help find the fallacy?

Question

Article states:
There is a uniquely cruel reality behind the Chinese adoptions.These girls do not need to be adopted because of poverty. rather, they have been made expendable by deliberate government policy: the "one-child" law maintained byy the chinese communist party which limits chinese couples to a single baby in order to force population reduction.


I AM HAVING TROUBLE POINTING OUT THE FALLACY AND WHY IT IS A FALLACY. CAN SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME HELP OR ADVICE.....SOMETHING

Answer 1

Hmmm....well, first I see a false dichotomy. The article state that the girls do not need to be adopted because of poverty RATHER because of policy. Not exactly true. Even if they do need to be adopted because of policy, that doesn't mean they DON'T need to be adopted because of poverty.



Another thing I see (which I don't know what fallacy you would call it) is the relation of the policy and the adoptions. The article insinuates that the "one child law" is, in fact, the cruel reality behind Chinese adoptions. That the "one child law" results in children being expendable, which may not necessarily be true. This would be an argument you would have to develop further, but it's a start.



Finally, there is an appeal to emotion. The language is very emotionally charged ("cruel reality", "expendable", "force popuation reduction") and it states that children are expendable by deliberate government policy - and not just any policy, but the chinese COMMUNIST party policy.



By the way... who wrote the article? There could be an appeal to authority somewhere in there, if the person claims that wat they are writing is true because they have extensive background or experience with it....



Good luck!

Answer 2

Your problem finding the fallacy may be due to not understanding how many different types of fallacy exist, and there are many. I would suggest reading from Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

to see a list and definitions of the many kinds of fallacy. While I am no expert, I would suggest you may be dealing here with a case of "argumentum ad baculum", a form of irrelevant conclusion, wherein the Chinese government creates fear in the population by pointing out the possiblity of overpopulation and its consequences, when, in fact, adoption is an alternative solution to "one child" rules.



Hope this helps!

Answer 3

The reason for the one child policy is to control population. But to have the children sent out of the country to be adopted doesn't do anything to control the worlds population. So they can easily spill right back in.