The comments of the article. Earth Hour is one of annual event that tries to raise awareness of energy issues by convincing people to shut off the lights in their houses, businesses, and public buildings for an hour on one specific night. Based on the article “Does Earth Hour Do More Harm than Good? ” published by Huff Post Science. I have been evaluating, there some of fallacies that defect the weaken arguments in this article such as Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc, Appeal to Ignorance, Begging the Question and Ad Populum. Firstly, the fallacy that had in this article which is Hasty Generalization.
Hasty Generalization is making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is a typical or just too small). Stereotypes about people are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. For example, based on this article (paragraph 3 line 11); (P1) In fact, I think Earth Hour is exactly the wrong way to go about educating the public on energy issues. (P2) When I look at how people respond to Earth Hour, I see as much confusion being spread as awareness. C) Earth Hour event perpetuates myths about environmentalism and given people the wrong idea about what it will actually take to solve our energy problems. In my opinion, the author should not making assumption that Earth Hour perpetuates myths about environmentalism and given people the wrong idea to solve energy problem based on how the people respond to Earth Hour. It is because the author only sees the people respond in certain area not the whole world. Secondly, I have been evaluating that there are some of the argument in this article had fallacy such as Post Hoc.
Post Hoc (also called false cause) is assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, correlation is not the same thing as causation. For example,(paragraph 4 line 18); (P1) Earth Hour only one hour, one day a year. (P2) Whatever energy is saved by the event would be as small as not matter at all. (C) In fact, because of energy saved is small; the World Wildlife Fund does not even keep track of the impact Earth Hour has on energy consumption and emissions.
I think this argument is supporting by false causes. The author should not assuming because of the energy is saved by the Earth Hour is small therefore the World Wildlife Fund does not keep track of the impact Earth Hour has on energy consumption and emissions. Thirdly, Appeal to ignorance is one of fallacy that I have identified in this article. Appeal to ignorance is the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issues at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issues. For example, (paragraph 1 line 2); (P) People will eat dinner by candlelight, maybe light up a bonfire in the backyard and roast some marshmallows. (C) People will think they are saving energy and doing something good for the planet, but I am not sure about that. In my opinion about this argument is the author point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence. The author tries to argue by saying that she do not sure when the people will eat dinner by candlelight and maybe light up a bonfire in the backyard will save energy and doing something good for the planet.
This argument is lack of evidence because she does not state the specific reason to support the conclusion. Next, based on the article there are some fallacies that I have evaluated which is begging the question. Begging the question is a complicated fallacy. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.
For example (paragraph 9 line 38; (P1) When everyone turns the lights back on the end of Earth Hour, it means that some coal and natural gas power plants will have to quickly work extra had to meet that sudden increase in demand. (P2) People produce more emissions that they otherwise would have. (C) Now, just as turning your lights off for an hour will not save the planet. In my point of view, the author has basically says the same thing in the premise as the conclusion. So, she should not assume or use as uncontroversial evidence (“turning your lights off for an hour will not save the planet”) to support what she tries to prove.
Last but not least, another fallacy that I have been evaluated in this article is Ad populum. Ad populum is when the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. For example, (paragraph 2 line 7); (P) More than a hundred countries participate every year, and thousands of famous landmarks, from Vegas to Giza go dark for Earth Hour. (C) Earth Hour is a public and popular way to express support for changing the way the world uses energy.
In my opinion, the author takes advantages of the desire most popular opinion have to be liked and she try to fit in with people and she use it to try to get the reader to accept her argument. For example, “more than a hundred countries participate every year, and thousands of famous landmarks, from Vegas to Giza go dark for Earth Hour. Therefore, Earth Hour is a public and popular way to express support for changing the way the world uses energy. ” Here we can see that the author is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing the popular opinion to fit in.
In conclusion, I believe that we should do something good for the planet by supporting Earth Hour. Earth Hour is one of the annual events that can educate the public how to solve our energy problem and changing the way world uses the energy. Furthermore, events such as Earth Hour can encourage people to think that change is about individual choice to get the real change accomplished. So we should support feel-good environmental awareness campaigns like Earth Hour for save the planet.