Logical+Fallacies

 Logical Fallacies  ___

 What follows is a description of a number of common logical fallacies: your job is to read the descriptions and the examples and to create three examples on your own to add to this list.


 * Combine this with a history class could create goods cross curricular ideas, historical fallacies are also very prevelant. **

Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."  Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."  Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"  Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't  believe what you say."

2. Description of Appeal to Authority
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Therefore, C is true. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">When a person falls prey to this fallacy, he or she is accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because he or she erroneously believes that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one (“I’m a doctor.”).

President Obama has all his cabinet members leave their cell phones outside the meeting therefore we need should do the same.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Appeal to Authority
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right because he is a respected expert in his field."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Description of Appeal to Pity
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the "argument" is as follows: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Therefore claim C is true. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim. This is extremely clear in the following case: "You must accept that 1+1=46; after all I'm dying..." While you may pity me because I am dying, it would hardly make my claim true. It must be noted that there are cases in which claims that actually serve as evidence also evoke a feeling of pity. In such cases, the feeling of pity is still not evidence. The following is an example of a case in which a claim evokes pity and also serves as legitimate evidence:

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Professor: "You missed the midterm, Bill."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "I know. I think you should let me take the makeup."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Professor: "Why?"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "I was hit by a truck on the way to the midterm. Since I had to go to the emergency room with a broken leg, I think I am entitled to a makeup."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Professor: "I'm sorry about the leg, Bill. Of course you can make it up." <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The above example does not involve a fallacy. While the professor does feel sorry for Bill, she is justified in accepting Bill's claim that he deserves a makeup. After all getting run over by a truck would be a legitimate excuse for missing a test. However, my daughter’s claim that Liz should win //America’s Next Top Model// because she is poor and a single mom is fallacious.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Appeal to Pity
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Jill: "He'd be a terrible coach for the team."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "He had his heart set on the job, and it would break if he didn't get it."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jill: "I guess he'll do an adequate job."
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"I'm positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since my grandmother is sick"
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"I should receive an 'A' in this class. After all, if I don't get an 'A' I won't get the fellowship that I want."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">5. Description of Bandwagon
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Person P claims or believes that X is true (or false). <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Person P’s peers claim that X is false (or true) and threaten to reject/ridicule Person P if he/she does not agree. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Person P changes his claim. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting or accepting a claim. This is especially clear in the following example: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Joe: "Bill, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don't accept that sort of thing in our group. "

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "I was just joking. Of course I don't believe that." <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">It is clear that the pressure from Bill's group has no bearing on the truth of the claim that 1+1=2.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">It should be noted that loyalty to a group and the need to belong can give people very strong reasons to conform to the views and positions of those groups. Further, from a practical standpoint we must often compromise our beliefs in order to belong to groups. However, this feeling of loyalty or the need to belong simply do not constitute evidence for a claim. The bandwagon claim is very popular in the advertising field, as many commercials and print ads try to convince you that, if a product is popular, i.e. all your friends/cool people are buying it, so should you.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Bandwagon
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Bill says that he believes all people receiving unemployment checks should work for their governments or communities until they obtain jobs and stop receiving government subsidy. His friends laugh at him, accuse him of fascist leanings, and threaten to ostracize him from their group. He decides to recant and abandon his position to avoid rejection. > Jill: "That stuff is for old people." > Dave: "Yeah, only losers listen to that crap. Besides, Anthrax rules! It Rules!" > Bill: "Well, I don't really like it that much. Anthrax is much better."
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Bill: "I like classical music and I think it is of higher quality than most modern music."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">6. Description of Begging the Question
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Begging the Question
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Bill: "God must exist."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jill: "How do you know."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "Because the Bible says so."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." > Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference." > Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?" > Bill: “ I can vouch for her." <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">NB: Begging the Question fallacies are also known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">7. Description of False Dilemma
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Claim Y is false. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Therefore claim X is true. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. It is not the case that 1+1=4. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Therefore 1+1=12. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Bill is dead or he is alive. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Bill is not dead. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Therefore Bill is alive.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of False Dilemma
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Senator Bill: "Why?"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;"> Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit." > Jill: "Hey, I never said that!" > Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?" <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">N.B.: This fallacy is also known as: Black & White Thinking.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">AP Language and Composition

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';"> More Logical Fallacies

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Yesterday you learned about the following fallacies: Ad Hominem, False Appeal to Authority, Irrelevant Appeal to Pity, Bandwagon, Begging the Question, and False Dilemma. This lesson introduces the Post Hoc Fallacy, the Slippery Slope, the Hasty Generalization, Poisoning the Well, and the Red Herring.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Description of Post Hoc
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. A occurs before B. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Therefore A is the cause of B. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. For example, Jill, who is in London, sneezed at the exact same time that an earthquake started in California; therefore, Jill’s sneeze caused the earthquake. While the fallacy is quite obvious here, the Post Hoc is fairly common because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events. For example, a person whose computer crashes after she installs a new piece of software would probably suspect that the software was to blame. If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash because it was installed before the crash, she would be committing the Post Hoc fallacy. The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty Generalization (coming up) in that it involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Post Hoc
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">1. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those laces must be good luck...if I keep on wearing them I can't help but win!
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">The Republicans pass a new tax reform law that benefits wealthy Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a nose dive. The Democrats claim that the tax reform caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Description of Slippery Slope
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there are a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Slippery Slope
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">1. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Description of Hasty Generalization
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population or a subject based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from Group P. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Conclusion C is drawn about Group P based on Sample S. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. X% of all observed A’s are B’s. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Therefore X% of all A’s are B’s. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious. Asking one Canadian what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determining what Canadians in general think about the issue. Surveying 8,000 Canadians would be reasonable.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Hasty Generalization
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells "get on the sidewalk where you belong!" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">4. Description of Poisoning the Well
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This fallacy is related to the Ad Hominem fallacy and involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Therefore any claims person A makes are false. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Poisoning the Well
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. "Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel." <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">NB: Poisoning the Well is also known as the Smoke Screen or the Wild Goose Chase.
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">"Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">5. Description of Red Herring
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. Topic A is under discussion. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">3. Topic A is abandoned. <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Examples of Red Herring
<span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">1. "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';"> "Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."