English > QUESTIONS & ANSWERS > Logical Fallacies in Act III of The Crucible (All)

Logical Fallacies in Act III of The Crucible

Document Content and Description Below

Logical Fallacies in Act III of The Crucible 1. Type of Fallacy:__begging the question—Judge Hathorne Martha: I am innocent to a witch. I know not what a witch is. Hathorne: How do you know, then... , that you are not a witch? (pg 104) Fallacy: The premise is if Martha doesn’t know what a witch is, she could be one. It assumes the conclusion that she is one. 2. Type of Fallacy-ad hominem/poisoning the well—Judge Hathorne & Rev Parris Hathorne: Are you gone daft, Corey?… Danforth: Who is this man? Parris: Giles Corey sir, and a more contentious—(105) Fallacy: Both Hathorne and Parris attempt to discredit Giles before he gives any evidence; Hathorne, most likely because he resents the attack on his authority b/c Giles comes bursting into the court, and Parris, because Giles is going to question people he has allied with. If Parris can paint Giles as contentious (argumentative) and a trouble-maker, then Danforth will be more likely to refuse to listen to him. 3. appeal to fear/scare tactic- Danforth Danforth: Do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature?…And seventy-two condemned to hang by that signature? (105) Fallacy: Danforth hopes to intimidate Francis Nurse rather than to have to spend time listening to his arguments. If Nurse can be made to fear his power to jail and/or hang him, he might go away. 4. Type of Fallacy-ad hominem—Parris Parris: They’ve come to overthrow the court, sir!… Excellency, surely you cannot think to let so vile a lie be spread in open court? (106) [Show More]

Last updated: 2 years ago

Preview 1 out of 5 pages

Buy Now

Instant download

We Accept: