a judgement.
Ellen Richardson is so upset because they have done a very thorough search on her only on the basis of had having a mental illness, and because they do not trust that she is fit to enter the country. The internet search, while public and legal, is, in a way, intrusive. Even though the DHS actions were not legally wrong, and were validated, they were still ethically wrong. The DHS is committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization. The situation of Ellen Richardson is exhibiting inductive reasoning, because the DHS is discovering small facts, such as Ellen Richardson being hospitalized for depression, to come to the conclusion that she cannot enter the U.S.
ReplyDeleteKate Singley
Ellen Richardson's private medical information was shared with the United States government through the Canadian government from which she is a citizen. The DHS's actions were completely unethical. The information was not given to them by her and the reason you go to the doctor is to treat or cure a problem you may have, not to have that information used against you. The DHS is committing the logical fallacy of over generalization. Over generalization is when tiny examples are used to come to a big conclusion. DHS used something as small as Ellen seeking treatment for depression as a valid reason to assume a mental disorder and then deny her entry. Ellen Richardson exhibited an example of deductive reasoning because she came to her conclusion after she was accused of being mental and not granted access into the country.
ReplyDeleteCaylin Kliner
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is upset because she had been planning a ten day trip to New York, and already bought the nessecary expenses, & when she found out she wouldn't be allowed in, she did not even get a refund. She was also hurt by the fact that just because she had an episode over the summer, people went and invaded in on her private buisness. If the DHS' actions are validated, no, they are not ethical. DHS' logical fallacy their committing is overgeneralization. They over generalized the situation because they only heard the two words "mental illness" and went above and beyond into her personal buisness to find out information that would have not mattered anyway. She was only paralyzed. They looked too deep into the situation, and blew it out of proportion. There are bigger things to worry about in the world than a 50 year old paralyzed woman's business. Ellen is exhibiting an example of deductive reasoning because even though the situation came to a logical conclusion, it still feels untrue to her.
She is upset because she was rejected at the border because of her medical history. The process of "googling" someone is not ethical because it keep many people for visiting other countries. If the condition is cured or the have it under control then the should be allowed in. The search may only provide information that is not up to date. One could come to the conclusion that the DHS was using a ad hominem argument. Richardson used inductive reasoning to reach her conclusion.
ReplyDelete-Arielle Gray
ReplyDelete1. Why is Ellen Richardson so upset?
Ellen Richardson is upset because she has been denied the ability to travel by air due to her mental health history.
2. Even if the DHS' actions are validated, are they ethical?
No, they are not ethical because Richardson's depression was not severe, and it had been treated a year prior to her wish to travel to New York.
3. Of the list we discussed in class, what type of logical fallacy is the DHS possibly committing?
Of the list we discussed in class, the DHS is committing the logical fallacy of correlation beore causation.
4. Is Ellen Richardson exhibiting an example of inductive or deductive reasoning? Explain your answer.
Ellen Richardson is exhibiting an example of deductive reasoning because she presents the evidence that calls for a claim from the DHS that she is unfit to travel.
Ellen Richardson is so upset because her right to privacy has been compromised. DHS' actions are not ethical because although it is information that may be beneficial to know, it does compromise her privacy and her personal information. If that information was required, then her giving It up would be acceptable. This would be an ad hominem fallacy because the DHS is revoking her claim to privacy by stating that mental health is important to know before entering the country. They are using inductive reasoning because they made a generalization that every person is a threat and must be looked into before entering the country.
ReplyDeleteCaldwell Wagenheim
1. Ellen Richardson is upset because even though the DHS is using her previous episode of depression to discriminate against her.
ReplyDelete2. Their actions are not ethical because depression does not make a person dangerous; therefore, there is no legitimate reason to keep formerly depressed people out of the country.
3. The DHS is using overgeneralization. As I stated before, just because someone was depressed does not mean that they are too dangerous to be allowed into the country.
4. Ellen Richardson is exhibiting deductive reasoning. The article uses her being denied entry into the country as an example for the later claim that the DHS is googling people and discrimating upon mentally I'll people.
Jakeias McGee
ellen richardson is so upset because this infomation should be private but instead people have gained access to it. i think in some cases this would be very smart to have information like this when it could be harmful to people but if it is not then there is no use. this is non-sequitur because they do not really have a reason to have thta information. i think its inductive because they start with the specific example then open it to a broader topic
ReplyDelete-samantha
Jana Traywick
ReplyDeleteEllen Richardson is so upset because her private medical information was shared with United States authorities. As a result, she was not allowed to enter the country, and catch her cruise. Even if the DHS' actions are validated, they are not ethical. This is so because it was her private information and, mental illness, especially clinical depression, is not incriminating. The logical fallacy possibly committed by DCH is over generalization. Since they took the small fact of her having depression to create a big idea that she could be a threat to the United Sates and not let her enter. Ellen Richardson is using deductive reasoning since she asked the question "Is the Department of Homeland Security Google searching the names of travelers before they enter the United States?" her claim, after her experience with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent.